Codec errors...

[David Birdy]

I can't believe people reporting problems are being labeled as "naysayers"... How can you be a naysayer if you're an actual user of the camera???

With all do respect

Just because you "use" a camera or "own" a camera does not make you an expert with that device.

David, What do you do, and what have you done when a Genesis, F 900, Arri, 35mm, 16mm or Varicam have a problem onset?

For the record I do not call these people naysayers, but I do recognize many people are in over their heads with this technology and their ability to trouble shoot it or understand it is very limited, then they just blame the camera/company. This trend is not good for anyone!

Dave

 

[number6]

I am convinced that it's a great thing that Red is doing by having this open forum. It is of great benefit to all of us, at least most of the time.
It obviously also puts Red at great risk.
I am convinced too that Red by putting the development out "in public" has made rapid development possible, (the more people testing, the quicker you find bugs and fix them).

I spent quite a few years developing cutting edge products, and any of you who are over 40 have most likely benefitted from at least one of them. So, I can speak from experience.
I am sure that when the people at Red hear of any problem with the camera, they are VERY concerned, and make it a priority to get it fixed. (That should be obvious from the way they have responded to complaints and suggestions so far).

What Ben Franklin once said is also true though: "A reputation is like fine china: easily broken and never well mended".
It's also true that with any privelege comes some responsibility.
We pride ourselves in the USA on our freedom of speech, but sometimes forget that our founding fathers did not mean complete freedom. It has always been ilegal to say something untrue and harmful. The old illustration often used was yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre.

Red would be harmed by not being told of problems with the camera.
The users would be less well served if we could not discuss issues and solutions with each other.
But, it would help us all, if everyone were to report their issues and even feature requests in a factual, non emotional manner.

Whenever anyone "throws a fit" about a problem in public about a Red issue, they don't do their own image any good, and they don't help anyone else either. Those things stick with people and leave a very bad taste about the company, it's product, and even the person who posted the message.

It should be obvious to anyone who owns or hopes to own a Red camera, that the better received the product is, the more useful your camera will be.

So, I urge you to please, wait 'till you cool down if necessary, and then write. Absolutely everyone will be better off. Not only that, imagine if you make a big scene and then discover that you did something foolish, how will you then feel. Even in our age of computers, words usually can never be taken back or undone.

Dave Neathery

Dave, couldn't have said it better myself, 'cause if I could've, I already would've.

 

[number6]

I can't believe people reporting problems are being labeled as "naysayers"... How can you be a naysayer if you're an actual user of the camera???

David, tried to make it clear that I have nothing against reporting problems or even criticism. Would prefer constructive criticism but even emotional criticism is not out-of-bounds if the criticizer will just come back and say "I was wrong" when the facts prove that to be true.

Just asking for some accountability for ones actions.

 

[number6]

Absurd... the RED gestapo. That would really help out REDs image.

So, it is alright to ATTACK without accountability? I thought that was how the Gestapo operated back in the day. Guess I am historically confused.:whistling:

OBTW, I believe equally that those who gush should come back and recant if something is not all girls and roses.:usd:

 

[Leo Ticheli]

OK, it's worse than I thought.

I just shot into trees with a bright sky, very complex scene, and got codec errors EVERY time.

Build 16.3.1.6: 4K, 16x9, 24 fps, Red Code 28 & 36. Record stopped and codec error warning.

With all the same except shooting 4K, 2:1, record did not stop but many bad frames in the clip. This is especially dangerous for obvious reasons.

I will try downgrading to 3.1.5.

Best regards,

Leo

 

[Florin Andrei]

Back to the dictionary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta

Beta

Betaware is a nickname for software which has passed the alpha testing stage of development and has been released to a limited amount of users for software testing before its official release. Beta testing allows the software to undergo usability testing with users who provide feedback, so that any malfunctions these users find in the software can be reported to the developers and fixed. Beta software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss.

A beta version is the first version released outside the organization or community that develops the software, for the purpose of evaluation or real-world black/grey-box testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release. Beta level software generally includes all features, but may also include known issues and bugs of a less serious variety.

The users of a beta version are called beta testers. They are usually customers or prospective customers of the organization that develops the software. They receive the software for free or for a reduced price, but act as free testers.

Beta versions test the supportability of the product, the go-to-market messaging (while recruiting Beta customers), the manufacturability of the product, and the overall channel flow or channel reach.

Beta version software is likely to be useful for internal demonstrations and previews to select customers, but unstable and not yet ready for release. Some developers refer to this stage as a preview, a prototype, a technical preview (TP) or as an early access. As the second major stage in the release lifecycle, following the alpha stage, it is named after the Greek letter beta, the second letter in the Greek alphabet.

Often this stage begins when the developers announce a feature freeze on the product, indicating that no more feature requirements will be accepted for this version of the product. Only software issues, or bugs and unimplemented features will be addressed.

Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public. The testers report any bugs that they found and sometimes minor features they would like to see in the final version.

An example of a major public beta test was when Microsoft started releasing regular Windows Vista Community Technology Previews (CTP) to beta testers starting in January 2005. The first of these was build 5219. Subsequent CTPs introduced most of the planned features, as well as a number of changes to the user interface, based in large part on feedback from beta testers. Windows Vista was deemed feature complete with the release of build 5308 CTP, released on February 22, 2006, and much of the remainder of work between that build and the final release of the product focused on stability, performance, application and driver compatibility, and documentation.

When a beta becomes available to the general public it is often widely used by the technologically savvy and those familiar with previous versions as though it were the finished product. Usually developers of freeware or open-source betas release them to the general public while proprietary betas go to a relatively small group of testers. Recipients of highly proprietary betas may have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. A release is called feature complete when the product team agrees that functional requirements of the system are met and no new features will be put into the release, but significant software bugs may still exist. Companies with a formal software process will tend to enter the beta period with a list of known bugs that must be fixed to exit the beta period, and some companies make this list available to customers and testers.

As the Internet has allowed for rapid and inexpensive distribution of software, companies have begun to take a more flexible approach to use of the word "beta". [1] Netscape Communications was infamous for releasing alpha level versions of its Netscape web browser to the public and calling them “beta” releases. In February 2005, ZDNet published an article about the recent phenomenon of a beta version often staying for years and being used as if it were in production-level [2]. It noted that Gmail and Google News, for example, had been in beta for a long period of time and were not expected to drop the beta status despite the fact that they were widely used; however, Google News did leave beta in January 2006. This technique may also allow a developer to delay offering full support and/or responsibility for remaining issues. In the context of Web 2.0, people even talk of perpetual betas to signify that some software is meant to stay in beta state. Also, "beta" is sometimes used to indicate something more like a release candidate such as the Halo 3 public beta.

 

[Michael Brennan]

error test

error test

A simple test we did when shoting aerials recently was to cap the iris and pan around.

Then open the camera and pan around.

This establishes if codec errors are caused by a drive failure due to movement.


Mike Brennan

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Now I've been away over the weekend and I come home to this. This thread is really tiresome. Most codec error posts I've seen are from people really trying to figure out why, not bitching about about RED. I haven't seen anyone of those who haven't been aware of that 16 is beta. Some disappointment and desperation was there yes, but that's only human.

Now you're bitching at them almost calling them traitors and liars hahahaha. How can they be proven wrong, they don't know how to use the equipment hahahaha

These are the guys who will help Stuart and the guys to tweak this camera to perfection. People who actually are out using it, finding weaknesses, the RED camera heroes hahahahaa.

As for Bruce, somewhere in the beginning I can see what he was trying to say. The way I see it he was expressing a worry in the way of that RED is under the magnifying glass as it is - so every time these things happen it's a cookie for all the RED gossipers.

Now that this discussion has heated up to this, is beyond me?

As for you Greg

I was shooting green screen studio with tungsten spacelights in the background (they were corrected with a 1/4 CTB). There was plenty of reasons for this so let's not get into that. In saying so RED should be able to shoot tungsten, there's no real excuse for it not to be able to.

The actors were mainly lit with chinese lanterns, with 500W photofloods corrected with 1/2 CTB. These were left in shoot to be garbage matted out (plus some kino's).

I was initially shooting 4K 16:9 23.976fps on varispeed 30fps. When it started to fail I tried everything and mainly retreated to 4K 2:1 23.976 with varispeed 30fps. Had to have that slight slow-motion in camera.

In all fairness Greg, but your pic is not in the same league (to have almost grey bouncers in shoot doesn't count hahahahaa).

What seems like a straight forward shoot was actually testing the limits of the camera and I've been in contact with Stuart who instantly was on the case. I think that RED has been very cool and very responsive with these codec alerts. The way I see this is that this is exactly the way it should be. I just wish I could have recreated the set up earlier (shooting it tomorrow - green screen studio availability).

Well better late then never.

For those who wonder why I upgraded... well I'm a fool and I will never learn. I've always been a risk taker and an early adopter. I was also one of those who I think Jim felt was an ungrateful whiner about the blue channel noise, so it's only natural that I would jump onto this build without a doubt.

My two cents


Fredrik Callinggard

 

[Jarred Land]

We feel your pain guys.. we are just wrapping the build that should help you out here, should be ready by the morning for those who want to test it.

 

[Noah Kadner]

And how can people who have codec errors be proven wrong?

Um they do happen- not sure how you prove something that happens doesn't happen other than to alter the laws of physics. :cold:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

1. Nobody else but Red could have gotten it right, since this codec IS the core of their concept and it's unique.

If by nobody you mean Sony, SI (I think), JVC, Panasonic and Grass Valley and if by unique you mean "like Cineform and Jpeg2000" then that's an accurate point.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

We feel your pain guys.. we are just wrapping the build that should help you out here, should be ready by the morning for those who want to test it.

Thank you, Jarred!

I certainly do wish to test the new build; please let me know how to obtain it.

Continuing to test, I down-graded (at Red's suggestion) to 3.1.5 and shot the same setup, bright sky through trees; immediate codec error halting recording at 16x9, 28.

Then tried both 2:1 and 16x9 at 36 and did not get the errors, but did not test extensively.

Major shoot coming next week, many locations and actors, some scenes scheduled to be similar to the codec killer in my tests.

Hopefully the new build will squash this very nasty bug.

Best regards to all,

Leo

 

[Martin Preiss]

Now you're bitching at them almost calling them traitors and liars hahahaha. How can they be proven wrong, they don't know how to use the equipment hahahaha....
......
.....
Fredrik Callinggard

Well said Fredrik, your whole post. Thanks for that. I'm happy that here is few constructive and sane people left. Now I understand, and it's sad discovery, why a lot of people, I know and are using RED or owns it, is not posting here and keeping they know-how for themselves.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Now you're bitching at them almost calling them traitors and liars hahahaha. How can they be proven wrong, they don't know how to use the equipment hahahaha

It's easy. I think that when the camera goes out with the owners that are fanatic reduser readers it's ok. Simply because we know the bugs and are prepared, but the times it seems to fail is when experienced people that has no previous RED experience takes it out.

...and let's face it everyone can't spend there time on reduser. So right now RED as a camera is a great little thing but for the market is dangerous. I love it and the results it gives me is incredible, but it's not without headache.

So for DP's, directors and producers that doesn't own one and never been on reduser - well you can imagine...and for us telling them you should have gone on reduser is not really fair either. Testing a camera is generally a day of testing getting a feel for it and then off to read the manual over night.

We all know that with all the small quirks and bugs that RED carries that is not enough. So that's what I believe is happening out there.

Just my 2 cents


Fredrik Callinggard

This was in a thread titled... "What are people doing wrong?"

I personally think extreme fan boyism is hurting REDs reputation.

 

[Jim Exton]

Um they do happen- not sure how you prove something that happens doesn't happen other than to alter the laws of physics. :cold:

That was my point. Made in reference to somebody suggesting that people who are proven wrong need to come back and admit so.

Codec errors happen, the people who have them can't be proven wrong (i.e. they are doing something wrong and causing the problem).

Anyways, glad to hear it is fixed.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

That was my point. Made in reference to somebody suggesting that people who are proven wrong need to come back and admit so.

Codec errors happen, the people who have them can't be proven wrong (i.e. they are doing something wrong and causing the problem).

Anyways, glad to hear it is fixed.

I hear what you're saying but it's not that black and white. What we have here is a hybrid, it's half camera half computer, but it's functionality is as a camera.

So it should also be treated as one (in some ways). Of course it sometimes reacts as a computer but that's something we have to strive to get rid of.

You can't say that people are wrong when they're shooting in a forest, just because it's to many parameters that are screwing with the computer process in the camera. A picture is a picture. Understand that most codec errors that's reported are genuine. Just because other people don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist. It's small little bugs that comes from different circumstances.

I only had codec error ones during my time with 15 and that was in a very detailed image. I made it through and there was no problems in the end, just one incident. When I went in for a shoot with 16 there was no way in hell you would be able to predict that it would be info over load for the little bugger. I knew I would stress him to the maximum, but when they occurred I retreated to every single possible variation and nothing worked. It was simply an environment that this release wasn't prepared for.

Now green screen shoot with tungsten lights (not fully corrected, because I didn't have gel for it - not a budget issue) shouldn't be an issue. Yes the sensor isn't built for tungsten, it's daylight, but that means that we can't use tungsten lights for all future? Or that a high contrast environment is caused when you have extreme highlights in a shot by putting 2 kino's in frame, having a grey base from the green and then having one person walking in and crash the camera because that's to much information for it?

So you decide, was this my fault or is this simply a bug in a released software that needs to be ironed out? I truly hope you feel the latter, because otherwise it's sad that you're opinion is that we're stuck on daylight and we can't put lights in our frame, for the rest of our camera lives.

Fredrik

 

[Martin Preiss]

(i.e. they are doing something wrong and causing the problem).

Like pointing the camera in wrong direction?
Not to shoot something that codec can't handle?
Avoid that? Is that your suggestion?

Or what "we" (as "we" with codec errors and the people posting and pointing at the error?) did wrong exactly?

Even theoretically, where can be human error in Codec Error (not countin RED TEAM).

(Just for record we did all of this: changing couple CF cards, formatting again and again, turn camera on and off and leave it for a bit, change batteries and check or connectors, check temperature, change T stops on lens. Thinking out of box and try to approach different . Did I forgot anything?)

I'm happy working at 3.1.5 and hope the new build will solve my only issue and will not bring severe one as 3.1.6 brought.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

We tolerate Apple and Adobe's "features before stability" approach because you we can always do the work again if there's a crash.

If Photoshop crashed *and then deleted your original file* I'm sure it would no longer be your favorite program.

And if it was like Nuke where when it occasionally crashed it only lost <15 seconds of work to the last autosave and loaded in under 15 seconds. Then it could crash all it wants with almost no frustration.

Jim does your Photoshop really crash? I don't think my Photoshop CS3 has crashed in more than 3 weeks.

 

[Jim Exton]

No, no, no. I am being misunderstood.

Codec errors happen.

It is not the fault of the user.

It is something that needs fixed.

Somebody made a remark that people who are proven wrong need to come back and make amends.

My point is that other than a couple of trouble makers, most of the people who are posting problems are not being proven wrong. Their problems are legitimate problems with the camera. It is not because they are stupid, it is not user error.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I should have quoted who I was referring too.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

No, no, no. I am being misunderstood.

Codec errors happen.

It is not the fault of the user.

It is something that needs fixed.

Somebody made a remark that people who are proven wrong need to come back and make amends.

My point is that other than a couple of trouble makers, most of the people who are posting problems are not being proven wrong. Their problems are legitimate problems with the camera. It is not because they are stupid, it is not user error.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I should have quoted who I was referring too.

You're forgiven hahahahaha and I completely agree