Image links fixed...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sheesh, I can't tell a difference between the REDCODE version and the Uncompressed version and now you're telling me that things have gotten even better? Way to go RED Team! :thumbsup:
 
Yes, I've managed to keep a lot more of that detail you see in the uncompressed one, at a lower bitrate too. There's a lot of magic you can do tweaking the parameters of the compression, and we're well in the middle of that, and will be, no doubt, until the camera ships.

First task was to get it "good enough", and then to get it better! We're now into the "better" stage of development, which is nice.

Graeme
 
Graeme's work with Rob's help will prove to be as important to the RED program as the Mysterium sensor itself.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
Graeme's work with Rob's help will prove to be as important to the RED program as the Mysterium sensor itself.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Without Redcode, a 4K sensor would just be a way of generating a huge amount of data that most people couldn't afford to do anything with. Redcode and the post workflow are absolutely key.
 
Thanks Jim. And thanks for everyone's feedback so far on the compression. What Jim doesn't tell you is that he as well as Rob has been a great help. Jim's keen photographic eye is superb for spotting little details or tell-tale signs of what is going on with an image.

Graeme
 
Chris Kenny said:
Definitely. Without Redcode, a 4K sensor would just be a way of generating a huge amount of data that most people couldn't afford to do anything with. Redcode and the post workflow are absolutely key.
Click to expand...
The major task IMHO.
 
I think it's better to wait after the new adjustment on the sensor and algorithm to do another footage test. Graeme, thanks for all the help.
 
I agree.

Just other $0.2:

I asked for an outsider opinion and the answer came: that one (2nd one, the compression one) can be softer but seems more filmic (clean and without "those" any ugly artifacts which we are used to find from some digital images) if compared to the uncompressed one: more digital like the still cameras. Precisely what I read from Yuval Shrem here:

Yuval Shrem said:
I was there and was very impressed! Even though I did notice a slight difference between the Redcode compressed and uncompressed images, I thought the aesthetics of the Redcode compression looked very filmic, and even though the image was slightly less detailed (1:10 compression) in some way, I liked it better, because it seemed to have the positive effect film projection has on storytelling (vs. digital projection), in the sense that it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story. I do hope Redcode keeps improving, but I think even as it is now I would have felt more than comfortable using it (Redcode Raw) for a feature-film project with a theatrical release.

Keep up the great work!
Can't wait to seeing the next version of the codec...:thumbup:

Yuval.
Click to expand...

A moviemaker with "that filmic eye". The same who pronounced an opinion at the first ever HVX filmout screening that I could confirm when the HVX came out. So I just request for an improved REDCODE but without a loss concerning those cinematic properties we could find from the gus station sequence.
 
Chris Kenny said:
Definitely. Without Redcode, a 4K sensor would just be a way of generating a huge amount of data that most people couldn't afford to do anything with. Redcode and the post workflow are absolutely key.
Click to expand...


Amen to that!
 
I'm visualizing everyone at RED sitting in front of their computers - logging onto DVXUser to compliment eachother ;-)
 
I think, also, in the presentation, there's some black level differences caused by some experimental sensor processing in the compression lab software that was used to test the compression.

Graeme
 
The black level issue was the only thing that I noted while viewing it. It didn't match the other shots which made it look "worse" to some. The thing is, it wasn't the compression... it just felt a little brown.

That's what's so great about this - it's all experimental.
 
what I read from Yuval Shrem here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuval Shrem
"I was there and was very impressed! Even though I did notice a slight difference between the Redcode compressed and uncompressed images, I thought the aesthetics of the Redcode compression looked very filmic, and even though the image was slightly less detailed (1:10 compression) in some way, I liked it better, because it seemed to have the positive effect film projection has on storytelling (vs. digital projection), in the sense that it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story. I do hope Redcode keeps improving, but I think even as it is now I would have felt more than comfortable using it (Redcode Raw) for a feature-film project with a theatrical release.

Keep up the great work!
Can't wait to seeing the next version of the codec...

Yuval."

emanuel said: "A moviemaker with "that filmic eye". The same who pronounced an opinion at the first ever HVX filmout screening that I could confirm when the HVX came out. So I just request for an improved REDCODE but without a loss concerning those cinematic properties we could find from the gus station sequence."

i could agree.. completely.. if yuval hadn't said: "it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story." what's this yuval?.. do you complain for a beauty image?? i thought it would be the contrary.. on the other hand, solved by actors?..

otherwise, i didn't see nobody to complain on sharpness??

but if sharpness is fake sharpness or video sharpness like the interlaced one? no thanks..

edit
the gus station trick rocked indeed.. but don't forget the sharpness artifacts free (sure), graeme! thx for that clean look.. you're my idol.. i'd change to fcp just to go with your plugins stuff if i couldn't save my money on pc side.. :D don't try to abandon us.. now though based on west you're a red revolutionist more than the typical business man.. :grin:
 
Last edited:
tlorenzo said:
I'm visualizing everyone at RED sitting in front of their computers - logging onto DVXUser to compliment eachother ;-)
Click to expand...

lol... they're probably taking turns on the same computer... :D
 
tommyinla said:
lol... they're probably taking turns on the same computer... :D
Click to expand...
Indeed! :beer: Here I have more than a few... Well, by now (yet) each one from each own computer... PC based computer! And now I wouldn't say yet but as usual and forever! :laugh: I hope!
 
filmmaker1977 said:
what I read from Yuval Shrem here:

i could agree.. completely.. if yuval hadn't said: "it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story." what's this yuval?.. do you complain for a beauty image?? i thought it would be the contrary.. on the other hand, solved by actors?..
Click to expand...

Hi Filmmaker1977,

You must have misunderstood me.
What I said was that when you watch a film projection your attention is shifted to the actors and the story, and when you watch the same exact thing projected digitally, for some reason your attention is shifted from the actors and story and to the imagery and its aesthetics and technical quallities.
This issue by itself has nothing to do with RED or REDcode.

What I said about REDcode was that because of its aesthetics it seemed to magically have the mentioned advatanges of film-projection even when digitally projected.
This doesn't make the image less beautiful and has nothing to do with the actors...

I hope this clears that up.


Yuval.
 
Last edited:
Hi Yuval!

I received your PM, thank you. Don't worry! I already had with her (yes, Filmmaker'77 is a she when isn't a he -- as matter of fact, it's a production house user account, so there isn't the same guy or gal posting there) the same talk.

What I could understand what you said it is the REDCODE is cinematic. It has that feel different than the digital projection. Like it actually was film and not video.

Cheers :beer:
E.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top