Unprocessed RGB REDCODE 2K

Back to the 2k vs 4k issue. Is there no way to record 2k raw from the full sensor, not windowed ? I know it's not listed in the specs, but I'd like to open up the debate. If white balance is indeed already incorporated in the 2k RGB, then raw is definitly preferable. However, in this day and age, 4k seems to me overkill for most uses. I don't intend to do much special effects. My worry is processing time from 4k raw to my editing format of choice (probably DVCproHD), I would think the process would be much faster from 2k than from 4k, no ? Is that really too complicated (full sensor 2k raw) or am I being silly, since to convert full sensor (4K) to 2k we cannot speak of raw anymore ? I guess the latter, but I'd like to make sure.

I had intended to shoot 2k, but how limiting is RGB compared to RAW ?

Cheers,
Damien
 
donatello said:
re- read post #1 ...

& i believe unprocessed 2k rgb is the full senor scaled to 2k ...
Click to expand...

Yes, but RGB is not RAW, my question is : would it not be possible to record 2k RAW downscaled from the full sensor ?

I assume not, since it's not an option in the specs, but I would like to understand why.

And since we CAN record 2k RGB downscaled from the full sensor, what's the drawback compared to RAW (besides RAW is either windowed or 4k) ?

Cheers,
Damien
 
They have said that they are working on it, as some people have asked for it, but realy not sure they could do it. There is technical issues. We have to wait...

Cheers,
antoine
 
2K RAW from 4K RAW

2K RAW from 4K RAW

Yes, if we can find a way to do it we will, meanwhie we can do 2K RGB from 4K RAW, and which may be recorded unprocessed, i.e White Balabce etc is NOT baked in at the time of recording....
 
earthling said:
Yes, but RGB is not RAW, my question is : would it not be possible to record 2k RAW downscaled from the full sensor ?
Click to expand...

I guess you might improve the luma resolution a bit compared to native windowed 2k, but I can't see any advantages to the color resolution... the actual de-bayering on that scaled raw source would be no better than de-bayering on the windowed 2K, in terms of final color representation, correct?

Of course the data-rate for saving the scaled RAW would be 1/4 that of the 4K, dramatically extending your record times, which would be very desirable...
 
Just to clarify for people asking for downconverted RAW, think of the definition of RAW as pixel accurate data, nothing more. You CAN'T have any form of scaled RAW since it would then no longer be pixel accurate. You can of course scale RAW, but then it is processed data in some form (whether or not you "bake in" white balance etc or not) so it needs a different moniker.

So you can have 4K RAW (pixel data from 4096x2304), 4.5K RAW (full sensor minus the calibration pixels), 2K RAW (just the pixels in the middle of the frame but still of course actual pixel data) and any variant in between. This is also why you could have a 2.40:1 RAW format if you wanted, since it would window the sensor the same way except with less vertical pixel information to process (hence people's request for that option to perhaps allow higher framerates at "4K" due to less processing overhead involved in camera, something I too would love to see since I'd most likely be framing for 2.40:1 for my films).

As long as you are simply reading off individual pixel data at the resolution you've specified (all are windowed portions of the full sensor array) then it is RAW. Any post processing, rescaling etc and it is no longer RAW pixel data but PROCESSED pixel data, hence it is no longer called RAW.

HTH
 
This might be asking the obvious, but if 2K RGB unprocessed still allows you to change WB, exposure etc. Whatr would be the advantages to using RAW instead? Any? To me unprocessed 2K RGB sounds great.
 
I would imagine bandwidth would be less.

Each pixel in 4k RAW is only one value. Every pixel in 2k RGB has to carry 3 values.

So at a cost of 33% more data you're able to extract about 50% more resolution.

It's the costco syndrome. You get a "Value" but, you're still paying more.
 
Bandwidth

Bandwidth

Correct.

4K RAW data is 33% bigger than 2K RGB, and 2K RGB data is 3X bigger than 2K RAW. These ratios could change significantly after compression, but if you can stay in RAW it is advantageous to do so. What I have been commenting is that if you want all your clips - including over and undercranked - to have exactly the same visual resolution, 2K RGB is a great option to consider.
 
So what is the bit rate of 2k RGB? Isn't raw 2k around 95 MBs a sec? With the earlier statement that 2k RGB is 3x 2k Raw, then what is the rate? 285 MBs?
 
2K RGB is 75% the datarate (uncompressed) of 4K RAW at the same framerate. RGB of the *same resolution* as RAW will always be 3x as much data.

You cannot talk about data rates without talking about frame rates. Are you asking REDCODE compressed or RAW data rates? At which frame rates?

2K REDCODE RAW/RGB data rates are TBD
 
Darkline said:
This might be asking the obvious, but if 2K RGB unprocessed still allows you to change WB, exposure etc. Whatr would be the advantages to using RAW instead? Any? To me unprocessed 2K RGB sounds great.
Click to expand...

I second that! I think these boards are getting a little bit surreal with people demanding 4k and 60fps for their projects AND onboard recording. Given unprocessed 2k RGB gives me all the advantages of a RAW workflow (except for the demosiac/scaling stage) I look forward to shooting 4k Redcode RAW, switching to 2k RGB for high frame rates and then finishing the project at 2k. Even with this 'compromise' my final product will still look great and have a higher rez than Superman Returns, Star Wars 2 and 3, Sin City, etc!

A great solution!
 
Jim Arthurs said:
I guess you might improve the luma resolution a bit compared to native windowed 2k, but I can't see any advantages to the color resolution... the actual de-bayering on that scaled raw source would be no better than de-bayering on the windowed 2K, in terms of final color representation, correct?

Of course the data-rate for saving the scaled RAW would be 1/4 that of the 4K, dramatically extending your record times, which would be very desirable...
Click to expand...

I'm getting back in the game a little late, but my main reason to want to use the full sensor verses windowed, is depth of field. I want my shallow depth of field. Since I've got a reservation for a zoom, I plan on shooting with it, and since it is a S35mm lens, it is therefore not really adequate for shooting windowed 2k. Now to the advantages of 2k RAW vs 2k RGB? Well size is one factor, that is 1/3 of the size and well, having the RAW data just keeps all your options open. I do understand however that talking about downscaled data as RAW may be ludicrous. 2k RGB may be the way to go.

Cheers,
Damien
 
Actually earthling, what you describe WILL give you a 35mm shallow DoF in windowed 2K mode when using the Red Zoom. What changes is the the Field of View (FoV) which is effectively only the central portion of the image, making it appear like it has been zoomed in relative to the focal length (by a factor of 2 if I remember right). What that means is that the 18-85mm zoom at 4K capture will turn into an effective 36-170mm zoom (equivalent) if you window the sensor to 2K. This is fine unless you want to get an equivalent 18mm FoV, in which case you won't be able to do it unless you change to a 9mm prime lens. Hope that makes sense (and I'm not a DP by trade so I've avoided any overly technical explanation!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top