Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 72
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    There's more to REDCODE than just the wavelets. There's a whole suite of other bits and pieces of the puzzle going on that make it all work together as a system. You cannot just take an off the shelf codec of any type and expect it to work right out of the bag, doubly so for a high resolution RAW camera. If that could have been done, we'd have done it because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier (and I'd have less grey hairs)!

    Graeme
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member Duke M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    CA & FL
    Posts
    2,736
    Default
    Yes, but Panasonic doesn't need to adapt a new codec at a higher than used before resolution like Red did. They already have the codec in a functioning recorder.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by S. Matthews View Post
    Tell that to Graeme, and that he didn't have to do all the work he did over the years and continues to do because it's just a basic thing.
    I never said it was a 'basic thing' and I'm not all that happy that you've tried to imply I did.

    If you want it reworded, I should have said that Panasonic's efforts and Red's efforts amount to "basically the same thing" -- taking the foundation of JPEG2000 and adapting it to the needs of digital cinema recording.

    I think Graeme well knows that as an ex-programmer, I'm not discounting his efforts at all. Nor would I discount the efforts of the Panasonic engineers who adapted JPEG2000 to work with their D5-HD recorder. What I'm saying (or, well, what I said) was that both companies have a raw codec that's based on JPEG2000. So that is, indeed, the "same basic thing". I never said it was "a basic thing".


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    How do you get from D5 to RAW codec?
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Graeme_Nattress View Post
    How do you get from D5 to RAW codec?
    I don't think it goes from D5. It's an add-in board for their D5HD systems that converts them to recording JPEG2000 instead.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Default
    Can somebody please explain to me how JPEG2000 can be considered RAW? I know it CAN BE lossless, but RAW?


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Default
    JPEG2000 itself isn't raw. But if you use it to compress a raw image, then you have ... compressed raw. Raw, in the rawest sense, is an uncompressed feed off the sensor. That can be compressed, and becomes something called "compressed RAW". At that point it hasn't been demosaic'd or processed in any way, it's still in its raw straight-off-the-sensor form, but it's been compressed for recording on lower-bandwidth media.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    Sure, but compressing raw isn't as simple as feeding raw data directly into a codec. You get sub-optimal results if you do. You need to do things to the codec so that it understands raw better!

    Graeme
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Default
    Of course, yes... sorry for the oversimplification; we live in a world where folks think that adding a 50mbps AVC codec to an existing product is "adding a line of code". Of course raw being ... well, RAW, the codec would need to be optimized to encode it efficiently, and I'm not understating that and I hope nobody thinks I am. Your accomplishments are well known and you know I'm one of your biggest fans. I'm just saying that it's not like the Panasonic guys are exactly airheads; the guys who made HDD5 and AVC-Intra clearly have their own set of chops and coud probably figure out a pretty good-looking codec too, is all.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Red Team Graeme_Nattress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    1,135
    Default
    The only point I'm making is that if you have existing codec technology it's not a drop-in to get it to deal with raw, and that only gets more so as you go to the higher resolutions. When you add high fps too, the engineers start screaming at you :-)
    www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
    www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •