redcode- amazingly good?!

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glenn chan

Well-known member
This is bothering me because the .tiffs on the CML site show that Redcode is very very transparency. For 99.99% of the image, the compression is visually lossless (even if you zoom in 200%). The same cannot be said about 4:2:2 Y'CbCr (with no other compression), Cineform (no offence), DV's 5:1 DCT compression (or DVCPRO HD, HDCAM).

This begs the questions:
-Am I (not) seeing things?
-How does Redcode achieve such results?

My methodology:
Superimpose the images in Photoshop.
Set composite mode to difference.
Use the levels adjustment layer, drag the right slider to the left.
Make a new layer
Hit alt crtl shift E to merge visible to new layer.
Use that layer to help guide you to where the artifacts are.

Disable the layer, just compare the uncompressed versus compressed versions.
Zoom in if necessary (although this doesn't necessarily count, since real world viewers can't zoom in).

To compare to other codecs, take the uncompressed TIFF and encode that with the other codecs. The comparison may be slightly unfair, since Redcode can optimize itself for Red images (RAW space; it also knows the sensor characteristics).
Nevertheless, the Redcode images look much better than some of the other compression schemes out there. 8:1~9:1 in other schemes may be roughly equivalent to Redcode's compression (by 8:1, I am referring to a 8-bit RGB original compared to the 8-bit RGB compressed version in these other codecs).
 
Last edited:
LucernaStudios.com

LucernaStudios.com

Red Will Surprise Us
I Can Feel It.
Can Be Good Or Bad News!:zombie_smiley:
 
Ok, well it seems that JPEG (exported out of Photoshop) at 100% quality may arguably do a better job. I'm unsure about my methodology since it may be comparing apples to oranges.

Nonetheless, I'm still impressed. And it's virtually visually lossless anyways, so there's not much more to be gained.
 
glenn chan said:
Ok, well it seems that JPEG (exported out of Photoshop) at 100% quality may arguably do a better job. I'm unsure about my methodology since it may be comparing apples to oranges.

Nonetheless, I'm still impressed. And it's virtually visually lossless anyways, so there's not much more to be gained.
Click to expand...

your jpeg is only 8 bit. :)
 
I'm sorry Glenn, should I reduce the quality of REDCODE so you can see the artifacts more easily :) How does it work - it works like this:

Pixels get transformed into Pixies. The Pixies are magic. We don't feed the Pixies, and with this crash diet, they loose weight. Now they're smaller, they fit into a smaller space. Once we get the Pixies into the computer to decompress them, we feed them lots of nice heavy electrons, they gain weight rapidly, and we turn them back into pixels for display on screen.
 
Graeme, you may be forgetting that this is a public forum. Now your competitors will know your secret technique and be able to copy you.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Pixels get transformed into Pixies. The Pixies are magic. We don't feed the Pixies, and with this crash diet, they loose weight. Now they're smaller, they fit into a smaller space. Once we get the Pixies into the computer to decompress them, we feed them lots of nice heavy electrons, they gain weight rapidly, and we turn them back into pixels for display on screen.
Click to expand...

Lol, I felt like I was reading a bed time story.

Once upon a time in a magical Pixie land, the evil Graeme captured and inslaved a bunch of lovely sweet little pixies. The evil Graeme then starved these little pixies till they shrunk to a teeny tiny size. The pixies cried and flew around franically looking for food. As the pixies grew smaller and smaller the evil Graeme knew that his plan was working.

"HA..HA...HA" the evil Graeme cried it wont be long now.
Then one day the evil Graeme released all the pixies into a magical box. The box was filled with magical glowing electrons. The pixies ate and ate till they could no longer move. So full of glee they started to glow multiple shades of Red, Green, and Blue. Thus ends our tale of the Evil Graeme and his not so evil plan to make better Pixelies.
 
pywl said:
The pixies ate and ate till they could no longer move. So full of glee they started to glow multiple shades of Red, Green, and Blue.
Click to expand...

Kinda like the rods and cones in our eyes, no?

1057.jpg
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
I'm sorry Glenn, should I reduce the quality of REDCODE so you can see the artifacts more easily :) How does it work - it works like this:

Pixels get transformed into Pixies. The Pixies are magic. We don't feed the Pixies, and with this crash diet, they loose weight. Now they're smaller, they fit into a smaller space. Once we get the Pixies into the computer to decompress them, we feed them lots of nice heavy electrons, they gain weight rapidly, and we turn them back into pixels for display on screen.
Click to expand...
That is just too damned funny Graeme.
 
tommyinla said:
Does Guinness count as medication? :beer:
Click to expand...
I hope so... I am cracking open one now:beer:

Cheers everyone and I hope all our American friends have a fat and happy Thanksgiving weekend.:)
 
filmmaker1977 said:
hey andrew and we over here?
Click to expand...

Hahaha... You guys have fat and happy weekends every weekend!!! You live in the one of the most beautiful parts of the world and I cannot wait and share in that experience.:)

I will say that absolutely all of us are thankful for this project, the Team, and all the opportunities that this will afford us in our creative endevours. We can all partake in these thoughts...
 
OK... 6pm. Time for everyone's medication.

I do believe I need medication. Going to 4:2:2 "uncompressed" would degrade the quality of Red footage (both uncompressed footage and Redcode). The quality of Redcode seems to exceed that of 4:2:2 uncompressed (uncompressed in the sense that there is no DCT or wavelet compression; compression only via chroma subsampling).

Capturing "compressed" (Redcode) gives you better quality than "uncompressed" (4:2:2). I do believe medication is in order.
 
its funny.. i remember when i first was comparing the two images (recoded and non redcoded) I spend about 10 minutes trying to figure out how i screwed up the encode... I couldnt visually see the difference as I expected. I had to actually do the Photoshop difference to make sure they actually where different.

Its amusing all the guys in the audience at Nuart that claimed they could spot the difference between the two in a second.. it took us 20 minutes staring 3 inches away from the 20 foot screen to spot even one artifact.
 
They probably should be subjected to a double blind test.

2- It might also be interesting to see if people can tell the difference when keying the footage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top