Image links fixed...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bad news is the Redcode image (bottom) is rather softer:

redcode.png


That's a 100% crop. Particularly take a look at the eyelashes of the near eye, the skin texture, and the hair texture.

Here's a version desaturated and severely pushed to pull out the differences in skin texture and some other artifacts:

redcode2.png


The good news is, it's pretty hard to spot these differences unless your face is 3" from your monitor or you're zoomed in quite a lot (or you push the footage unreasonably). Also, if you look at the lash on the far eye, silhouetted against the green screen, it seems to hold up pretty well, as do edges in general, which leads me to think the footage should still be very easy to key. I'm going to try that next.

Also, from the file names, it looks like this was compressed 16:1. I believe the compression ratio for the production camera will be more like 10:1 or 12:1.

From what I'm seeing, I don't intend to change my plans to shoot Redcode pretty much all the time. On-board 4K recording is really a remarkable achievement.

Edit: Yup, still keys very nicely. Here's a Keylight key in Shake (no tweaking other than sampling the screen color, 100% crop):

key2.jpg


The basket mesh and the individual strands of hair survive compression just fine.
 
Last edited:
Excellent input Chris, as usual.

I agree and as you are saying, I'm asking if the RED codec wouldn't be improved until the final product. As it seems, Graeme has been doing new discoveries and these images are just part of the work in progress -- previous shot to those new finds as far as I could understand.
 
laboprod said:
But why the 1.5mb-redcode.tiff and the 24.1mb-noncode.tiff both are 72 MB ?
Click to expand...
It's the space in disk (MB) per minute @24fps as far as I can get it.

Yes Brook. I've found the same.





It seems it can be softer but less artifacty (less artifacts) -- cleaner as it has been said as far as the REDCODE concerns (reviews). Graeme mark?
 
uncompressed does preserve more detail.
....but is it enough that I'd REALLY rather deal with a raid system? meh. probably not.

What if each image file were boosted from 1.5mb to 2mb? :D
 
so it seems to be pixels with little chroma or luminance difference that seem to lose some resolution along with sections of the image with low luminance values.
 
Emanuel said:
It's the space in disk (MB) per minute @24fps as far as I can get it.
Click to expand...

Yes it is the space in disk (MB) but not per minute, just for one image.... and both compressed and uncompressed have the same size (72 MB)
 
The size is the same because the linked images have been transcoded into TIFF files which makes them identical size at identical resolution.
 
I resized Chris's images to half their sizes and the uncompressed image still has clearly more detail in the textures. So if you want to work with 2K images and want to use the onboard recording option, maybe you should save 2K RGB compressed instead of 4K RAW compressed. I know that JPEG2000 (wavelet encoding) can save visually lossless 2K images at 27MB/sec (24fps), so RED wavelet should be better at 2K than RED RAW 4K scaled to 2K.
 
visceralpsyche said:
The size is the same because the linked images have been transcoded into TIFF files which makes them identical size at identical resolution.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that when exporting the REDCODE footage to image sequence like TIFF files will create a files that are 72 MBytes each, and so will be an umcompressed footage.... so what format (not coded, as the codec we know will be REDCODE) will you choose to export to in REDCINE?

antoine
 
laboprod said:
Yes it is the space in disk (MB) but not per minute, just for one image.... and both compressed and uncompressed have the same size (72 MB)
Click to expand...
Understood but I thought his mention was motion picture related on the comparision between REDCODE (216Mbps = 27MB/s) and uncompressed HD options. However he mentioned MB and not GB, so I stand corrected adding the same question as you.
 
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but addresses a general tone across a number of threads...

Let's see... REDCODE is potentially a few % points softer at full 4K+ resolution which would be averaged out and vanish at a 2K finish... but still keys like a million dollars and has the bandwidth weight of a flea... and people are STILL talking uncompressed RAID as if they're not getting the goods???

In a world without RED on the near horizon, there'd be NO 4K camera that you could own, and NO compressed solution at any level for ANY camera beyond 2K... I think we need a degree of perspective here. 12 months ago most of this board was agog over the potential of the 4:2:2 HVX, and now we stand light years beyond that, and several major steps beyond ANYTHING you can buy at any price.
 
Jim Arthurs said:
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but addresses a general tone across a number of threads...

Let's see... REDCODE is potentially a few % points softer at full 4K+ resolution which would be averaged out and vanish at a 2K finish... but still keys like a million dollars and has the bandwidth weight of a flea... and people are STILL talking uncompressed RAID as if they're not getting the goods???
Click to expand...
Well said Jim. Another point to remember is that REDCODE is still not finished. Graeme has already stated that the codec has been "radically improved" since those shots were done. All you gripers, give it another month or two, then if you're still not happy, good luck with those portable RAIDs.
 
I agree, that's what has been said and it's precisely what I and the others we all have found from the comparision.
 
Seriously guys, I know all of you are trying to analyze the footage and such, but it's just getting old. We all know what it looks like, we all enjoy your feedback, but for the love of everyone on this board, this camera rocks and the footage shows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top