Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Komodo REDCODE RAW Explained

Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 73
  1. #51  
    Senior Member Antony Newman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London, UK.
    Posts
    1,640
    A random thought.

    If Wavelet compressions can reduce file size to (finger in the air) half the size of DCT,
    and transforming from DCT -> Wavelet halved disk space :

    +) Would RED consider adding an 'ARCHIVE' R3D batch function that could transform from DCT -> Wavelet?

    (It could half long term storage costs)

    AJ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Antony Newman View Post
    A random thought.

    If Wavelet compressions can reduce file size to (finger in the air) half the size of DCT,
    and transforming from DCT -> Wavelet halved disk space :

    +) Would RED consider adding an 'ARCHIVE' R3D batch function that could transform from DCT -> Wavelet?

    (It could half long term storage costs)

    AJ
    This is a great idea AJ!

    Yes, storage prices are dropping all the time, but it sure does eat up a lot of my budget. These days I often archive to a H.265 master, but it kills me each time. I want to hold on to the RAW files for as long as possible. DCT is going to make that much harder. If there was a way to transcode DCT->DWT for archival purposes I would eat that up. It doesn't even need to be near realtime. Maybe I would need a beefy GPU, but there are big leaps coming this year in GPU speed and more to come.
    Epic-W #376 (stolen)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Antony Newman View Post
    A random thought.

    If Wavelet compressions can reduce file size to (finger in the air) half the size of DCT,
    and transforming from DCT -> Wavelet halved disk space :

    +) Would RED consider adding an 'ARCHIVE' R3D batch function that could transform from DCT -> Wavelet?

    (It could half long term storage costs)

    AJ
    That would require re-encoding RAW data as well as a generational quality loss, which wouldn't be how that works. You can Trim R3Ds however.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    That would require re-encoding RAW data as well as a generational quality loss, which wouldn't be how that works. You can Trim R3Ds however.
    Most any format that you would use for archive would be lossy so you'll take that hit not matter what unless you keep the original files.

    As for re-encoding, even though Redcode is lossy, I would think you could still reconstruct the bayer data fairly well given the low compression ratio of DCT. Maybe not. Would be interesting though.
    Epic-W #376 (stolen)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd G. Peterson View Post
    Most any format that you would use for archive would be lossy so you'll take that hit not matter what unless you keep the original files.

    As for re-encoding, even though Redcode is lossy, I would think you could still reconstruct the bayer data fairly well given the low compression ratio of DCT. Maybe not. Would be interesting though.
    It's not a maybe not. It's a not. RAW still means something to the professional space and will for a long, long time to come. There's actually industries who are mandated to only film in RAW formats (think forensics and military usage). In the RED world, this is your digital negative.

    Much like a roll of film, you can splice it (trim), but that's it.

    It may not seem like it from some perspectives, but this is actually a feature and a thing you want. There's many ways to export things at lower data rates if that is your core workflow. It's just not going to be RAW outside of trim workflow.

    Traditionally when editorial goes through the archival process, even on films shot on film, once the selects are made and final cut is figured out, extra takes are discarded (usually destroyed actually) and the negative is archived. Then there's the project Master Deliverable. Most seems to archive the Master Deliverable to ProRes 4444 or whatever, feature world is still 16-bit uncompressed image sequences on the highest data footprint. Some productions keep alternate cuts and things like that as well, what I lovingly call tier 2 and possible tier 3 footage on larger shoots, but it's rare for a film with over 3 million feet to archive every single reel, though probably becoming more common lately.

    My personal workflow with digital, I archive every single frame of raw material. Because it seems that inevitably I need to dig up stuff, even stuff I shot in the early 2000s. But that's not for everybody.
    Last edited by Phil Holland; 07-28-2020 at 11:26 AM.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    the consumer and entry level market want "RAW"
    I don't want to derail the thread, since I'm here to learn about Komodo and the new R3D-- and frankly, the stuff I never understood about Red's wavelet-based R3D! But I just wanted to highlight this, because I've found it a very confusing trend. Virtually any time a new camera is announced or footage is posted, you see comment sections flooded with complaints that the given camera doesn't shoot "raw."

    Why is it that so many people now feel that they need the capability to record raw in camera? (Or that they're entitled to it, for that matter. The attitude is part of what's notable.)

    My working ideas, though:
    -Consumer assumptions are perhaps shaped by analogy to the relationship between raw and jpg on still cameras, where the benefits of raw are clear and the drawbacks are comparative minimal.
    -the idea that raw is "pro," and anything else is therefore "amateur." (And perhaps ignorance of the fact that we've all seen plenty of stuff in theaters and on TV shot in prores, x-ocn, and other non-raw formats.)
    -past experience with software-based "crippling" of camera capabilities perhaps suggests that a $2500 camera would shoot much better footage-- if only the greedy manufacturer weren't protecting their $50k camera. (This argument is a pet peeve of mine, though I get why it bothers people.)
    -along similar lines, the availability of Blackmagic cameras that shoot cinema dng from $1k perhaps suggests that all the other manufacturers are holding back.

    Ok, apologies-- the mention in Phil's comments got me going on the theme, but possible this is better saved for a separate discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    It's not a maybe not. It's a not. RAW still means something to the professional space and will for a long, long time to come. There's actually industries who are mandated to only film in RAW formats (think forensics and military usage). In the RED world, this is your digital negative.

    ...

    My personal workflow with digital, I archive every single frame of raw material. Because it seems that inevitably I need to dig up stuff, even stuff I shot in the early 2000s. But that's not for everybody.
    I also tend to keep most of my RAW footage. Footage is very expensive to create, but not too expensive to keep. For masters it depends on the project. For commercial and narrative work, Prores 444 or DNx 444 is common. Web projects might only be H.264/H.265. For higher budget work (mainly narrative), I've been archiving a master as 16-bit DPX, but at 1.2GB/s (71GB/min) for 4K DCI I try to use it judiciously.

    Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm no expert on matrix math and transforms, but it seems to me if you had low compression ratio DCT of raw Bayer data, many of the detail coefficients would be close to zero and thus have little to know picture information (i.e., decompressed RAW would be perceptually lossless). The decompressed (now uncompressed) RAW Bayer data could be DWT transformed lossly. Because you have done all of this before demosiac and any processing, it's still raw sensor data. There would be generational loss, but error correction could help with that, as could other methods. At the cost of a small amount of data loss, you could reduce the storage size 2-3x while still being RAW.
    Epic-W #376 (stolen)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,114
    Quote Originally Posted by M Harvey View Post
    I don't want to derail the thread, since I'm here to learn about Komodo and the new R3D-- and frankly, the stuff I never understood about Red's wavelet-based R3D! But I just wanted to highlight this, because I've found it a very confusing trend. Virtually any time a new camera is announced or footage is posted, you see comment sections flooded with complaints that the given camera doesn't shoot "raw."

    Why is it that so many people now feel that they need the capability to record raw in camera? (Or that they're entitled to it, for that matter. The attitude is part of what's notable.)

    My working ideas, though:
    -Consumer assumptions are perhaps shaped by analogy to the relationship between raw and jpg on still cameras, where the benefits of raw are clear and the drawbacks are comparative minimal.
    -the idea that raw is "pro," and anything else is therefore "amateur." (And perhaps ignorance of the fact that we've all seen plenty of stuff in theaters and on TV shot in prores, x-ocn, and other non-raw formats.)
    -past experience with software-based "crippling" of camera capabilities perhaps suggests that a $2500 camera would shoot much better footage-- if only the greedy manufacturer weren't protecting their $50k camera. (This argument is a pet peeve of mine, though I get why it bothers people.)
    -along similar lines, the availability of Blackmagic cameras that shoot cinema dng from $1k perhaps suggests that all the other manufacturers are holding back.

    Ok, apologies-- the mention in Phil's comments got me going on the theme, but possible this is better saved for a separate discussion.
    RAW does not = pro. It's simply one way of capturing an image. But it has many advantages for sure and perhaps some disadvantages as well. Understanding project's needs usually helps identify what acquisition format is needed.

    As for Blackmagic, I still have their OG Pocket Cinema Camera. Fascinating little device, especially the capability of shooting RAW on a $1K camera. But not without its limitations, some of which can be showstoppers for some people. For example, with no OLPF and using very sharp lenses, you can run into severe problems with moire and aliasing. So, you need to add a 3rd party OLPF if you want to use those lenses. Battery life is abysmal so if you need to run for long periods of time, you need a 3rd party battery solution. The screen is unusable outside and barely useable inside. The camera mic and audio circuitry in general is very bad. It's a S16ish size sensor, so you need a speed booster if you want to change the crop factor. Yet, with all of those limitations, it can shoot remarkably good 1080P RAW video and I love pairing mine with vintage lenses such as Nikon ai-s and Pentax Takumars. They take the edge off the image and run into fewer problems with moire. Color science and DR are not too bad for a $1K camera but will get beaten out rather easily by an Alexa and a RED, so again really comes down to what you want to do with it. I enjoy it now for shooting abstract stuff, love what I get with Macro lenses ( I own 2 really great M42 macros) and the small size just makes it fun to play around with. Just don't handhold it unless you are a big fan of micro jitters. :-)

    So, the new crop of Blackmagic cameras are priced right for a segment of the market that needs access to affordable digital cinema cameras that have quality that approaches the top names in the business (Arri, RED, Sony). But there will be tradeoffs. Some of those are not showstoppers for many people, for others they are. And that's where you can see the price gaps. Blackmagic has definitely gained some ground with reliability. For a while, there were manufacturing issues. I feel like there are less of those on the newer cameras. And that's not to say that I haven't seen an Alexa fail or a RED go down, they all have their moments, but in general build quality tends to favor the higher end companies. Things like heat management, quality of internal components, etc. are often just better when you get up into the higher price ranges. But that doesn't mean these lower end cameras can't capture a great image. Put in the right hands, they are capturing beautiful imagery.

    I think Komodo has the potential here to close that gap a bit by entering the sub $10K market. An internal RAW camera that checks off a lot of boxes for this price point once again illustrates that there's a camera out there for everyone and every project. From the filmmakers getting started picking up a used $400 OG BMPCC those now dipping their feet in the RED water with the Komodo all the way up to the Monstros and Alexa LF. Almost every base seems covered.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,783
    Quote Originally Posted by M Harvey View Post
    theme
    I'm truly not sure why everything happened the way it did, but it likely has something to do with the growing camera market, production costs, and that dynamic industry thing I keep mentioning.

    RAW represents a digital negative. This has appeal to filmmakers, particularly filmmakers who have worked on film. The additional benefit along the way is as things like color science, image processing, and various other under the hood technologies is that RAW exists and benefits from that in a non-destructive manner.

    To that point, the non-destructive workflow is highly appealing.

    The Pro versus Amateur perspective is sort of a non-starter. The shear volume of productions who just use ProRes workflows allude to that not being of the highest priority. Which has opened the door for things like BRAW to exist in it's current state even. All good, there's more than one workflow for sure.

    There are still many advantages to a RAW format and for those that tap into that or need it, well, that's the goodness. I am still in that camp. I use ProRes often for delivery, but nothing I've shot in the last decade professionally wasn't RAW of some sort. RED, Arri, Sony, etc. Even the film stuff was fully uncompressed RGB in Cineon Log, but that's far from many's workflows these days. My experience is not going to reflect everybody's. I consulted on some fast turnaround stuff that was highly focused on high quality mobile workflows for instance, hardcore ENG, they needed the workflow, but not me to do the work. They have 50 staff for that. Desired ProRes 422 HQ, they got it, really didn't want H.265 for keying and other reasons. Lots of different needs out there.

    Software crippling is an issue, mainly on lower priced cameras and also mainly because they offer higher end cameras that do more of the job at a higher price. There really hasn't been much of that in the professional space mainly because the world would set on fire if you were/are spending $$,$$$ and some enterprising lad figured out there was more under the hood. And in the world of ARRI you are happy to pay for software features as licenses and they are up front about that, don't think that lands well in less expensive cameras and honestly don't know how much of that mindset will be there in the future. In the RED world the closest issue was being able to monitor a larger 5K image (via look around) on Scarlet at one point, but when attempting to record that image there wasn't the hardware in the camera itself to support that both in memory and processing power. People griped, mostly people who don't know how cameras (and probably cars) work. Most recently, today, The Sony A7IIIs raises an eyebrow by not having DCI 4K in there as the camera can support that, I'd expect a rather quick firmware update on this front unless they are truly boxing folks out or perhaps the target audience doesn't care about DCI in 2020 as most of the world is 16:9. Hopefully they don't charge for that. Don't think they can or it's going to be somewhat magical lantern lit journey ahead.

    I speak to many who don't understand why system X, Y, or Z costs more or less than system A, B, and C. Many who have or have not used equipment on either side of that equation. Most haven't used or tested many of the cameras until they stumble across one on a job or similar. Most people honestly don't dig deep into these imaging systems unless they truly need to. I get asked about issues about cameras from every manufacturer weekly when people hit certain walls. Bailed a few productions out on VFX or color work related fixes because their $25K shoot didn't have a budget for $25K worth of post or whatever. It's interesting to see all of the ugly in there along the way. Gives me a clear idea of sort of what each manufacturer needs to work on at the end of the day.

    For many, the cookies just need to be made. Doesn't matter what's in them, what type they are, how good they are, what shape they are, or what the ingredients are. Some people just need cookies at any price. Others get rather particular about the cookies they use, perhaps the brand has been around a while, perhaps they deliver a shocking amount of flavor in a tiny package, perhaps there's a knowledge going into a cookie that the flavor will be there and you can rely on that, etc.

    Oddly I don't think I've had a cookie this year, but you get the idea.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #60  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,273
    Please , somebody send the man a cookie ;-)

    To echo Phil, I also see a major disconnect between the folks looking to get the most out of a particular camera system/file type - you know, people like us who post on a camera tech forum - and those just wanting the shortest path to a professional level image. As Mike Most has noted over the years, even the big timers are typically focused on cost and turnaround times, so it's not just a low vs high end issue. I'd also note that many of my clients want mind blowing images (I do a lot of spot work) as cheaply as they can manage. No surprise there, but all too often they don't fully grasp what impact various choices will make on the final product.

    IAC, this thread is about codecs in the professional space and the value of a RAW data set. RED's move to DCT with it's larger file sizes is likely to be interpreted rather differently depending on your pre-existing inclination. At it's most basic, you have the pushback against larger data footprints. The whole issue of easier decoding/playback may often be viewed as "somebody else's problem". The nuances of codec performance are gobbledygook to most folks - but they'd rather not admit that for obvious reasons...

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts