Maybe moving to RED Komodo, Couple of questions about the R3D RAW.

[Samuel Bignell]

Hey All!

Some of these must have been posted before could not find them, this is basically a few questions.
I've been using and shooting on Sony for 3-5 Years, I love the RED footage and with the Komodo being the most affordable RED so I'm actually super interested.

• What is the True Benefit of 16-Bit over 10-bit or 12-bit especially when I know factually my content won't end up on the big screen, probably no more than Vimeo, YouTube or Instagram!
• Does it make any sense at all to shoot on a 16-bit Camera to transcode to ProRes for 90% of the projects I do?

10-Bit feels like the gold standard for easy to work with footage at 1.07 Billion Colors and there and ARRI and Blackmagic can shoot up to 12-Bit 68.68 Billion woah! Then...
There's RED at feken! 16-Bit 281 Trillion Colors That is insane.

Thanks!!
-Samuel

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

My two cents: more bits = more insurance just in case you fuck up a shot. But you have a point: a lot of people are happy with 10-bit 4:2:2. I'd probably be shooting ProRes as well.

As a photographer I'd love to replace RAW with HEIF or JP2K. Stills cameras are 10 years behind in this department. Maybe more. Only a few cameras are offering something better than JPEG.

 

[David Peterson]

As you get more bits then the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

For instance, in my world of sound, you could with great care record fantastic 16bit tracks. But 24bit really is a lot better, but you don't need more! Not except in some really extreme scenarios. (or simply people who don't know what they're doing) And 32bits is going to be good enough for 99.99999999999% of everything. 64bits? Forget about it!

As for the video world, we can agree that we want more than 8bit, and over 16bit is overkill, but where is the optimal sweet point between those two for you? That's subjective to an extent, and up to you.

 

[Sergio Perez]

As you get more bits then the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

For instance, in my world of sound, you could with great care record fantastic 16bit tracks. But 24bit really is a lot better, but you don't need more! Not except in some really extreme scenarios. (or simply people who don't know what they're doing) And 32bits is going to be good enough for 99.99999999999% of everything. 64bits? Forget about it!

As for the video world, we can agree that we want more than 8bit, and over 16bit is overkill, but where is the optimal sweet point between those two for you? That's subjective to an extent, and up to you.

Its about future proofing your footage too.

With Komodo you're getting a "negative" that has information that goes well into most advancements coming in Home and theatre entertainment. Excluding obviously 8K, Komodo footage goes great for an HDR and Wide color gamut workdflow and grading environment.

Also, if you're thinking of pulling stills from footage, the R3D files provide an amazing and "juicy" negative to pull off some pretty amazing stills. I've personally had soe r3d's printed in some pro calendars (Epic Dragon, Helium and Monstro) and personally have a 1 meter and a half print in my Home from a Monstro frame. The same color information applies to both files and sharpness at 6K (20+ megapixels) is more than enough.

 

[David Peterson]

Its about future proofing your footage too.

"Future proofing" is waaaay overrated, for 97% of us then 97% of what we shoot becomes irrelevant within a few years (if not months).

Nobody will want to remaster that music video you did 5yrs ago, or a TVC from a couple of years ago, or re-release that $5 million dollar feature film you shot.

 

[Sergio Perez]

"Future proofing" is waaaay overrated, for 97% of us then 97% of what we shoot becomes irrelevant within a few years (if not months).

Nobody will want to remaster that music video you did 5yrs ago, or a TVC from a couple of years ago, or re-release that $5 million dollar feature film you shot.

Not for you, but let me give you a very real and current scenario I’m in.

I have shot the Macau Grand Prix with Reds since 2012. This means every driver/rider, winner, car, Racing I have it in above 5K resolution (and some super slow motion shots).

Currently I’m working on many new films for the Macau Grand Prix Museum that is due to open soon, including a Theatre Experience.

What this means is that from the current crop of Formula 1, Formula E or WTCR Champions and talents who most have passed through here, I have ultra HD R3D footages of them racing here, including the likes of Max Verstappen, Sainz Jr, Felix Da Costa, Charles Leclerc, etc.

All these footages Look as if they were shot today. Footage from 8 years ago. So you can be sure this provides material for some amazing , through the years videos. And one hell of a theatre experience.

Another example: I’m working on a Tourism Promotional Video. Shots I’ve made of Macau since 2012 work seamlessly with the new material with proper grading thanks to the beauty of R3D . The whole project is being mastered in HDR.

These are obviously specific cases related to myself.

If you think your footage has no usage for the future, than obviously disregard it.

For me it has been the best ecosystem and image capture system and no other has been comparable.

 

[M Harvey]

Samuel, these are good questions. I think that the best thing to do would be to download some R3D clips yourself and try playing with them in your editing/grading software. That will tell you a lot about whether there's value there for you.

I can't speak with much expertise about 12-bit Arri/Blackmagic vs. 16-bit Red (vs. Mavo vs. Panasonic vs. Venice...), I do have a fair amount of experience with the 10-bit codec of the Sony FS7. I think the Cine EI mode on the FS7 (and more recent Sony cameras) produces a really nice image. But when you need to make significant color shifts, the extra information and capabilities of R3D make the resulting footage look a lot better, likely allows you to get closer to your original intention. A simple example that we've probably all encountered: the sun is going down, and you know you'll need to match that footage back to other daylight footage. Properly exposed footage from an FS7 and a Scarlet W can look pretty similar, but the R3D files just retain more underlying information, and that information can be useful.

All that said: I don't personally feel that everything needs to exist in 16-bit (or even 12-bit) raw. While it's alway possible that the panel you filmed for a local college features someone who becomes the prime minister 10 years later, you think about your storage and processing resources and do your best. And 10-bit ProRes of an interview shot under controlled lighting conditions will be just fine for most purposes.

 

[Benjamin Reece]

Not for you, but let me give you a very real and current scenario I’m in.

I have shot the Macau Grand Prix with Reds since 2012. This means every driver/rider, winner, car, Racing I have it in above 5K resolution (and some super slow motion shots).

Currently I’m working on many new films for the Macau Grand Prix Museum that is due to open soon, including a Theatre Experience.

What this means is that from the current crop of Formula 1, Formula E or WTCR Champions and talents who most have passed through here, I have ultra HD R3D footages of them racing here, including the likes of Max Verstappen, Sainz Jr, Felix Da Costa, Charles Leclerc, etc.

All these footages Look as if they were shot today. Footage from 8 years ago. So you can be sure this provides material for some amazing , through the years videos. And one hell of a theatre experience.

Another example: I’m working on a Tourism Promotional Video. Shots I’ve made of Macau since 2012 work seamlessly with the new material with proper grading thanks to the beauty of R3D . The whole project is being mastered in HDR.

These are obviously specific cases related to myself.

If you think your footage has no usage for the future, than obviously disregard it.

For me it has been the best ecosystem and image capture system and no other has been comparable.

THIS is a strong argument. And it makes me sad to think about all the places I traveled around the world and didn't buy a RED and brought A7S/5Ds etc with me instead. Luckily my brother bought a RED and went on a few trips/shoots with me and THOSE look like they were shot yesterday/"filmic".

If anything, I never want to make this mistake again and its why the latest tech isn't always what matters. Its true engineering and prowess that RED was and perhaps still is years ahead of the completion - and yes, at a higher price. But when you spend your life around creating video/film. Why wouldn't you do it to the best of your abilities?

My priorities used to be wrong in this regard. Don't make the same mistake as me.

I wish I had a Monstro or LF lol.

 

[Samuel Bignell]

Thanks for all the responses! Really helpful stuff!

Samuel, these are good questions. I think that the best thing to do would be to download some R3D clips yourself and try playing with them in your editing/grading software. That will tell you a lot about whether there's value there for you.

I can't speak with much expertise about 12-bit Arri/Blackmagic vs. 16-bit Red (vs. Mavo vs. Panasonic vs. Venice...), I do have a fair amount of experience with the 10-bit codec of the Sony FS7. I think the Cine EI mode on the FS7 (and more recent Sony cameras) produces a really nice image. But when you need to make significant color shifts, the extra information and capabilities of R3D make the resulting footage look a lot better, likely allows you to get closer to your original intention. A simple example that we've probably all encountered: the sun is going down, and you know you'll need to match that footage back to other daylight footage. Properly exposed footage from an FS7 and a Scarlet W can look pretty similar, but the R3D files just retain more underlying information, and that information can be useful.

All that said: I don't personally feel that everything needs to exist in 16-bit (or even 12-bit) raw. While it's always possible that the panel you filmed for a local college features someone who becomes the prime minister 10 years later, you think about your storage and processing resources and do your best. And 10-bit ProRes of an interview shot under controlled lighting conditions will be just fine for most purposes.

I did do a lot of testing with Komodo footage, I transcoded it into ProRes 8-bit, 10-bit, 12-bit and .R3D 12-bit & 16-bit
I then pushed the footage grade, I could see a strong difference between 8-bit and 10-bit, little difference between 10-bit and 12-bit and negligible between 12-bit and 16-bit
Felt like a diminishing return happens at 10-bit struggled to justify means to 16-bit viewed on an 8-bit monitor haha!

 

[Enrique Blein]

"Future proofing" is waaaay overrated, for 97% of us then 97% of what we shoot becomes irrelevant within a few years (if not months).

Nobody will want to remaster that music video you did 5yrs ago, or a TVC from a couple of years ago, or re-release that $5 million dollar feature film you shot.

Absolutely, in 20 years I've never gone back to sell or use any footage.
And to say that more bits helps you recover a shot...well, that's the least of my worries, not bragging, I'm sure everybodu here exposes well, I mean, how blind can you be? It's not a negative we are exposing for later developing. So, get the most latitude + 10 bit 4:2:2 for the least money: Sony A7s III !!!!

 

[David Rasberry]

Current generation premium HDR consumer TV's support 12 bit 4:4:4 media input though most only display 10 bit. Consider that capturing 16 bit or 12 bit raw gives you far better access to the camera's full uncompressed dynamic range and color gamut for grading when you compress those values into 8-bit or 10 bit delivery codecs. It is useful for fine toning of values in near white highlights and in deep shadow so that you retain shading, color and texture that would otherwise be lost with lower sample captures.
The best analogy for future proofing I can think of is syndication of old TV series from the 50's through the 80's. Pretty much the only ones that are still running were originated on film, not video. The quality difference is enormous as is the income potential over time.
Don't sell yourself short. 16 bit or 12 bit raw formats like R3D are the most space efficient means of archiving really high quality stock footage that is quality independent of the particular codecs or display technology used to view it at any particular moment in time, now or in the future.