First REDCODE image!

Now get to work on the 10,000:1 compression, so I can shoot on my 4GB SD card. ;)

But seriously, it might be nice to back-up clips from the RED drive to some type of flash card if possible on the camera. It is easy to carry around a bunch of little 8GB (soon) SD cards. Then you could just pop the card into your computer and go.
 
Re: sharpened version from Mardi_Gras: just wanted to point out, if you look closely at the higher contrast edges in your sharpened version, eg. top edge of the milk bottle, or edge of the nose, you see a dark line not present in the original. It is caused by the sharpening process. If you project an image sharpened that much on a big theater screen, it's going to look very wrong (and all the film snobs will say "see, video cameras are no good for cinema" :-/ )

Probably you know that and your example was just to make the lower-contrast detail visible, and there's a lot- but I hope no one bases their production sharpening decisions on low-resolution versions on PC monitors.
 
looking at photo in post 55 & 60 ..
on my computer it appear that #60 photo has a too much edge sharpening which creates the dark line around nose, chin & milk bottle ..
one has to add these enhancements with some caution ...

it is nice seeing how many different looks posters are getting with the wide exterior shot and the C/U 100x compressed shot ...
 
Sorry, Jim. My humorous intent misfired.

I, in fact, find 100x compression of this image is gorgeous and amazing and in no way suspect.

The concept of my post was to poke fun at the RED-doubters of
the world, some of whose criticisms seem, well, a little misinformed (as
in "gee, it's just cropped").
 
off topic

off topic

way off but i just noticed how different these images look when viewed in different browsers on the same monitor side by side. safari images are warmer with more contrast. opera, ie and firefox are all similar but all washed out in comparison to safari. i'm looking at a dell 24". anyone have an explanation for this?
 
Jarred_Land said:
Pretty impressive when 4k Redcode looks better at half the bitrate as HDV at 1080i.
Click to expand...
Graeme's numbers seem to indicate that Redcode will have a much higher bitrate than HDV. At 30fps, it's about 550kB * 30 = 16.5MB/s? 25mbps formats (some HDV, XDCAM, DV) are ~3.125MB/s. These figures are slightly off and there are definitely a bunch of caveats. i.e. Red will record at a much higher resolution.

Nevertheless, you might as well go for the highest bitrate reasonable and 27MB/s (@24fps) seems fairly reasonable. Archiving 40 hours on hard drives (two copies) will only run you about a grand (1080MB X 2). With intermediate editing / Redcine, a typical computer should be able to handle that bitrate.

Graeme_Nattress said:
4k image starts as 4096x2304 pixels at 12bit per pixel = 14,155,776 bytes.
Compression first does a lin to log curve to get it to 10bits, then applies REDCODE RAW compression. Resulting file was around 550k, I think. This gives about 25:1 compression, whereas in camera we'll use about 12:1 and also do some other magic to improve the quality of the compression. I'd take a rough guess to say that although in camera it will half as compressed, but will look even better still. File size of a frame in camera will be just over 1MB, but would look in comparison to the above frame to be the equivalent quality of about 1.5MB due to the improvements we'll be implementing in camera.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ok joining in the fun here... my grade:
red100PS.jpg


Original.
red100.jpg
 
F*** me

can I say that? its pretty impressive and Ive been trying to destroy the thing in photoshop.

question, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4?
 
At the highest quality level (other than fully uncompressed), the camera will do compressed RAW which can decode into 4:4:4. This doesn't necessarily mean that the camera will produce 4520 X 2540 of color resolution since the sensor is a Bayer-pattern sensor.

Visually, the image quality looks very good. This is probably what counts the most.

On the technical side:
The footage looks like it will key easily... I'm not sure if the example is still up.
Visually, your eyes don't have that good color resolution. So potential Bayer artifacts aren't something that you can see (look at DSLR images).
As far as working with the footage, 4:4:4 R'G'B' can very slight improvements over 4:2:2 Y'CbCr. This is pretty asinine, but you can see very minor differences between 4:4:4 R'G'B' and 4:2:2 Y'CbCr. See
codecs.onerivermedia.com

In practice the very small difference may not be a big deal. The test pattern situations (in the onerivermedia site) are fairly unlikely in real world footage.

2- Perhaps the codec is doing too good a job??
You can see a little chromatic aberration in the glass bottle.
That being said, the lens used does a better job than many HD lenses (and HD is the same price point as Red, if not higher).
 
Tried some cc and added grain to simulate film. The grain was added to each channel seperatly... more grain in the blue channel etc... Then blended with the image. Heard rumors that images dont look the same on this board.. but I'll give it a try anyway...
 

Attachments

  • ccgrain.jpg
    ccgrain.jpg
    348.2 KB · Views: 0
Overall these are great examples and very exciting. In the spirit of constructive feedback, I do wonder about the cheekbone area a little forward and just below her eye. It looks a little washed out. Not to much subtlety in the highlights. The top of the milk bottle doesn't seem to have much information at all. Overall, the highlights in the wider two shot look a little washed out as well. Film would not do this. I wonder if it would have made sense to underexpose these shots by a 3rd of a stop, to capture more info in the highlights. In general, both shots look a little hot to my eye. This looks like normal phenomenon with regards to highlights and HD capture where one has to underexpose a little bit to get more detail and subtlety in the highlights.

Best,

Dave Dessel #522
 
The info is there in the 12 bit capture... just didn't make it all the way down the food chain to the 8 bit jpeg. Probably my fault. I did the color and conversions. Sorry.

Jim
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Safari honours ICC profiles tagged into the images, the others do not.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I can't vouch for the other browsers but Firefox, being open source, should be able to fix this easily enough? Will post a thread at Mozillazine and see what comes of it, linking back to here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top