First REDCODE image!

Wow, awesome results . I just got home and saw this image, I'm so glad I reserved a second camera..amazing look from compression and lens. The black hair at the back of the neck is a little funky but not offensive; overall amazing !
Aloha
-A
 
Poi Boy said:
The black hair at the back of the neck is a little funky
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed that too. Considering how great everything else looks, I'm hoping that's just a result of being a preproduction camera and compressing the image so highly. No freaky surprises, please! In contrast, however, the handling of highlights looks very nice. I really do like the soft, painterly look of this camera a whole lot.
 
As a side note, this camera may scare away all but the most perfect, beautiful women, unless the fimmakers promise to fix their flaws in post...
 
No more than film. We're careful to not sharpen the image in such a way that would exaggerate people's wrinkles and things.

Graeme
 
seeing things

seeing things

I think I have been staring at this image too long. I am starting to see a face in the milk, and it ain't the virgin Mary.

Btw, moles are beautiful.
 

Attachments

  • seeingthings.jpg
    seeingthings.jpg
    3.4 KB · Views: 0
jlaurili said:
If 100x can looks so nice then why not offer it as an option? At higher compression levels we can have more recording time on a RED drive and should be able to record 60 and 120 FPS onboard.
Click to expand...

Now there's an idea! :) Higher frame rates with higher compression!

Is this possible? Graeme??? Jim??? Stuart???

I recall that Red can process 120 fps (2K windowed) to uncompressed Red Raid but not to Red Drive or Red Flash. I assume this means the bottleneck is with the data rates of Redcode (@ 10-12x compression), and not with the sensor. Could a higher compression option solve this problem, or is there something else I'm missing?

I don't mean to ***** but it seems that high fps is now THE ONLY reason to shoot on film.
 
This from Mike @ HD For Indies:

UPDATE: Ooops oops oops, bad math. I didn't double check, and Jim (or somebody at Red) ran the math down wrong - this image was compressed at 25 to 1, NOT 100:1 as previously stated. I'll cut him some slack for inadvertent bad math since the email came in after 1AM on Halloween night, and it's not in his nature to BS stuff.

So it is a bit less than HALF, NOT 1/10th, of the datarate expected to be used on the Red camera. Double checking the math: 556KB*24fps=13.34 MB/sec, which is 48% of the datarate of 27.5 MB/sec quoted at IBC for 4K @ 24fps. So this looks pretty good, imagine if it had twice the bandwidth. For comparison's sake, this is slightly below DVCPRO HD 1080i60 datarates, which only does 1280x1080, not 2048x1152 as exampled here...and this sample was then compressed to a JPEG, so it was been through the ringer twice.
Click to expand...

Hey these guys had a very busy day on Oct. 31 and I for one am glad to hear that they are swamped with reservations, coding, test shoots and the like.

Cheers one and all...
 
Nobody from RED answered my original question. Why are the midtones chromatically shifting so significantly towards blue? Is it the lighting? Was a curve applied to the second image? Is it the result of uncorrected raw sensor data? (Specificly in reference for instance to the back of her jaw.)

Also any chance we could get that 12bit tiff of the full frame? BitTorrent would be a perfectly acceptable delivery method.
 
there is some colour banding in the image in the blurry background. If you ramp up the saturation you can see the artifacting, but is this due to 8-bit colour?

but considering we'll be working at twice the bitrate it should look fine.
 
Probably just a wrong number in the RAW conversion. I'd not worry about it for now. We're still learning with the tools we're building.

Graeme
 
Don't forget you're looking at an 8-bit image, which will always exhibit some banding in soft graduated areas. Also JPEG, even at best quality, introduces quantization, particularly in the hue, which is exagerated when you push the saturation. You can see it with any photographic image if you take a TIF and a JPEG and convert both to HLS colour space and look at the H channel. You can do this in After FX or Shake. I don't think you can in Photoshop.

Nick
 
I wonder if Red might consider posting future images in JPEG2000 rather than JPEG. Although REDCODE is meant to be better than JPEG2000, it is still wavelet based, and might therefore stop people worrying about JPEG artefacts which they are seeing.

Since JPEG2000 is a standard QuickTime codec, the image could be saved as a one frame .mov file, although the Quicktime implementation still seems sadly to be 8-bit only.

Nick
 
Nick_Shaw said:
I wonder if Red might consider posting future images in JPEG2000 rather than JPEG. Although REDCODE is meant to be better than JPEG2000, it is still wavelet based, and might therefore stop people worrying about JPEG artefacts which they are seeing.

Since JPEG2000 is a standard QuickTime codec, the image could be saved as a one frame .mov file, although the Quicktime implementation still seems sadly to be 8-bit only.

Nick
Click to expand...
testing this,

The .jp2 file exported in FCP was nice as it scaled beautifully in the browser. But it wasn't possible to use on this forum as you are not allowed to upload that kind of file(maybe JhaRed can change that).

So here is a test with a JPG 2000 conversion in FCP to a .mov file, it doesn't scale, so don't know how useful it is.

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17084/1162500568.mov

edit: I guess you could download it like this:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/17084/1162501244.zip
 
Last edited:
errr, what's with all the close ups of open, lipstic coated women's mouths near long phallic objects (cigars, milk bottles). Subliminal ads aimed at the 4K porn biz? ;-)
 
Per image. Shipping camera should be around 1000k per image, with an upper limit around 25-30MB/s. Compression gets more efficient daily though....

Graeme
 
Graeme, I'm sure this has been gone over a million times, but that roughly works out to about 90GBs an hour, right? Any rough idea on how big the red drives will be?
 
Let's not go overboard on the compression... 80 core processors on the way!

Seriously though, considering RED is designed to be futureproof, I imagine the codec will mature over time to allow for different compression schemes for faster computers. Possibly somewhere inbetween REDCODE RAW and Uncompressed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top