Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

RRENCODE vs. H.265 (HEVC)

C

Claus Mueller

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
256
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The upcoming H.265 (HEVC) is about 2x more effecient than H.264. How much more effecient (roughly) is RRENCODE compared to H.265?
 
REDCODE is not a RAW format. It's a codec that takes RAW sensor data as input before quantization.
 
Claus Mueller said:
The upcoming H.265 (HEVC) is about 2x more effecient than H.264. How much more effecient (roughly) is RRENCODE compared to H.265?
Click to expand...

Actually, that is an excellent question. My hunch is that there are only a handful of people who can really answer it .... probably Jim, Jarred, Graeme, and the code-writers/engineers behind the .RED codec ... and I don't think they are talking about it in that sort of detail ... at least not yet.

With that said, RED has indicated that their new codec will compress or encode 4k @ 2.5 MB/s. Keep in mind, that the new H.265 (HEVC) codec is 10 bit 4:2:2 ... which matches the current HDMI spec (all of which is certainly better than the normal flavor of H.264, which is 8 bit 4:2:0). However, from what I have read, the internal bit rate and color space of the new .RED codec actually exceeds the H.265 codec ... all of which sort of makes sense if one is going to use the .RED codec to feed a RED laser projector that is not dependent on or limited by a HDMI connection.

__________________________________
Scarlet X # 1859 “Bettie Page”
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:
G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8
 
Charles_Z said:
REDCODE is not a RAW format. It's a codec that takes RAW sensor data as input before quantization.
Click to expand...

REDCode is a raw format. However, the .RED files are not REDcode. Dot-RED files are definitely a compressed delivery codec.
 
After CES it is pretty obvious that 4K will become mainstream on TVs, Ipads, MacBooks etc somewhere in 2014/15. And these devices will be all connected to the internet at 20Mbit/s-50Mbit/s nearly everywhere.
I think the future of 4K distribution codec will be decided by smart devices like iPads and Macbooks because this will be the first experience with 4K for most consumers.
 
In testing BBC's HEVC based HM codec nightlies, I feel confident that the more efficient HEVC implementations will offer excellent results for Ultra HD content at 1.5 MB/s to 2 MB/s. For streaming quality, 1 MB/s will be pretty good too and enough for the mass consumer.

For what it's worth, X264 4K at 3 MB/s (~25 Mbps) already offers pristine quality ("very slow" preset, CRF 16.5). I couldn't tell the difference between uncompressed and Hi444PP 10-bit X264 on 2560x1440 IPS panel and neither do I expect the average consumer to. It plays just fine on any modern Windows computer too with MPC-HC. Tegra 4, Snapdragon 600/800 and AMD Temash all have 4K X264 hardware decode, so we can expect tablets and superphones to play them just fine in the coming months.

I don't know much about RED Ray, but just sharing my thoughts on HEVC / H.264.
 
Roger Valdes said:
Raw implies all data from the sensor is captured... which is not the case with redcode.
Click to expand...

There isn't really a good definition of RAW, as it is mostly altered in some way, but in many different ways on the different cameras....

I'd say an unaltered (but sometimes resampled into a lower bitrate) linearlight or log representation after ad on which matrixes and transforms can be applied, is probably the most raw you can get these days. Red fits that bill. Alongside the cameras that use analogue gain and other stuff to alter iso. It is still the raw'est recordable signal you can have.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
Have you worked with R3D? If so tell me what a true RAW file can do that R3D can't?
Click to expand...
It looks to me like you're confusing the acquisition codec with the distribution codec.
 
Roger Valdes said:
Raw implies all data from the sensor is captured... which is not the case with redcode.
Click to expand...


Let's be clear, raw does not mean uncompressed and uncompressed does not have to be raw. I think you are making up your own definition of raw, here. I don't think "raw" implies (or states) that, at all. I suggest you speak to Graeme on the topic.

EDIT: And, I am curious, what makes you contend that all data is not captured?
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Let's be clear, raw does not mean uncompressed and uncompressed does not have to be raw. I think you are making up your own definition of raw, here. I don't think "raw" implies (or states) that, at all. I suggest you speak to Graeme on the topic.

EDIT: And, I am curious, what makes you contend that all data is not captured?
Click to expand...


You're not being clear...

Redcode is a lossy format, not compressed raw.


[TD="align: left"]

[TD="align: left"] raw (rô) adj. raw·er , raw·est [/TD]
a. Being in a natural condition; not processed or refined: raw wool.


[/TD]
Click to expand...

Redcode's process throws away data. Therefor it's not raw. Period.
 
Last edited:
Curious which formats you consider "raw", then...
As all "raw" formats I know of, have somethings baked into them somehow...

That is except for the raw wool from sheep you are refering to, but the relevance for camera raw for that comparison is a bit lost on me...

Doesn't matter really to me, though. So no flamewar, just curious to hear how you are thinking about this...

Edit:
The "is it raw" discussion is interesting, but not very relevant to what was initially discussed here...
I suggest we take such an argument to its own home... Right?

Deliverycodecs will hopefully never be "raw" :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top