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 :)

Meet Schika....

Jan Heugel said:
I'm a bit confused about the lower part of this epic image...

As far as the "lines-tag" is concerned, I can not recognize them now on an Apple cinema display, but did so on my 2010 Macbookpro non glare display.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't see anything "strange" in that frame.
 
Bill Anderson said:
The tiger goes out of focus when I take my glasses off, what's up with that?
Click to expand...

Heh Heh thanks Bill.. my summation of the last couple pages was going to be much less friendly then yours.. good job :)
 
Michael Mann said:
As far as I understand Jan Heugel he seems perfectly familiar with motion blur but is referring to the posterization in the red channel.
Click to expand...

I see this in Jpegs all the time. They are lossy and I think they are more prone to concatenation errors due to their variability in quality settings when they're authored. This can cause error propagation since they are written progressively so when I see this type of patterning in the discreet channels, I don't automatically assume the source file is to blame.

I'm not a jpeg expert, but they do tend to get stuck on textures that have subtle repetition like the kitty's fur. If the artifacts in question were source related, we'd see a consistent repeat throughout the image anywhere the texture was recorded, unless the error occurred as a result of power fluctuation (but that would likely cause dropped frames and yield no take from which to pull such an image).

We can't be sure without an examination of the source file (which is mathematically lossless, BTW) but I doubt- since this is isolated to very small portions of the image- that any jpeg is an accurate reflection of the source file.

BTW, I couldn't find all of the "errors" that were called out-- I could only find a couple. To me it is a picture of a cat that can eat me and a fine one at that.
 
Maybe posting PNG screenshots (no compression) would solve the problem ?
 
Something about your color science..it just gets better and better....looks like a class A stills camera now in terms of the color quality.

damn nice.

Even in Premiere it's getting wicked now with the new support. amazing.
 
Benoît-Joan Clariana-Roig said:
Maybe posting PNG screenshots (no compression) would solve the problem ?
Click to expand...

An uncompressed image, like a TIFF or PNG does not really help judge RED images or footage. They all have been processed with REDcine or such. Posting a trimmed R3D file/image gives the most options to see the RAW image. But even then, REDs color science and processing just keeps getting better too over time.

RED does not own the copyright on this image, so forget getting a R3D of it.
It's just an example image of what a beta EPIC can do: "They're Gr-r-reat!" as Tony would say.
 
I see

I see

I see, to sum it up:

- I've been eaten by a scary tiger, sorry for the blood. ("No Dexter you still have to carve the people yourselve, now go home!")
- the Macbook-screen is crappy (Sorry guys, I like your concept, but we will all need a (external) class1)
- the whisker has motion blur on it, I din't see that due to misplacing my glasses - thanks for that
- posterization in the red channel - okay so what. I like it.

Vico Martin said:
RAAAAAAAAAAAWWWRRR!!!!!!
Click to expand...
:party:
 
Very Impressive...very good at all...just love to see Art's article and all the story about the tiger on 4k projection at RED Studio's.
Exciting times...
Thanks Jim and team to share this with us.
Any schedule to motion Tiger for average users's ?? ;)
Best,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top