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 :)

Name for R3D editing workflow

Kaku Ito

Kaku Ito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
2,803
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Age
65
Location
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
Website
www.dittok.info
Please, people, come up with the best editing environment name for R3D. Driving me nuts writing articles explaining about it in details every time.

RAW, Metadata, resolution independent, native workflow.... there are many words, but if we can consolidated that all to (close to) one word would be great. Please help :).
 
R3D W3rkf10w
 
Low Artifact High Dynamic Range Workflow or LAHDRW

Low Artifact High Dynamic Range Workflow or LAHDRW

Kaku Ito said:
but if we can consolidated that all to (close to) one word would be great.
Click to expand...

The RED ONE camera is not a true RAW sensor data recording camera, so you cannot say that R3D workflow is RAW workflow without qualification.

What makes the RED ONE different from say Canon 5DMkII, it is the so called 12 bit data, the RED ONE has High Dynamic Range, not so much as stacked exposures, but maybe more than more highly compressed recording systems.

So what makes the workflow for RED ONE better than some other workflows, what distinguishes it is Low Artifacts, yes some are there, but they are not major, and maybe being better than H.264 and such is notable, and High Dynamic Range, well maybe not as high as some, but high enough to be notable over some video recording systems, so you can abbreviate that as "LAHDRW" maybe pronounced as?

I think for the most part "R3D Workflow" is better since people will know what you are talking about. There is no one R3D workflow for the camera, I convert the R3D into TIF for use with my system, others convert the R3D into something else at some point in the Workflow, so there is no single R3D workflow.

If you have a specific workflow in mind, the add the names of the programs used to "R3D Workflow"?
 
Thanks all, we are getting there.

I had discussed with Paul & Ivan/Visceral Psyche today, and as Dan mentioned, including R3D in there and maybe include the word non-destructive, too, but it gets too long maybe.

LAHDRW sounds good. R3D workflow is good but people in Japan says, huh?, most of the time because they can't relate to the word R3D, it sounds foreign to them. For the marketing concept, if one comes up with a good name for things it helps the concept to sell more.

Maybe use the word RED might be better, since everyone knows the word RED, even in Japan. Roberto used the word there, Redvelation. Everybody has good points. Please keep coming.
 
REDetoxing....sorry, couldn't help myself.
 
Dan Hudgins said:
The RED ONE camera is not a true RAW sensor data recording camera, so you cannot say that R3D workflow is RAW workflow without qualification.
Click to expand...
What's not "truly RAW" about the Red One's recording system?

If you're referring to the fact that it's compressed, then you're mixing your definitions. There's nothing about RAW recording that specifies it must be uncompressed - that would be uncompressed RAW, whereas the Red records Redcode RAW. It's still RAW.

RAW simply means that no processing has been done to the image data - it's not been converted to RGB, no contrast or saturation changes have been made, no sharpening or filtration has occurred. Unintentional degradation of image data due to lossy compression does not change the fact that the data still represents the RAW recording from the chip - it's just a slightly less good recording of said data, not different data.

Another way to put it is that RAW specifies the type of data that's being recorded - not necessarily the quality of that data. Compression, on the other hand, regards the quality of the data, but not necessarily the type of data being stored.

Sorry if I've read you wrong, but I do get upset by all this talk of what is "true" this-that-or-the-other - RAW is RAW, compression is a whole different ballgame...

OK, rant over! :)
Dom.
 
Dominic Cochran said:
Just say native workflow, is it really that hard? I understand wanting to abbreviate, but I think it's more important to be clear.
Click to expand...

I actually said R3D native workflow in offline discussion, but some peeps don't think it's native. They think native should be full quality all the time.
 
RAW or processed

RAW or processed

Dominic Jones said:
What's not "truly RAW" about the Red One's recording system?
Click to expand...

True RAW data is what each photo sensor in the sensor senses, you get a 12bit value from each address within the image area.

That is not what R3D files record, or reproduce. The sensor data is "noise reduced" before being compressed in part to reduce the bandwidth and also to reduce some wavelet artifacts.

The wavelets themselves can alter the brightness values for each sensor pixel value, and so the altered brightness values induce altered chroma values through the de-mosaic process.

You can argue about what "visually lossless" means, and to who and at what distance the true RAW data is indistinguishable form REDCODE data, but that does not change the fact that if you have true RAW data and REDCODE data for a given frame you would be able to generate a difference error image to show where they diverge. How much those errors would be visable depends on how the image would be graded as any increase in contrast, saturation, and sharpness would exaggerate the errors.

My point was that the name for the workflow should include the fact that REDCODE workflow is not the same as "true RAW" data workflow, I did not say that one or the other was in all cases "better" for any given need, only that they are not one and the same thing. In fact there are many who prefer compressed data because it reduces storage space and speeds file loading and copying, even if it has some losses that do not seem to matter since all distribution now uses lossy compression anyway, none the less you do not call a gopher a squirrel just because YOU cannot see that they are not the same at some distance. Because the true RAW port was not made an option, we cannot compare the results from actual sensor data and processed REDCODE to see how much better the resulting images could be when all that can be derived from the sensor is there to process. Because the clip points and gammas are not under the control of the end user, one cannot use a optical filter to get white balance in order to use all 12bits of the sensor's dynamic range, most Bayer filters transmit more green than red or blue, so need a pink filter to maximize the dynamic range, something that so far is not possable using REDCODE with the de-mosaic programs that process R3D (as far as I can make out), if the clip points are not right you will get off color ringing because of the de-mosaic sharpen. With true RAW data there is no problem in adjusting your own de-mosaic settings for any optical filter's use. The fact that the RED programs have a DRX option shows that the output does not give the full 12bit range and that the white balance clips the data before chroma is fully processed.

The main thing "RAW" about the REDCODE data is that white balance is left to processing after the images are recorded into R3D files, whereas other compressed data formats like H.264 are "white" balanced before compression.

Before RED ONE came out there was talk of having a "true RAW" port on the camera, but it was over desigined and over priced so it was not finished or shipped. So at some point there was a distinction between "true RAW Bayer data" and REDCODE. Although they may refer to "RAW" in their literature because of its association with the maximum quality obtainable, what in fact REDCODE is more like JPG2000 of an image that is not yet white balanced. The de-mosaic used is not the same as one would use on true RAW data since the low pass filtering applied is tuned to suppress the wavelet artifacts. If all RAW should mean is "not yet white balanced" then almost anything including JPG could be called RAW for marketing. True RAW sensor data is just that nothing more, nothing less, not so called "lossless" this or that that is in reality lossy.

==

On the subject, I like the sound of "REDiting" but it does not say what workflow that might be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top