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 :)

ENG and Cinema...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quicktime reference files

Quicktime reference files

khmuse said:
Sounds like REDQUICK is a nearly perfect solution for quickly creating a QT viewable file. With no rendering required I can't imagine that this isn't the final piece of the puzzle that was needed.
Click to expand...

We are currently working on adding the option of REDQUICK-style Quicktime reference file generation into the camera itself (please note there are some technical hurdles still to be overcome). Your digital media would then have a master 4K REDCODE RAW data file plus Quicktime reference files (proxies) at 2K, 1K and 0.5K as Graeme described.

So in addition to real time playback of RECODE RAW data on-camera, we can offer instant or virtually instant playback via your computer.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
REDQuick is just what it says. It's for RED files and getting them QUICKly into QUICKtime. It's practically instantaneous to make the wrappers, and then you can instantly play back the files in Quicktime player.
Click to expand...

Before there were Macintel limitations on quicktime playback. Is that still the case? Does this work on all flavors: Mac Intel, PC, Mac PowerPC?

Red Quick is great news and even better that you are looking at adding it directly in the camera!
 
How will these reference files compare to a full 4k decode and scale to 1080p in Redcine? (Or to a on board 1080p)
If the quality is much different, I would like to be able to enable watermarking in RedQuick/Redcode codec, so the client don't fuck up and use the reference file for final mastering.
What do you think?
 
Graeme Nattress said:
At the moment, REDQuick generates Quicktimes that play back at 2k, 1k, 0.5k.

Graeme
Click to expand...

So sizes of 2k, 1k and 0.5k are the following yeah?

2k = 2048 x 1152
1k = 1024 x 576
0.5k = 512 x 288
 
Jannard said:
We fully acknowledge the importance of ENG uses of RED ONE. We just want to make sure we deliver what is needed, not just what is asked for.

Jim
Click to expand...

I've been feeling pretty distressed about this issue recently. Regardless of my confidence in your company, I have to stop and look closely at what I know about the market. The more cinema centric RED becomes the more I feel it becoming a big gamble. And I'm a cinema shooter, the majority of my work is dramatic, but the majority of my high paying clients are not. And I think this is the case for most people who would consider buying a camera. A DP who shoots only high end cinema and commercials should be investing in real estate not cameras.

Look at RED in terms of evolution. If we throw some bacteria into boiling water, they will all die. But if we put them in a hotsprings where one side is cool and the other side boiling then some of them will evolve over time to tolerate more and more heat. 4K is for me boiling water, we want to be there but we need to evolve into it. I think that could happen very fast, like in two years. But evolution doesn't occur without a gradient, the slope of the beach we crawled up.

Even though the alternative formats from RED are still RGB, what's important about them is that they reduce the amount of data at the outset. So for me 720 is actually better than 1080 because it represents economics mode.

We really just need the numbers Jim. RED needs to look at what its going to cost their average customer to deliver various kinds of footage. How much computing power do they need and how much time.

IBloom
 
Thanks again Jim, Stuart, Graeme and Co.

It really seems to me that the sheer logic of 2k at 96fps is a cost effective solution. And now with the advent (mention) of REDQUICK how is there no time. If you can shoot then wrap in REDQUICK couldn't you just output to 1080p especially seeing that the B4 adapter is
2k native on the RED ONE y not?

It's not like we're talking less power consumption. I'm sure we're talking as long as it takes to output if REDQUICK is virtually instantaneous. Where's the legitimate gripe? No one is left out. If there's no laptop to output to just give the client the media and they can wrap it. Unless you're doing live satelite link why is 720p or 1080p for that matter needed? Can someone clarify?
 
Jannard said:
There is no data rate saving shooting 1080P RGB over 2K REDCODE RAW, while there is a considerable difference in image quality and "elasticity" of the images.
Click to expand...

I guess then the problem maybe is that 1080P RGB is that its too similar to 2K.

Perhaps we actually need something lesser, I suggested earlier DVCProHD or HDCAM with LUT's baked in. Then at least we are handing a client something established.

The problem with doing this to a tape deck off the HD-SDI and not too a hard drive is add cost and hassle. Stick a fork in them, tapes are done. On board random access storage is the beauty of RED.

IBloom
 
I still don't know what the question is Jim? Is it between 1080@120 and 2k@96, or are you thinking of dropping scaled RGB all together? I don't see how any of us can talk so highly about 2k windowed when we haven't seen one frame of it to make any kind of judgement. That leaves only 4k Redcode Raw as a proven quality format with scaled RGB gone.

I understand that you want only the best for your camera Jim, but the way you talk sometimes about everybody having to come up to Red's standards, sounds a little arrogant. Producers don't need to come up to anything. But after my Red investment I'm going to need to make my money back. Yes, eventually Red will prove to everyone that its formats are superior, but until then there are just too many clients that want 720 and 1080. And web commercials and corporate are not just ENG with a B4 lens. Those clients want a high end cinematic look too and they are largely coming up in budget and scope. They want a 35mm look, but in 720 or 1080.

Nobody here is arguing the quality and versitility of Redcode Raw. With Redquick it sounds even better. Especially if you can add the wrapper when transferring files to the client drive. The thing is, I know what is needed to make the money back on my camera investment. The largest portion of Red investors that will profit off of their purchase will do so the same way. Corporate and commercial clients will be able pay the day rate of the Red camera. As of right now and the immediate future they want 1080 and 720.
 
Data rates

Data rates

ibloom said:
Even though the alternative formats from RED are still RGB, what's important about them is that they reduce the amount of data at the outset. So for me 720 is actually better than 1080 because it represents economics mode.
Click to expand...

Hang in there IBloom, my previous deep immersion in "you can do what now?" was Varicam and HD to FireWire 400 drives.

The uncompressed data rates for 4K RAW v's 1080p RGB are 9,437,184 v's 6,220,800 samples, but the evidence is that imaging the same scene, RAW compresses easier than RGB so the nett compressed data rate is similar. For 2K RAW v's 720p RGB its 2,359,296 v's 2,764,800 samples, and again the RAW compresses a bit easier.

So what we think we know from our past experiences is not always true.

And I also still think the bottom line is: Your clients don't care how it works, as long as it just works!
 
everybody having to come up to Red's standards, sounds a little arrogant.
Click to expand...

As of right now and the immediate future they want 1080 and 720.
Click to expand...

But nobody here is arguing against that? Of course they need 1080 and 720. But what Jim is talking about is that it is much better in terms of quality and flexibility (not even to mention disk space) to shoot in 2K and then convert everything in the format required by the customer.

Redcode RGB is NOT a codec that is gonna be useful for your customers anyway. So, no matter what, you're gonna HAVE to make a conversion before you can deliver something to your customers. At least, that's how I understand it... I think the best solution, for my ENG shoots, would be to export the rushes to tape, probably HDCAM... after I've made the conversion!

The only difference for the customer will be that he will have to wait until the next day to get his rushes...
 
Does transcoding take as long as transferring files from one drive to another? Could I not transfer files at max data rate from whatever media to the client drive in 720 or 1080 RGB? i know that they're Redcode RGB but I thought that that was a quicktime compatible format.
 
SF Geek said:
until then there are just too many clients that want 720 and 1080. And web commercials and corporate are not just ENG with a B4 lens. Those clients want a high end cinematic look too and they are largely coming up in budget and scope. They want a 35mm look, but in 720 or 1080.
... As of right now and the immediate future they want 1080 and 720.
Click to expand...

If Clients still want 720 or 1080, then give it to them. It seems to me that Red is offering a pathway there. It's just not one that people are used to.
 
kinobairn said:
How are these to work with in After Effects CS3? what about Premiere?
Click to expand...

Technically, Premiere could be used to edit RED raw files the same way as one may edit Cineform raw files in Premiere. Furthermore, likely, it would not be technically that difficult to convert RED raws to Cineform raws or vice versa. Both rely on wavelets. If so, that would open immediately the doors to Premiere and After Effects.
 
SF Geek said:
Does transcoding take as long as transferring files from one drive to another? Could I not transfer files at max data rate from whatever media to the client drive in 720 or 1080 RGB? i know that they're Redcode RGB but I thought that that was a quicktime compatible format.
Click to expand...

Take a look at Stuart's post here.
 
Someone from Red really needs to clarify what formats they'd like to eliminate and why, and what the ramifications of that would be, including an approximate decoding time from a variety of machines. Perhaps a graphic table, or something similar to the formats page on Red.com. Until that's clear, we're making uninformed decisions and this is just stirring up the hornet nest. If professionals are miscommunicating this, can you imagine their clients?

My .02 - Thanks.
-CJ
 
Larry said:
Technically, Premiere could be used to edit RED raw files the same way as one may edit Cineform raw files in Premiere. Furthermore, likely, it would not be technically that difficult to convert RED raws to Cineform raws or vice versa. Both rely on wavelets. If so, that would open immediately the doors to Premiere and After Effects.
Click to expand...

I don't really think going from Redcode raw to cineform raw is a super great solution. I'd like to hear from a member of the Red team, to confirm this (that premiere and after effects can handle redcode raw).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top