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 :)

Peter Jackson clips and grabs...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jannard said:
We could post TIFFs, but download size is a problem. We'll probably do that for a couple of them.

Jim
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be too bad as a torrent though. There is enough interest to make that fly. 16 bit Tiffs would be great

M
 
Jannard said:
We have a problem here... to package this stuff (including the clip) to a size that is downloadable, it just will NOT look as good as the 4K footage. We'll post, but need some understanding until we can figure out a better way to deal with 8 bit delivery to all of you. The 12 bit is incredible.

Jm
Click to expand...

Jim,

do you get color banding by going down from 12 to 8 bit?
If yes, I'd suggest dithering (like Floyd-Steinberg) for doing the down-conversion. In Fusion this is an easy task using the Krokodove free Dither plugin. I am sure you have something similar on hand for the Mac's.

The problem is always that you scrutinize compression efficiency with any kind of unwanted additional noise, like dithering. This is just not very effective. MPEG for instance will try to smooth out this again.

I'd really like to see full color depth 16 bit LZW/ZIP TIFF files to download.

I'd also like to see at least a single entire shot in full 4K as download sequence if at all possible. Maybe this can be done via the torrent solution.

From here (germany) the red.com server is completely unreachable. Bad, really bad. I guess I need to wait until the rest of the US went to bed again :)

What kind of bandwidth / connection do you have (if the question is allowed)?

Thanks,

Axel
 
fabulous pictures! The jpg compresion is present. But thats what you expect of that format. I cant wait to see some movies with this cam. To bad I never manage to go to NAB. A big cheerio to the red team!
 
jbeale said:
Maybe with really high-resolution images, in smooth out-of-focus areas, 8 bits is just not enough to avoid visible posterization.
Click to expand...
Apple's new ProRes codec is 10-bit and should help with that issue considerably, as both a 'proxy' as well as a delivery codec. My guess is that the excess compression we are seeing in these stills is due to the JPG compression; I saw the film up close as well and saw nothing like the results I'm seeing from the stills on the web. I really appreciate the speed at which the Red team is getting these online for people to see, but I also feel that they aren't doing the footage justice in some way. I don't even remember this much compression on the milk girl shots - are they just being compressed heavily to avoid thousands of people hammering the server? If so, we need to find another way - because the point of posting the clips is to show off how amazing the quality is. Shrinking the file sizes for the web, while efficient, defeats the original purpose.

jbeale said:
I think one thing is, I'm used to seeing images that have more grain or noise, and that gives you a natural "dither" to smooth out any banding or posterization. Super clean images without added noise need a higher bit depth to give you visually smooth effects.

Can we get an option to add noise? :-)
Click to expand...
It's just one guy's opinion, but my guess is that when you see the footage projected you'll be stunned at how clean and beautiful the pictures are. I also honestly believe that as new generations of film audiences become accustomed to movies shot with cameras like RED, "noise" and "grain" are going to become undeisred artifacts of the past, associated with an archaic format that will be used less and less as time marches on. Sure, plenty of people will still shoot film - some will have aesthetic reasons for using it, while others will probably view it as a "purer" medium (being that it's analog) like vinyl has in the world of audio - but I do wager that the majority will be shooting digitally sooner than later.

Apple actually had a ProRes demonstration in their booth which ironically had this very same Red footage displayed on one monitor and an uncompressed 2K film scan on the other. The biggest difference I noticed immidiately was that the amount of grain in the film sample looked downright ridiculous compared to the stuff shot with RED. It reminded me of one of those Disney DVD commercials where they remaster the old film footage and they show you side-by-side clips of the original and the restored movie that's clean and vibrant and everything you'd want your four-year-old to see. Granted, I have no idea what the film was they were showing and the grain could've been intensified by an older, less dense stock, but the point remains that the RED images are pristine and beautiful, won't degrade one bit (pun intended) after multiple copies get sent out across the world, and have enough resolution (finally) to hold up to pretty much anything else that's shot out there. RED ONE isn't the "end" - we'll of course continue to get bigger and bigger, and find better ways to display this stuff - but what it does mark is the first time digital really has a viable alternative to a format that has been in use for nearly a hundred years. As soon as this hurdle was overcome in the still market, it took much less than a decade for the world's professional photographers to "make the switch," as they say.

No, the biggest problem here is that RED has made a beautiful 4K camera and a lot of people are still going to be distributing the stuff they shoot with it on regular ol' DVD. How painful is that reality? The advent of Blu-ray will surely help, but even that tops out at less than a quarter of resolution of 4K (and even worse, is encoded at 8-bit, 4:2:0!). RED needs to get those 4K displays out as fast as possible if they want people to truly see the magic of the RED ONE. My guess is they know this and that's why they are moving forward with such a venture. All I can say is god bless them... it would be 2050 before Sony or Panasonic got around to making one.
 
8 bit, 4:2:0??? Ouch. I have only seen a bit of Blu Ray so I can't really judge but that's not very good. :S For a next gen format you'd think the color space would be up there too...

Yash
 
PJ's short film

PJ's short film

I did not see the RED/PJ short, but judging from the pictures posted, I think some of the shots [or all] were heavily graded and/or treated. Is that right? Some of them look like paintings (e.g. 'watercolor' photoshop filter or something).
 
How about delivering some stills with 16bit png files?

Cheers,
Pete
 
DG725 said:
I did not see the RED/PJ short, but judging from the pictures posted, I think some of the shots [or all] were heavily graded and/or treated. Is that right?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think it's safe to say that the footage was graded in some way to acheive a look they were happy with. Some people seem to really like it, others don't. But that's all completely subjective and the beauty is that you have the flexibility when shooting RAW to really push it in whatever direction you like. Also remember that the team only had a week and a half to get this stuff finished... I think they did a pretty remarkable job.
 
Brook Willard said:
The posterization and similar effects are a result of the JPG compression [at least I fully expect they are]. Remember, they cranked 12-bit all the way down to 8-bit for this distribution.
Click to expand...
JPEG compression artifacts produce macroblocking, not posterization.

jbeale said:
With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo
http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/002318.jpg
the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser. Does anyone else see this?
Click to expand...
The more I look at that image, the more I think it was uprezzed to 4K using S-spline interpolation from a lower resolution JPEG-encoded image. This would explain what we are seeing, and the effect is really noticeable on the numbers in the tail section.

Could the person responsible for the image explain the workflow he used to convert this image?
 
Chris,

Unrelated but I just wanted to say you've got a really superb website there and some beautiful shots! Very nice and an inspiration! :D

Yash
 
Right on Haakon.
-A
 
Yash Keough said:
Chris,

Unrelated but I just wanted to say you've got a really superb website there and some beautiful shots! Very nice and an inspiration! :D

Yash
Click to expand...

Awww shucks...:blush: Thanks! I made it myself in Notepad (I do web design old skool!) I can't wait to have a chance at using this camera, I have my first feature film pending (waiting on investors...), and I requested a Red One to work with:sorcerer: Hopefully that $$ will come thru!:biggrin:
 
Desert Rune said:
compression artifacts produce macroblocking, not posterization.
Click to expand...


exactly right. The strangeness in these images is not to do with jpg compression, it looks like something totally different.

I wouldnt jump to conclusions and say that there is some interpolating going on here, especially as it isnt evident in the milk girls pic. I wonder if the pablo grade introduced some artifacts? or whether some noise reduction has maybe been applied in the grading process

Like I say it could be just some strange setting on export. For clarity I just looked at a 1.8Mb jpg still from my Canon 350D (3456 x 2304) -no artifacts of any kind and thats 1/4 of the size of these Red jpgs.
 
I'm seeing stuff in them that I've never seen before, so it's probably best filed under "alpha camera, alpha images". But boy are they not beautiful though! The movie that PJ made was the nicest alpha test footage I've ever seen - let's not forget that.

Graeme
 
Wow, these are genius! You guys have a winning camera on your hands!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top