FF1080P Record times?

[Casey Green]

I know there is still much information to be released on the specs, how the new REDCODEs work and compare, etc...

but I'd like to see if we can get an idea of how much more recording time we might get using FF1080P as opposed to a similar 2K or 3K mode on a SCARLET.

Perhaps we can use the 2/3" SCARLET Cinema at REDCODE 42 for a benchmark.


Are we talking very significant increases in recording times?

This would certainly be of great value in certain production environments.

[David Mullen ASC]

If the compression rate is similar, wouldn't 1080P RGB and 3K RAW be rather similar in data amounts and therefore recording times? With RGB recording, you're talking about essentially three 1.9K frames for 1080P... compared to, let's say, one 3K frame for 3K RAW...

[Joseph Ward]

If the compression rate is similar, wouldn't 1080P RGB and 3K RAW be rather similar in data amounts and therefore recording times? With RGB recording, you're talking about essentially three 1.9K frames for 1080P... compared to, let's say, one 3K frame for 3K RAW...

Is this possible? 1.9 x 3 = 5.7 How do they do it? I don't know, really, just curious?

[Casey Green]

If the compression rate is similar, wouldn't 1080P RGB and 3K RAW be rather similar in data amounts and therefore recording times? With RGB recording, you're talking about essentially three 1.9K frames for 1080P... compared to, let's say, one 3K frame for 3K RAW...

hmmm... I have a feeling there is more to it than that, but we'll see. Anyone from RED able to chime in on this?

[REDneck]

If the compression rate is similar, wouldn't 1080P RGB and 3K RAW be rather similar in data amounts and therefore recording times? With RGB recording, you're talking about essentially three 1.9K frames for 1080P... compared to, let's say, one 3K frame for 3K RAW...

let's see... 3k is about 5 MP... 1.9K is 2 MP. So if RGB is 2 MP x 3 channels, that's equivalent to 6 MP of data. That means, all other things being equal, 1080p RGB is actually more data! Perhaps it has different compression methods, or a reduced bit depth?

so I wouldn't assume you'll get longer record times. it's more about the convenience of having your files already scaled into a broadcast-ready frame.

[Casey Green]

I agree. I think there are probably other factors we need to find out.

I'm still hoping someone from RED will answer how this will work...?

[Roberto Lequeux]

I am also VERY interested in finding out about this...

Between this and the 2k proxy it is going to be such a SICK time when these guys finally get released... I can feel a fateful connection with the silicone and metal that will soon make up my first Red.

[Tom Frisch]

What is the difference between RAW and RGB? Will you still have the high bit-depth in the RGB image, giving you a wide color correction ability? Or will that be baked in during the conversion from RAW to RGB inside the camera?

Depending on how this feature works, I think the 1080FF mode is the most exciting change they made to the specs.

-Tom

[Jannard]

Too early for all the details... we will be answering questions forever once we get started.

Jim

[David Mullen ASC]

What is the difference between RAW and RGB? Will you still have the high bit-depth in the RGB image, giving you a wide color correction ability? Or will that be baked in during the conversion from RAW to RGB inside the camera?

Depending on how this feature works, I think the 1080FF mode is the most exciting change they made to the specs.

-Tom

RAW is a monochrome image with a Bayer-type color filter array used in the sensor, before it gets converted into a full three-color image, which would be RGB. The process of converting RAW into RGB essentially triples the number of files.

As to whether the RGB version will be the same bit-depth as the original RAW, I don't know. RED currently records a 12-bit RAW file, but the 1080P RGB recording could be 10-bit LOG, which is more common in the industry for HD than 12-bit LIN. In theory, a 10-bit LOG recording should be able to hold all the dynamic range of the original capture.

1080P FF is exciting to the extent that it may simplify an HD post route for a TV show or something that needs to master to HD, but I'd be curious to know if converting a 4K RAW file in post to 1080P would look better or not than letting the camera do the conversion in real-time. You would assume that a good post debayering software that takes more time could yield cleaner results than something the camera processor has to do in real time.