CineForm Officially Supports Red One

[Kaku Ito]

By the way, I kept having problems setting up bootcamp on my Mac Pro 8 Core, but I got the Parallel Desktop working and it seems work a lot better (since it works on Mac's desktop) so I can probably use the R2CF.exe on it.
I don't know how the converted files would be handled between Windows and Mac on this environment, but I'll give some try.

This is worthy topic so I will cover this story in my monthly column (RED ONE Central) on VideoAlpha magazine.

 

[Mike Harrington]

Through the Red SDK we are not performing Raw-to-Raw conversions. The SDK presents us fully decoded and demosaiced RGB frames which we then process. There is some indication that the SDK may present Raw (non-demosaiced) frames to us in the future, but the schedule is undefined. If this happens we would support direct Redcode Raw-to-CineForm RAW conversions

well kids.....disneyland is closed for repairs again....:bye2:

that's disapointing....the option to decode outside of redcine is great, but essentially were flattening the Raw image(albeit at a high bit rate)
with no visual feedback the look would still have to be developed in RedCine.
now the important question.....

I see the r3d metadata is respected during the conversion process(white balance ect) can this metadata be changed in redcine? and then the conversion process becomes a sped up render, with proxies?
or is the metadata only created during filming, with the camera itself...
if it can be changed in redcine(for those of us in pc land without red alert) then we can see some kind of visual feedback before we flatten it.
(unless i'm missing something....)

not to take away what you've done....great work i certainly will use it....but not quite the holy grail we were hoping for...still need that RAW

 

[Nick Shaw]

I'm hoping that although RAW-to-RAW conversion is not yet possible, it is possible to transcode to a Cineform file in an un-processed RAW like form, with active meta-data setting white balance etc. This would be very close to having access to the RAW, just not as efficient on drive space.

Bring on the Mac version!

 

[David Taylor]

I'm hoping that although RAW-to-RAW conversion is not yet possible, it is possible to transcode to a Cineform file in an un-processed RAW like form, with active meta-data setting white balance etc. This would be very close to having access to the RAW, just not as efficient on drive space.

This is exactly correct Nick. When creating 12-bit CineForm 444 files they become larger because they are now RGB, but if they are converted without flattening color information into the new file, the new 444 files with Active Metadata operate exactly like CineForm RAW files with Active Metadata.

 

[David Newman]

Expanding on the non-RAW conversions without flattening, the R3D SDK allows you to control, change, enable or disable any camera metadata that can impact the image development, that is pretty nice. We switch off all image processing and request a linear 16-bit per channel decode from REDCODE. All the camera metadata is transferred into the CineForm file, and white balance is transfered as Active Metadata. The main advantage of RAW to RAW transfers is speed, not quality or flexibility. Size can also a benefit, yet we currently simulate that with a RAW downsampling option, so you can 4K CineForm RAW Red One workflow today.

 

[Adam Glick]

Nice work David. This is going to be a big help for many pipelines out there.

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

that's disapointing....the option to decode outside of redcine is great, but essentially were flattening the Raw image(albeit at a high bit rate) with no visual feedback the look would still have to be developed in RedCine.

Actually this isn't the case. I personally like to think of this method as 'RGB RAW' vs. 'Bayer RAW' . . . the only difference between the two is the demosaic process, meaning the 'RGB RAW' version has a demosaic pre-applied where-as 'Bayer RAW' has this demosaic applied while the file is playing back (and why it can be a lot slower to work with).

But as far as the "really important" aspects of the image that define the flexibility and attractiveness of RAW workflows such as control over the overall dynamic range of the image, adjusting color metadata information, etc., there is no difference between the two formats.

So with the current CineForm approach with the REDcode SDK, the *only* step you're missing out on between CineForm RAW and CineForm 444 is the ability to change the debaying algorithm on-the-fly after the REDCODE->CineForm conversion process, which in the end really isn't that big a deal, and is not going to impact image quality. You're not "baking" in any color information like you would with a normal camera system or like if you were rendering out to DPX or some other format that didn't support color metadata and a dynamic color rendering pipeline . . . with CineForm's active-metadata feature-set you're still working with the RAW camera color-space, and getting all the same benefits of the bayer RAW workflow without the negatives of having to demosaic 4K data on-the-fly during playback. You're also not inheriting the negatives of compression or data-wrangling uncompressed file sequences.

 

[laguun]

that's disapointing....the option to decode outside of redcine is great, but essentially were flattening the Raw image(albeit at a high bit rate)
with no visual feedback the look would still have to be developed in RedCine.

I dont think so. For colorists, the fine colorprecision is the most important thing, no matter if raw or rgb - and thats exactly what is in the cineforms.

 

[Anderson I]

What exactly is the RAW downsampling option?

So when you say RGB Raw, are you referring to the fact that the active metadata has not been burnt into the image?

I'm familiar with the Raw to Raw conversion tool where the 4K r3d Raw files were in the 40MB/s range once converted to CineForm Raw.

With your new tool and the new SDK, what will be my comparable option, at the moment, of the past Raw to Raw conversion tool? (any pluses or minuses???)

And of course the 1K CineForm Express conversion is also worth it's weight in Gold!!!


....and if you're already down the hydrogen path, you may want to look into HHO conversion kits; it's a bit like the 1K express version for the masses

 

[David Taylor]

What exactly is the RAW downsampling option?

Okay, you asked.... As you're aware, demosaic algorithms interpolate missing R, G, or B values at each cell site to create a full RGB value at each site location. But most demosaic algorithms also attempt to perfectly preserve the existing R, G, or B values at each sensor site location. This means that you can back-sample an RGB image to recreate the original Raw image, essentially "undoing" the demosaic. The advantage is you get back to Raw and the file size after compression is about 40% the size of the compressed RGB image. The disadvantage is that there is no speed advantage of creating the back-sampled Raw format because it has been demosaiced first. So the determination of whether you keep the back-sampled Raw or leave it at RGB is really based on file size. If you keep the back-sampled Raw, you'll need to demosaic again later.

Despite the discussion above, there is some advantage at 4K in back-sampling to Raw as PPro is more stable (in our experience) with the smaller file sizes of 4K CineForm Raw than 4K CineForm 444.

So when you say RGB Raw, are you referring to the fact that the active metadata has not been burnt into the image?

Yes, this is what Jason means. There is no loss of image fidelity or chroma information when converting from CineForm RAW to CineForm RGB when no color information is flattened into the RGB conversion.

I'm familiar with the Raw to Raw conversion tool where the 4K r3d Raw files were in the 40MB/s range once converted to CineForm Raw. ?

I think this was answered above. The back-sampled RAW should be the same except for the additional processing to get there.

With your new tool and the new SDK, what will be my comparable option, at the moment, of the past Raw to Raw conversion tool? (any pluses or minuses???)

Hopefully a future version of the SDK will present decoded Raw images prior to demosaic. This is the best future-looking option.

 

[Anderson I]

Thanks for the thorough answer David. You guys are an unbelievable asset to this community.

What are we looking at as far as time, on a fast machine, when back-sampling to Raw at 4K?

 

[David Newman]

On my HP xw8600 (8-core workstation) I generate 4K masters at about 3+ fps in back sampled RAW and 35+fps for CineForm Express files. We expect RAW to RAW to the frame rate for conversion to be around 9-10fps (you can see why we want this.)

If you want to do your own speed tests, add the -s switch to the command, it will report the speed at the end of the conversion.

 

[Mike Harrington]

Actually this isn't the case. I personally like to think of this method as 'RGB RAW' vs. 'Bayer RAW' . . . the only difference between the two is the demosaic process, meaning the 'RGB RAW' version has a demosaic pre-applied where-as 'Bayer RAW' has this demosaic applied while the file is playing back (and why it can be a lot slower to work with).

But as far as the "really important" aspects of the image that define the flexibility and attractiveness of RAW workflows such as control over the overall dynamic range of the image, adjusting color metadata information, etc., there is no difference between the two formats.

So with the current CineForm approach with the REDcode SDK, the *only* step you're missing out on between CineForm RAW and CineForm 444 is the ability to change the debaying algorithm on-the-fly after the REDCODE->CineForm conversion process, which in the end really isn't that big a deal, and is not going to impact image quality. You're not "baking" in any color information like you would with a normal camera system or like if you were rendering out to DPX or some other format that didn't support color metadata and a dynamic color rendering pipeline . . . with CineForm's active-metadata feature-set you're still working with the RAW camera color-space, and getting all the same benefits of the bayer RAW workflow without the negatives of having to demosaic 4K data on-the-fly during playback. You're also not inheriting the negatives of compression or data-wrangling uncompressed file sequences.

ok i get it....
it's quite different from normal video compression...
so the image is more or less not flattened....only debayered...kinda like changing a raw file to an hdr in photoshop.

if that's the case then i take back what i said about being dissapointed...
way ta go cineform

ps is there any other codec out there that has this similar active metadata approach?

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

so the image is more or less not flattened....only debayered...kinda like changing a raw file to an hdr in photoshop.

Yep, that's definitely one way to think about it. But an HDR file typically has some type of color transform "baked" into it to some extent, meaning that while you could theoretically do anything with an HDR file, you are only able to properly reverse a color transform if you have the correct inversion function.

'RAW RGB' on the other-hand doesn't have those issues. There are simply no color transforms baked in . . . color transforms like white-balance, LUT's, "looks", etc. are all metadata.

is there any other codec out there that has this similar active metadata approach?

Nope . . . David and company have a lot to be proud of for providing some very interesting and exclusive technology enabling the ability to work with color and other forms of active metadata on visually lossless RGB 444 files.

 

[Mike Harrington]

one more question

is color correction done in premiere or color finesse merely modifying this active metadata?
and to what extent could other non adobe apps utilize this (ie fusion, combustion ect)
or is this strictly a cineform/adobe workflow

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Seeing as how I use color finesse with this system I can answer in a professional calm and educated manner.

IT'S F*CKING AMAZING!!!

Ahem... I mean, you can make your one light corrections in Finesse, and them export these corrections as a LUT that you can then pull back into premiere and view in REALTIME..

Did I make this clear boys and girls? Color correction... Realtime playback... No rendering... It's true.

Now you cannot go NUTs here and do multiple layers and stuff (At least I don't think you can), but you can do your work in Finesse and then with a few clicks of the mouse import those changes and see them played back in realtime.

It's ALL non-destructive and affects Meta-data only.

It's amazing.. And it works. I'm using it as we speak on a music video

I am a happy Jayster.. All hail the Davids...

Jay

 

[David Newman]

This is a very big question. Active Metadata does not replace traditional color correction, although it can be used that way. Typically it is to setup your base look, and then you do far less in your color correction pass. Currently only Premiere integration of Prospect 4K allows you to dynamically change the Active Metadata, but we will be addresses this soon. However, then settings controlled Active Metadata are decoded correctly throughout the workflow, in Fusion, Combustion, Vegas, Vitrtual Dub, QT Player etc. So you can setup your base look in Premiere then continue that grade in Combustion (Fusions is still 8-bit for AVI/MOV media, Combustion is 16-bit for MOV files.)

Here is a sample usage that doesn't need Premiere.
1) Generate a DPX files for a scene.
2) Load it into Iridas Speedgrade OnSet.
3) Create a LUT .look files for your scene(s).
4) When you convert your R3Ds use switch +LOOK="path_to_file.look"

Now all you converted files have a 3D LUT look attached, no destructively.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Newman...

So was I wrong? I mean I can't be can I... I'm sitting here doing this.


Jay

 

[Mike Harrington]

(Fusions is still 8-bit for AVI/MOV media, Combustion is 16-bit for MOV files.)

david
I spoke to you at NAB about this, and you indicated that you would inquire at Eyeon about them changing this in fusion.....

I plan to hound them....as I did at NAB
there response was "why not convert to DPX"

 

[David Newman]

Newman...

So was I wrong? I mean I can't be can I... I'm sitting here doing this.


Jay

I did say "Active Metadata does not replace traditional color correction, although it can be used that way. " That is how we color corrected our last 48 Hour Film. It is so fast, it easy to forget it is not the "normal" way. I probably should say it intended the replace tradition film finishing (although some will do that,) but anything you would have done in your NLE it is totally up for the challenge.