Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

DRAGON debayer options - Red Rocket-X hardware versus RCX-P software only

RR-X and DRAGON ....

RR-X and DRAGON ....

oliver imfeld said:
Rob, will the old RR be able to handle dragon footage ?
Click to expand...

I'm sure Rob can go into more details but from the testing I've done so far, the old Rocket can not process 6K DRAGON files ... which is why I'm so excited about the new RR-X card ... not only does it allow realtime playback of 6K .r3ds at FULL debayer (think about that for a minute - when was the last time you did real-time playback with EPIC files on FULL debayer) it also crunches through the renders for 6K, 5K and 4K files ... pretty damn sweet if you ask me.

DaVinci Resolve 10 is already optimized the RR-X card ... at the moment we only have Color Science 2 but the RedGamma3 and RedLog Film options allow us to see the full dynamic range of the DRAGON footage .... there was one shot in Ketch's 'The Red Dress' where a white blond girl comes around the corner of Red Studios in the noon day California sun and into the shadows (Ketch only had a polarizer on the DRAGON) and I looked at the image and shook my head and said something like - "Ketch, you blew that shot, asshole!" ... or words to that effect ... Ketch smiles, "You wanna maka da bet?" ... we go into latest beta of Resolve 10, turn on RedLogFilm, check the scopes and go into heavy duty pixel peeping ... crap, I lose $10.

As Rob said, if you have a lot of DRAGON footage to render out, you're probably better of leveraging the RAW power of the RR-X card (pun intended) but if you're not in a hurry or are doing small runs, the GPU enabled RCX-P is more than good enough ... we're testing RCX-P with a TITAN and it works just fine ... once the new Mac Pros get here with the dual ATI cards and the RCP-X has been optimized for OpenCL that combination will be more than adequate for folks on a budget.

I'll be taking our RR-X card and some of Ketch's 'Red Dress' 6K .r3ds along to the SMPTE Conference in two weeks time and to CreateaSphere ETE in early November (both events running in LA) ... if RU folks want to come along and have a play themselves with the settings, you're more than welcome. We're on Booth #108 at SMPTE, right next to Blackmagic .. and at Booth #506 at CreateaSphere.

Whatever people may think from what they've seen from the preliminary testing that Phil and I have been showing over this last week, there is no doubt in my mind that the DRAGON sensor is something quite special ... a step function improvement up from EPIC which was already a great camera ... and combine that imagery with the raw power of RR-X and you have a winning combination for both acquisition and fast cost-effective 6K post workflow ... it's a no brainer, guys.

Neil
 
I don't transcode much anymore as I can just use native R3D files within FCPX now. That's where having a RR card really helps me. Now with RED having GPU accelerated RCX, will RED provide any support to companies to implement this acceleration to their NLE's? Just wondering if investing into the RR-X is worth it if you don't use it for transcoding.
 
Currently RCX disables the Rocket for Dragon files, but Red has not stated if that is only temporary, any comment Rob?


One Rocket can playback 4k FF FULL Debayer, Currently we can playback Epic 5k FF files in real time with 2x Rockets.

Why should 2x Rockets not be able to playback Dragon 6k in realtime?

Given their 8x pcie limitation of 2Gigs/sec bidirectional, they should have no problem playing up to their combined processing limit of 6k FF realtime .



Speed is great, but what about quality? How about posting an EXR still from Phil's Dragon Clip both CPU debayer and a one with Rocket-X debayer?



Neil W. Smith said:
I'm sure Rob can go into more details but from the testing I've done so far, the old Rocket can not process 6K DRAGON files ... which is why I'm so excited about the new RR-X card ... not only does it allow realtime playback of 6K .r3ds at FULL debayer (think about that for a minute - when was the last time you did real-time playback with EPIC files on FULL debayer) it also crunches through the renders for 6K, 5K and 4K files ... pretty damn sweet if you ask me. Neil
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Christopher*Seguine said:
Given their 8x pcie limitation of 2Gigs/sec bidirectional, they should have no problem playing up to their combined processing limit of 8k FF realtime .
Click to expand...
6K FF is about 2.2 times the amount of data that 4K (4096*2160) is. 8K would be around 4 times the amount of data as 4K. So if 4K is one Rocket's limit, for two Rockets the limit would (optimally) be a little under 6K FF, maybe 6KHD or 6KWS.
 
Typo corrected, thanks.

Full frame aspect ratio has changed.

Rocket playback maxes out at about R1 full frame 4096x2304 @ 29.97 = about 1.7GBs.

Dragon Full Frame is only 6144x3160, so 3.5GBs at 29.97, passed over 2 rockets thats 1.75GBs each

This assumes 16bit data, if it is just passing 12bit data, than throughput requirement is much less.

6k FF on 2x Rockets should be doable at least at 24fps.
 
Rob Lohman said:
Robert: GPU workflow might be the answer there? That will help with not just RED footage as well.
Click to expand...

So far it has not been very stable on many client machines, and is not yet in the SDK of apps (not Redcine). But I'm sure eventually it will be of great help. Again, however, I can't ask all the outside people I work with to upgrade their facilities - it's not really my place to tell them what to buy, even in terms of GPU - and we do not process (nor want to process) everything we shoot ourselves.

I am hoping GPU is not a quality hit in any way. Is it the same exact look as software?
 
Robert: I hope you're letting us know of any issues you're running in to with the GPU beta so we can fix them.

Yes, quality should match the software path exactly (we did a couple of bug fix releases to address this, stability and some other issues)
 
OK, so I'm really confused at the thought of getting better quality with a RRX instead of software debayering???
A full debayer should produce the same results, with or without a rocket.

As far as I know, the only difference should be the obvious increase in rendering time when using software. This makes me wonder if RCP-X has been engineered to cause a slight downgrade in quality in the absence of a RR card? I just feel that the highest possible quality should be available even if the render time would be very long. A user might be rendering a short video and not be concerned about render time.

Anyone else have any thoughts on why a difference in output quality is happening? :confused1:
 
Software and Hardware Debayer are just inherently different. No conspiracy here. Same is true in computer graphics when rendering using hardware vs software. There are things that hardware simply cannot due. But that gap is closing very quickly. Also keep in mind that on initial comparison a software decode at highest setting will appear softer than a hardware debayer using the rocket. A half premium software decode matched more closely with a hardware decode using the original RR card. A more aggressive sharpening setting is required when using software debayer,but the quality is much better. I am curious about how this all shakes down with Dragon and the new card.


Dave Summers said:
OK, so I'm really confused at the thought of getting better quality with a RRX instead of software debayering???
A full debayer should produce the same results, with or without a rocket.

As far as I know, the only difference should be the obvious increase in rendering time when using software. This makes me wonder if RCP-X has been engineered to cause a slight downgrade in quality in the absence of a RR card? I just feel that the highest possible quality should be available even if the render time would be very long. A user might be rendering a short video and not be concerned about render time.

Anyone else have any thoughts on why a difference in output quality is happening? :confused1:
Click to expand...
 
Bob Gundu said:
Software and Hardware Debayer are just inherently different. No conspiracy here. Same is true in computer graphics when rendering using hardware vs software. There are things that hardware simply cannot due. But that gap is closing very quickly. Also keep in mind that on initial comparison a software decode at highest setting will appear softer than a hardware debayer using the rocket. A half premium software decode matched more closely with a hardware decode using the original RR card. A more aggressive sharpening setting is required when using software debayer,but the quality is much better. I am curious about how this all shakes down with Dragon and the new card.
Click to expand...

Required for what? Using very sharp lenses, software is too sharp if anything.
 
Bob Gundu said:
I don't transcode much anymore as I can just use native R3D files within FCPX now. That's where having a RR card really helps me. Now with RED having GPU accelerated RCX, will RED provide any support to companies to implement this acceleration to their NLE's? Just wondering if investing into the RR-X is worth it if you don't use it for transcoding.
Click to expand...

I'm going to sound like a dick but it depends on what your goals are. I strive for super-high-end skin rendition and textile rendition. RR was a joke within that framework of thinking. since you are in TO I am guessing you do the documentary look, since I've yet to meet anyone who does anything else in that city. What's with Canadians? It's like they have a psychological problem with fantasy and "larger than life'. It's like they're obsessed with the dreary banal. For 15 years, the doco look and run-and-gun have been "in" in Canada. I hear they've been the latest in thing for 40 years in Canada. Thank God for the Americans and the French.
 
I'm sorry Bob. I should not drink and post, especially not after an angry encounter with a government over-funded Canadian producer stuck in the 1970s (which was the last time he actually had a clue about modern audiences). I've seen and liked your work a lot, this had nothing to do with you.

That said, it's just silly in my opinion to try and skimp 2 hours of computer time to go with a Red Rocket debayer. What 2 hours of unattended computer rendering time worth? $100? Less? At some level $0? Isn't that pittance worth it to get the best smoothest quality possible?
 
Hey Robert... No harm done. I admire your quest for perfection and efficiency. But lets be honest, those are minor factors in the big picture. Story always trumps. Let's not forget the decades of filmmakers who did timeless work on equipment that could be called archaic today. In any case... back to topic...
 
Many lols, thanks gents...all this said am I hearing correctly that we believe software debayer to be -superior- in quality, just slow - and further that sharpening can make up the difference?

Thanks!

PCG
 
Bob Gundu said:
Hey Robert... No harm done. I admire your quest for perfection and efficiency. But lets be honest, those are minor factors in the big picture. Story always trumps. Let's not forget the decades of filmmakers who did timeless work on equipment that could be called archaic today. In any case... back to topic...
Click to expand...

When I'm hired as a DP I don't write the story - and if I do that's a separate contract and negotiation, that may as well be another person a steh two jobs are very separate. As a DP - regardless of who wrote the script - I offer that the finest details will be taken care of in the most attentive and sensitive way possible within the confines of available time and money. As a DP I am paid to deliver the best visual quality possible. If you think thats' not important, why are you a DP? Think of what you are saying, it's the equivalent of saying you aim low-ish in your work because anyway who cares, the writer's job is all that matters. I doubt you really want to say that, not here, and likely not even to yourself.

It doesn't matter what people managed to do 40 years ago - at the time they were using the best technology they coudl afford in the best way they could, and I try to do the same now as best I can.

RR debayer is not the best, a better alternative is always affordable to any production (any production can afford a few hours of render time at the very end of post), and so choosing that better alternative is an obvious choice. Sometimes complicated light set-ups and so on can eat too much set time and negatively affect story or actor comfort, and there compromise is indeed needed of visuals vs story, there it's important to remember the importance of story and performance - but here - software debayer does not affect story at all. The actors have gone home when debayer is done - story will be the same, just the image quality will be better.
 
Onset is not the place for final grading and mastering, processing the R3D files during production is a ball park 1-lite, so the production has a quick turn around on dailies and the editor has off-line files to start editing with. So a compromise of quality and speed, with an emphasis on speed, is generally more important for an onset environment, which is where the red rocket is most beneficial.
 
PC Greene said:
Many lols, thanks gents...all this said am I hearing correctly that we believe software debayer to be -superior- in quality, just slow - and further that sharpening can make up the difference?

Thanks!

PCG
Click to expand...

Yes that's my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top