First REDCODE image!

Tom Lowe said:
Graeme, I'm sure this has been gone over a million times, but that roughly works out to about 90GBs an hour, right?
Click to expand...
At 25-30MB/s, it would be 90 - 108GB per hour. I'd say you'll probably want to bank ~100, just to be safe. It should also be noted that Graeme's figure is assuming a 24fps shooting rate.
 
Damon Botsford said:
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?
Click to expand...

As a general rule, less compression (at a given quality) means less CPU power used, but more disk bandwidth. As such, as computers get faster, it might make more sense to go in the other direction, and introduce more compression, making files smaller while maintaining quality. This has certainly been the trend with distribution codecs anyway (see MPEG-2 vs. MPEG-4 vs. H.264, for instance).

Of course, hard drives are also getting bigger pretty fast, so there may not be much need.
 
Hard Drives are getting bigger, but not faster. A 15k drive is still a 15k drive... and it's still incredibly expensive 10 years later. If I had to hitch my cart to a horse it would be processor power, not storage.
 
Actually, most of the speed gains from new processors are due to increased parallelism and multiple core designs, not increased raw clock rate. This is comparable to the spin speed of hard drives and when you need a faster disk, the solution is comparable too- parallel hard drives (RAID arrays).
 
Well, also, hard drives have gotten quite a bit faster. The speed of drives is based on both the spin rate and the data density, and data density has obviously increased a lot. I didn't address hard drive speed because 27.5 MB/s is already easy for a desktop hard drive, even without RAID.

Really, though, when I think about where we'll be in a few years, it's scary. Toshiba is introducing a 1 TB drive before the end of the year. I remember the days of ruthlessly tossing stuff out, fighting for every megabyte. These days, storage isn't just a solved problem for consumers... it's practically a solved problem for people who want to shoot 4K video as well!
 
Haakon said:
At 25-30MB/s, it would be 90 - 108GB per hour. I'd say you'll probably want to bank ~100, just to be safe. It should also be noted that Graeme's figure is assuming a 24fps shooting rate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so overcranked stuff will double it, at least. But drives are no problem. There are 2TB drives out on the market now about a grand, I think. By this summer we could see 3TB drives in the same price frame. I figured two 3TB drives and assorted 300-500GB drives should do it in the field, especially if you are able to edit dailes at night and throw out stuff that won't be used for sure.
 
ive developed my own process now treating raw drives like tapes. I have a wiebitech firewire 800 device that allows me to hook raw OEM bare drives up to a firewire 800 port, I write on the drives directly with a sharpy and seriously use them like tape, put them on a shelf as archive.

Before this used to be not very cost effective, but now that 400gb drives can be had for less than $100, that hold 4 hours of 4k Redcode, its much cheaper per minute than HDCam tape or even DVCPro HD tapes that only hold 1080.

The other advantage that unlike tape, drives keep getting bigger, cheaper and faster, so my archive format actually gets cheaper and cheaper in the future.

I use a 6 drive fiber Raid 0 array as a primary scratch device for the edit and any processing.
 
boothba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Last time I programmed graphics compression George Bush Sr. was in office. So, grain of salt here:

The straight uncompressed data can't go to REDdrive or REDflash because the data rate is too high for them. The data rate needs to be reduced via REDcode compression. But, the amount of data the CPU can compress in realtime is limited.

From what Graeme's said before, my understanding is the RED is processor bound. The CPU just isn't fast enough to compress more frames. I'm not familiar with the calculation of wavelet compression, so I can't speak to how the processor is affected by higher compression rates. (My guess is not significantly in either direction.) So, everyframe of RAW data has to be processed by the CPU to REDcode then written out to drive. Think of the jump from 30 fps -> 60 FPS as at least double the CPU time. ugh.

On the other hand the uncompressed data barely hits the CPU, it spends all of its time crossing the bus to the hard drives at a Tron level data rate. (Think light cycle. . .. .ZOOOMM)


Graeme will give us the best performance the CPU can handle. Maybe that'll be one of the future RED up grades: New firmware (including camera CPU) that can compress the 120 fps coming off the chip.


But, like I said, It's been awhile since I've touched this stuff. Hell, fixed point tables were all the rage. . . . . just like Neon T-Shirts and aerobics leggings.
 
Im using the G-tech G-speed, with a Atto PCI-e fiber card into mac pro tower.

One caviat that sucks right now, is that i got my Mac Pro with 8gb of Ram.. but there is a bug in the new Intel Machines that wont let you use a fiber card with over 2gb ram, so i have 6gb sitting in a drawer, which considering how much that Ram cost is a total let down. Fix is on the way though.
 
Wow Jarred I didn't know that and I was just going to put my fiber card in tomorrow I don't know now I have 8gigs in my mac pro. I'll have to talk to the guys around the shop and see if they can live with a gigabit connection for a little longer thanks for the info intentional or not
 
Just had to give it a try :)

graded1.jpg
 
Wow that looks incredible. The only thing that looks funny is the blacks on the back of her head. Looks like its posterizing.
 
Miniman, did you add grain? If so with what program? Looks good. A clean image is beautiful, but in certain situations I love the look film grain can give the "texture" of an image.
 
Jarred Land said:
Im using the G-tech G-speed, with a Atto PCI-e fiber card into mac pro tower.

One caviat that sucks right now, is that i got my Mac Pro with 8gb of Ram.. but there is a bug in the new Intel Machines that wont let you use a fiber card with over 2gb ram, so i have 6gb sitting in a drawer, which considering how much that Ram cost is a total let down. Fix is on the way though.
Click to expand...

As the MacPro's can hold four bays internally, and at least four more externaly (with port multiplication and the extra 2 sata ports on the mainboard), I wonder how much the bays are.

One could basically just swap the bays from within the machine, or am I wrong?
(Still on 1st gen dual 2ghz G5 here...)

That would let you use the whole 8 Gb as well.

Gunleik
 
You can fit 4x 750 GB at the moment, gives you 3 TB of storage internally. And yes, you can quite easily swap sleds in and out (not hot swappable though!)
 
100:1 was referencing the 500kb redcode file vs. the 50mb RGB tiff.. so comparing the rawcode to the tiff, then yes, it was 100:1.

A few people were confused there, and there are a few ways to look at it.

apples to apples though, the bayer tiff to a bayer redcode, then its more like 40:1... but, the 50mb tiff is generated from the 500kb Redcode file in one step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top