Worried about depending on RED codec - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

stokestack · 05-01-2006, 02:26 PM

Hi all.

If the RED codec is wavelet-based, I'm not sure when you'd want to use it. Wavelet codecs are lossy, which to me defeats much of the purpose of this camera. Fortunately, it looks like there will be plenty of options for output, but if the affordable storage options are only practical when using a lossy codec, that's a potential problem.

Granted, even the high-end CineAlta is mildly compressed. But there's been talk here of data rates like 150 megabits, which for the higher-res modes of this camera seems silly.

Thinking it through practically, the most important time to have pristine 4:4:4 is for greenscreen work, and that's usually done in the studio where portability isn't so important and you can capture to some big AC-powered device. If you're outdoors on location or in a vehicle or what have you, maybe a mildly compressed originating format would be OK. But there are still instances when you block something off on location with a greenscreen, and you'd rather not have a massive external device.

Eventually it would be nice to hear more about goals of the RED codec development from the Red guys. What kind of situations do they expect it to be used in, and for what will it be unsuitable?

FatBird19 · 05-01-2006, 04:21 PM

For 4K, I'd love a 600mbps wavelet codec with 30fps 4:4:4 10bit log video.

Graeme_Nattress · 05-01-2006, 04:28 PM

If compression is visually lossless and holds up to compositing without producing artifacts, does it matter how it works or what the bit rate is?

We can't change the laws of physics for the amount of data uncompressed video takes - the only way to reduce that cost is via a high quality (lossy) codec. We're picking the best we can!

I think the codec will be totally usable with superb quality for lots of users. The only times you'd not use it would be - going out to a deck, or those who want "perfect" quality for sfx shots, or for severly overcranked video.

Also, don't worry about bit rates - we have enough. There's features of the sensor that can give us great compression efficiencies.

Graeme

Emanuel · 05-01-2006, 06:01 PM

David Newman's Cineform 10-bits codec is well-known for its lossless quality and it is the Silicon Imaging/Cineform camcorder basis.

So, regarding the RED codec I ask if will it be as good as 10-bits?

Following Cineform or it's not possible to expect the same (at least!) from a wavelet-based codec?

stokestack · 05-01-2006, 06:13 PM

Thanks, Graeme. I was hoping you'd weigh in.

"If compression is visually lossless and holds up to compositing without producing artifacts, does it matter how it works or what the bit rate is?"

Nope. But these days there are lots of claims made about codec quality that don't hold water for any discerning viewer. Look at what's being pushed as "HD" today: just about anything.

Specifically I was wondering about edge artifacts for keying. But by saying that the codec holds up to compositing, I assume that you've considered this. Good news!

Gavin

Jarred Land · 05-01-2006, 06:19 PM

Graeme as we all know is a master of codecs.. im sure he will fight tooth and nail to get the best solution possible... his name is on the line

Remember, its not political for RED, so they can start from scratch or bring in whomever they want to, without being locked to a specific codec such as DVCpro HD or HDcam etc.

Jannard · 05-01-2006, 08:57 PM

That's why Graeme was added to the team. Well, at least one of the reasons...

Jim

Jarred Land · 05-01-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jannard

That's why Graeme was added to the team. Well, at least one of the reasons...

Jim

ha ha yes... plus everyone knows every allstar team needs at least one Canadian

Christian Berg · 05-02-2006, 02:43 AM

Is there going to be any HDV or DVC Pro HD codecs in the camera? Is there extra license cost for that?

Martin Hill · 05-02-2006, 04:52 AM

I don't see the advantage of having the HDV codec as a recording option for RED ONE. If a highly-compressed GOP codec is really needed then I would rather see RED develop their own codec instead of using HDV. But I really can't imagine many people would ever use it - especially with hard drive capacities increasing and costs falling - there would be no point of high compression.

DVC Pro HD is pointless as RED CODEC offers a direct replacement.

05-01-2006, 02:26 PM	#1
stokestack Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles	Worried about depending on RED codec Hi all. If the RED codec is wavelet-based, I'm not sure when you'd want to use it. Wavelet codecs are lossy, which to me defeats much of the purpose of this camera. Fortunately, it looks like there will be plenty of options for output, but if the affordable storage options are only practical when using a lossy codec, that's a potential problem. Granted, even the high-end CineAlta is mildly compressed. But there's been talk here of data rates like 150 megabits, which for the higher-res modes of this camera seems silly. Thinking it through practically, the most important time to have pristine 4:4:4 is for greenscreen work, and that's usually done in the studio where portability isn't so important and you can capture to some big AC-powered device. If you're outdoors on location or in a vehicle or what have you, maybe a mildly compressed originating format would be OK. But there are still instances when you block something off on location with a greenscreen, and you'd rather not have a massive external device. Eventually it would be nice to hear more about goals of the RED codec development from the Red guys. What kind of situations do they expect it to be used in, and for what will it be unsuitable? Last edited by stokestack; 05-01-2006 at 02:31 PM..

05-01-2006, 04:28 PM	#3
Graeme_Nattress Red Team Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Ottawa, Canada	If compression is visually lossless and holds up to compositing without producing artifacts, does it matter how it works or what the bit rate is? We can't change the laws of physics for the amount of data uncompressed video takes - the only way to reduce that cost is via a high quality (lossy) codec. We're picking the best we can! I think the codec will be totally usable with superb quality for lots of users. The only times you'd not use it would be - going out to a deck, or those who want "perfect" quality for sfx shots, or for severly overcranked video. Also, don't worry about bit rates - we have enough. There's features of the sensor that can give us great compression efficiencies. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP www.red.com - RED - 4k Digital Cinema Camera

05-01-2006, 06:13 PM	#5
stokestack Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Los Angeles	good Thanks, Graeme. I was hoping you'd weigh in. "If compression is visually lossless and holds up to compositing without producing artifacts, does it matter how it works or what the bit rate is?" Nope. But these days there are lots of claims made about codec quality that don't hold water for any discerning viewer. Look at what's being pushed as "HD" today: just about anything. Specifically I was wondering about edge artifacts for keying. But by saying that the codec holds up to compositing, I assume that you've considered this. Good news! Gavin Last edited by stokestack; 05-01-2006 at 06:16 PM..

05-01-2006, 06:19 PM	#6
Jarred Land President/Founder Join Date: May 1975 Location: California	Graeme as we all know is a master of codecs.. im sure he will fight tooth and nail to get the best solution possible... his name is on the line Remember, its not political for RED, so they can start from scratch or bring in whomever they want to, without being locked to a specific codec such as DVCpro HD or HDcam etc. __________________ .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-01-2006, 04:21 PM	#2
FatBird19 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005	For 4K, I'd love a 600mbps wavelet codec with 30fps 4:4:4 10bit log video.

05-01-2006, 08:57 PM	#7
Jannard Red Leader Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: WA and in an airplane...	That's why Graeme was added to the team. Well, at least one of the reasons... Jim

05-02-2006, 02:43 AM	#9
Christian Berg Member Join Date: Apr 2006	Is there going to be any HDV or DVC Pro HD codecs in the camera? Is there extra license cost for that?

05-02-2006, 04:52 AM	#10
Martin Hill Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: UK	I don't see the advantage of having the HDV codec as a recording option for RED ONE. If a highly-compressed GOP codec is really needed then I would rather see RED develop their own codec instead of using HDV. But I really can't imagine many people would ever use it - especially with hard drive capacities increasing and costs falling - there would be no point of high compression. DVC Pro HD is pointless as RED CODEC offers a direct replacement.