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 :)

Large files - does not match up with recording time

P

Paul Jonathan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Just finished a weekend shoot with a Scarlet. We shot at 4k 6:1 Redcode. We were using a lot of media, so I sat down tonight and did the math. We rolled a total of 165 minutes which used up 579 GB of space. According the recording time calculation tool on red.com we should be getting around 213 minutes at those settings for that amount of disk space. Any ideas where the discrepancy comes from?

Thanks,
Paul
 
The discrepancy is the difference between 24fps and 30fps.
 
All the files show 23.976 fps in the metadata information in RCX and thats how they were recorded. Any other ideas?
 
Is it a formating/parity thing? If your footage is now located on a RAID 5 or 6, depending on the file system, it could be reporting file size including parity (aka data redundancy. Which could account for that size difference.
 
Hmm good idea, but I don't think thats the case. It's sitting on a RAID 1 Lacie Thunderbolt Little 2big. Is Finder maybe just giving me incorrect file sizes?
 
Is the metadata 23.976fps for Timebase or Record Framerate? Could you have been accidentally in Varispeed mode? You might not notice if you weren't recording on-camera sound.
 
ericyoung said:
Is the metadata 23.976fps for Timebase or Record Framerate? Could you have been accidentally in Varispeed mode? You might not notice if you weren't recording on-camera sound.
Click to expand...

Record frame rate is 23.976 all the way through. Any other options I might have left on that would hog additional disk space?

Paramon Ivanovich said:
RAID1 is mirroring, you should have two sets of the same files on the drives;
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware. I was just pointing out the redundancy/parity that Nick pointed out does not apply.

Really appreciate all the suggestions. Any other ideas? We still have another three days ahead of us next weekend and I'd rather not have to buy new media.
 
Did you record with HDRx on?
 
Are all clips the same settings? In terms of SSD's, how many do you have and at what size?
 
Yeah I went through each clip's meta data individually in RCX. We were using 5 64GB SSDs. Current reel number is 13, but thats because we switched media before lunch and at wrap, as well as not filling them up all the way.

I think Eric had the right idea since the discrepancy matches exactly with 30 fps vs 24fps, but the meta data shows 24 fps for everything..
 
Last edited:
Maybe sync some sound and see see if you have any drift? Perhaps do a grab in RCX and maybe somebody could spot something.

As you say, it's probably a good idea to get to the bottom of the discrepancy (that could be a number of things) before your next shoot.
 
You can rule out frame rate or duplicate file issues if you export one raw frame and check its file size and see if it fits with the calculator's calculations or with the actual size based on the total number of frames you believe you shot.

Or just do a check to see if one whole clip matches the file size you are expecting based on its duration.
 
Thanks for the advice everyone! Below is a screen grab of a single take. Duration matches up for 23.976 fps. Let me know if you see anything else thats suspicious. Haven't gotten around to sync audio yet, will try that later tonight.

The way I got to the total disk space was just adding up the size of each reel folder. Those folders only contain the .r3d and .rdm files in Finder or is there hidden data in those folders that I can't see? Maybe there is just something wrong with the way I am calculating how much data we used?

screen grab rxc.png
 
Last edited:
Paul Jonathan said:
Thanks for the advice everyone! Below is a screen grab of a single take. Duration matches up for 23.976 fps. Let me know if you see anything else thats suspicious. Haven't gotten around to sync audio yet, will try that later tonight.

The way I got to the total disk space was just adding up the size of each reel folder. Those folders only contain the .r3d and .rdm files in Finder or is there hidden data in those folders that I can't see? Maybe there is just something wrong with the way I am calculating how much data we used?

screen grab rxc.png
Click to expand...

How large is the R3D file you posted the metadata screenshot for? Should be about 2.3GB according to that calculator... What else is in those folders? Is it possible someone put something else in those folders? Transcoded files? Duplicate files? Did you check that your RDM folders on your hard drive match the size of the same RDM folder on the redmag?

Frankly, the calculator seems wrong to me, it implies that frames are only 10.5bits since 46MBps at 6:1 is 276MBps and 276MBps / 8.8MPpf / 24fps = 1.3 Bytes/pixel and 1.3Bpp * 8bits/byte = 10.5bit...

REDCODE is VBR from what I understand, so this may not be completely off, but perhaps the calculator is undershooting a bit too much. I did notice, for example, that the calculator says a 512GB redmag should hold 188min of 4K 24P RC6:1 but another chart lists the capacity as 173min. Neither are probably always correct.

In some brief tests I did a long time ago, I found that if you assume everything except bit depth is fixed and redcode's ratios are accurate, file sizes in REDCODE RAW files (normal footage, not stress testing) vary enough that if you calculate the bit depth, it would seem to vary at least from 10.5-12.5bits, probably a lot more for footage of extremely difficult or easy to compress content. Of course the reality is that bit depth is most likely fixed and that variation is actually in REDCODE's compression due to its VBR nature. Basically you should expect variation in REDCODE bitrates and treat 6:1 more like 5-7:1. For calculating file sizes and redmag capacities it might be better to make calculations assuming you were to use one step less compression so that you are safer.
 
Has windows been involved anywhere in your workflow? I've noticed that Phantom FLEX footage presents itself at a much higher size under OSX than on an NTFS drive.

For instance:

The Phantom FLEX camera has 16GB RAM.

Any unedited clips should be 16GB.

Because I don't store "Packed" CINE files, Windows reports (under NTFS) a size of like 18.*something*GB. This is expected but can bite you in the ass if you don't know.

Here's the funky part:

When I move them from NTFS drives to HFS+drives, they show up as 19.27GB.

Same file, plays correctly. No issues.

Different operating systems and file systems can display data sizes differently, with confusing and sometimes alarming effects.

Are your clips being looked at under Windows or OSX? Is the format of your LaCie drive NTFS, HFS+ or something else?

This also exposes a new question:

Is the RED tool calculating data for NTFS or HFS+?
 
Michael Romano said:
Is the RED tool calculating data for NTFS or HFS+?
Click to expand...

That is why you should always trust only the long version of the actual file size, written fully in bytes and not any size listed in MB, GB or "size on disk" etc. That size should always match to the byte, regardless of file system.
 
Michael Romano said:
Has windows been involved anywhere in your workflow? I've noticed that Phantom FLEX footage presents itself at a much higher size under OSX than on an NTFS drive.

For instance:

The Phantom FLEX camera has 16GB RAM.

Any unedited clips should be 16GB.

Because I don't store "Packed" CINE files, Windows reports (under NTFS) a size of like 18.*something*GB. This is expected but can bite you in the ass if you don't know.

Here's the funky part:

When I move them from NTFS drives to HFS+drives, they show up as 19.27GB.

Same file, plays correctly. No issues.

Different operating systems and file systems can display data sizes differently, with confusing and sometimes alarming effects.

Are your clips being looked at under Windows or OSX? Is the format of your LaCie drive NTFS, HFS+ or something else?

This also exposes a new question:

Is the RED tool calculating data for NTFS or HFS+?
Click to expand...

That's because Macs switched over to counting in Gibabytes a few years back rather than Gigabytes. It makes the amounts that Hard Drive Boxes stated (500GB, 250GB, 1TB, etc) match up when a consumer plugs in the drive.

However, it doesn't explain a difference of 50GB over the presumed 160GB of footage.
 
I'd be interested to know how you copied the media from the REDmags to the hard drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top