Single 4K frame 100% Unompressed RAW?

[michael zaletel]

Does anyone have a single frame at 4K completely uncompressed from the latest build? Does the current software support 100% uncompressed footage at 4k? I realize you'd only get a few minutes or seconds, but would just like to see the difference in quality, detail, color, depth and etc.

Don't get me wrong, Red Raw is incredible compression technology, but every compression scheme comes at a price. I think it is important to compare still shots from high-end still cameras with Red One stills in uncompressed Raw form especially if looking at color charts and etc.

Please advice,

-shooter

 

[jbeale]

AFAIK the only route for 4k data out of the camera is through REDCODE. The R3D file is the output you get. I don't think anything prevents you from comparing the image to any other camera. You do have to "develop" the R3D into a regular TIFF or other viewable image, and you make some choices while doing so (white balance, etc) but the same is true with raw files from DSLRs.

 

[michael zaletel]

AFAIK the only route for 4k data out of the camera is through REDCODE.

Thanks for the reply. I read somewhere that in the early prototype days before they had developed or finalized REDCODE, they had multiple towers full of drives just to record a few minutes of uncompressed 4K. I was hoping that if they were able to record uncompressed in the beginning, they might be able to record like 1 frame per second or even per minute uncompressed now. I realize there is a major bandwidth issue but at 1 frame per second maybe it is possible.

To give further detail on my question. There have been some active threads lately about standard color charts and resolution charts. The examples are all single frames of course and people are comparing those REDCODE RAW images to uncompressed RAW files from 12MP or 22MP digital still cameras. The problem is that the equivalent "filesizes" are SIGNIFICANTLY different, the REDCODE 4K single frame being much, much smaller. Therefore, I am just wondering how much of the difference in quality is due to the compression and how much is due to the mysterium sensor. It would only be fair to say that a single image of a color or resolution chart taken in RAW format by a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III 21.1MP is "better" than a single frame from the RED ONE, if both were compressed using REDCODE RAW compression scheme or if neither were compressed at all.

Please advise,

-shooter

 

[Mike Prevette]

There have been sooo many architecture changes since those early prototypes, I doubt any still frames would be of much value.

 

[Andrew M.]

You can’t really see RAW without the debayer processing on the frame.
Canon MKIII is using it with supplied utility and some applications actually do even better then Canon does with debayering.

You know Canon can’t be in Adobe business like Adobe is not making Cameras.
So sometimes the post processing software does debayering and image correcting/enhancing better then the manufacture of the hardware.

So RED debayering is done so far by RED and this process could be the key to the great results coming out of the sensor.
So you have to always take Sensor+debayering process together when evaluating the camera.

I guess Canon with its 21MP and so so debayering process does still better for single frame then RED Mysterium. But once you shoot 60fs it is all different game.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes, the whole OLPF / Sensor / Compression / Demosaic are designed and tweaked to work together.

I think it's because we did raw uncompressed with Frankie that we know what a PITA it is.....

Graeme