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 :)

Format thought...

I was referring to your comment that RC100 would be 4x the quality. Which isn't really true. Since RC200 isn't 8x the quality. For me 'quality' would be 'accuracy per pixel'. RC200 isn't going to have 8x less compression. I imagine pixel for pixel RC200 will actually be LESS quality than RC100. But since you'll have more pixels the drop in quality will be largely unnoticeable.

My guess is that RC100, 200 etc... will all be comparable in quality (Since they'll all use the same build of redcode), just not resolution.
 
I believe that quality is related with resolution. In another words a combination of pixel count, bit-depth and compression. "Quality" is not something You can put number on, which is why in my original post I have used parenthesis (Then there is the RED CODE "quality" level). Bottom line is that the RC numbers no longer relate to MB/s directly for the new codes. Let's move on...

:) Peter
 
Well it certainly does raise the point that REDCode numbers are starting to get confusing.

One number is quickly becoming unwieldy in accurately describing the codec in any meaningful fashion.

What happens when we get the next build of redcode? RC110? (100 sized but 110 quality? :D) It's dancing a fine line between meaningless marketing number to distinguish compression quality and an empirical measurement.
 
Good to know (i think) that rc100 etc doesn't indicate 100MB/Sec. I'm sure Red will tell us when/if they feel like it.
But really it doesn't matter. All that's important is....is it consistant?

If you look at the FF35 24Meg x 2:1 sensor at different frame rates.
- 6k x 4k x 100fps = 2400Mb/sec
- 2k x 1k x 350fps = 700Mb/sec

This doesn't necessary reflect the compression ratio as they can probably do a certain amount of parallel processing but at some stage the will be bottlenecks.
Is the quality of the 2k frame @ 350fps (if cropped) identical to the 2k frame in the middle of 6k frame @ 100fps?...ask Graeme (unless he's getting married)

D
 
Peter Majtan said:
Basically we have (so far) three cameras:

RO - Red One
RS - Red Scarlet
RE - Red Epic

Then we have (so far) three sensors:

mo - Mysterium "Original"
mx - Mysterium "X"
mm - Mysterium "Monstro"

Then we have (so far) six different sizes (from smallest to biggest):

FIX - 2/3" Fixed
23I - 2/3" Interchangeable (You can't have "/" in a name for computer syntax reasons)
S35 - Super 35
F35 - Full-frame 35
645 - Medium Format (EPIC 9K)
617 - Medium Panoramic Format (EPIC 28K)

Then there is the RED CODE "quality" level:

rc028 - Current RED ONE RC-28
rc036 - Current RED ONE RC-36
rc042 - Proposed Scarlet 2/3"
rc080 - Proposed Scarlet S35
rc100 - Proposed Scarlet F35
rc225 - Proposed Epic S35/F35/645
rc250 - Proposed Epic X
rc500 - Proposed Epic 617

Instead of including "K" resolution and aspect ratio I would rather recommend using the actual pixel info:

4096x2048 - instead of 4K - 2:1

This would prevent issues with ".x K" formats, such as 4.5K and various ways to write ratio (1.33 vs 4:3), and it would be beyond any confusion for everyone...

So in summary we could have Meta Data header with:

ROmoS35rc036-4096x2048
(Red One with original Mysterium, S35 with Red Code 36 and 4K in 2:1)

RSmmF35rc100-5120x2560
(Red Scarlet, Mysterium Monstro, FF35, Red Code 100 and 5K in 2:1)

etc...

It looks awkward, but it is clear, consistent and future-proof...

:) Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, I think you have a good idea there. It's not intuitive at first, but its concise and very informative. I like it. My only issue is the naming of the 2/3" scarlet.

You currently have:


FIX - 2/3" Fixed
23I - 2/3" Interchangeable (You can't have "/" in a name for computer syntax reasons)

I think it makes more sense if it were:


23F - 2/3" Fixed
23I - 2/3" Interchangeable (You can't have "/" in a name for computer syntax reasons)
 
MichaelO said:
Peter, I think you have a good idea there. It's not intuitive at first, but its concise and very informative. I like it. My only issue is the naming of the 2/3" scarlet.

You currently have:


FIX - 2/3" Fixed
23I - 2/3" Interchangeable (You can't have "/" in a name for computer syntax reasons)

I think it makes more sense if it were:


23F - 2/3" Fixed
23I - 2/3" Interchangeable (You can't have "/" in a name for computer syntax reasons)
Click to expand...

Great point Michael! I do agree, 23F it is...
(I will adjust the original post...)

:) Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top