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 :)

Raw...

When can I start shooting this RAW, r3d format from a Scarlet? I'd love to take it to Europe with me in 3 weeks.
 
I've been transcoding D90 motion and their 720 takes twice as long as 4k R3Ds!

No comparison on any level, any scale, any workflow. RAW (R3D) wins hands down.
 
The one point I have always stressed with people in understanding why shooting RAW is so important is the fact that the digital file we shoot today will look even better int he future as the color science changes.

I am not sure how much people will appreciate that until they realize a few years from now that the footage they shot today can actually and will look better int eh future.

People have a hard time understanding that once the image is RAW then you can improve they way that image is extracted.

This is one of the coolest things about RED. Period.

David
 
True RAW data port on Brains

True RAW data port on Brains

If you put a true RAW data port on the Brains, and that just needs to be a 14pin to 25pin connector not some optical nonsense, then 3rd party companies can make true RAW recorders at low cost.

It would cost less than $20 to add a true RAW data port for the sensor data to your cameras, maybe $50 if your chips have multi-readout, a small circuit would be needed to make the data parallel with the pixels in order.

If one can get the true RAW data, then all the issues that REDCODE introduces can be avoided. And I do mean true RAW data, bad pixels and all, with 100% sensor data to be used to extract sub-pixel resolution and detail from the noise etc. things that REDCODE prevents because of the wavelet artifacts and de-noise used before compression.

Another option is to make a module that goes between the Brain and the recording module that acts as a "Shoot then Dump" buffer. For making feature films a record time to DRAM or FLASH of one minute at 24fps would be all that is needed for a buffer module, the existing bandwidth of your current recording modules would be able to offload the buffer in less than 4 minutes, probably. The buffer could act as a large FIFO, that fills when shooting and dumps when you stop filmming (or does both so it fills slower since it would offload while loading).

Being able to adjust one's own de-moasic software lets one shoot with a pink filter to get the full 12 or 14bits of sensor range in all shots, without the losses (of dynamic range and noise) introduced by white blalance in software.
 
To be fair and honest, as Dan is alluding to, REDCODE is a compressed version of RAW. It is a very good compression to be sure, but the data is altered from what the sensor sees however minimally.

RAW is great, but there are applications and reasons for using all formats. I would say that the vast majority of news shooters using RAW digital cameras from Nikon and Canon are actually shooting JPEGS ecause they need the space and speed of workflow. There is justification for all in this market.

Not everyone needs to drive a Ferrari. Some do just fine wth a well-designed Honda. A Lumix GH-1 may just suit someone's needs and a Scarlet can easily not be enough for someone else. There's a place for everything and there is a place for all forms of codecs. This is coming from a guy who deals daily in an uncompressed RAW camera the Phantom. I adore RAW and what it can provide, but it's not for everybody.
 
I went to my local independent camera store yesterday, considering buying a 5d m2 instead of getting my beloved (though non-existent) scarlet 2/3.

After 5 minutes, not only did the jello make me queazy, but the compression visible on the tiny 3 inch lcd made me sick.

Dont need to tell me RAW is better! After grading R3D footage, I cant even tolerate ProRes anymore!

So now I continue waiting as I have since Dec. 3rd, when I stayed up all night (and skipped History of Photography) to see the history happen :thumbsup:
 
Jim,

RAW is great if you want maximum control of your image in post and I look forward to owning a scarlet and doing just that.
But there are times when you don't want this.

For example, if you are shooting an actor's reading or panning around a possible location or sketching together a video storyboard. All of these situations an mpeg off a camera such as a GH1 is much more attractive option. I can copy it and pass it to the relevant person in seconds.

Now you may not want to fill this need with scarlet ... fair enough there are other cameras ... but it would be nice for people like me if you do. I would love to see FF720p, FF480p as well as the current spec of FF1080p all to a non raw format in addition to the REDCODE RAW.

This would widen the scope of applications. Scarlets can be a directors best friend as well as a DoP's best friend.
 
Jannard said:
2. RAW color science is not "baked in". For example, the new color science being tested now (see thread on RED ONE General) can be used to go back and make old footage better! And if we improve color science again, it will always be useful for all footage shot... not just new footage. Compression standards like AVCHD or H.264 are likely to change going forward. RAW is forever.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's really great!

I was wondering the same thing.

:thumbsup:
 
It is true that capturing in very high quality compressed versions of Raw might not be for everybody (which by the way I have no objections to at all).

Howerver, I can see the point of this thread which is to let people know that there is a difference. Some people don't seem to appreciate the difference.
 
Hold up. Are you suggesting that the stuff i shot in early test under too little lighting may look better once i use this new color science? if this is correct, this will be truly the first time in my life that something electronic has caused my mind to be blown.
 
Mitch Gross said:
To be fair and honest, as Dan is alluding to, REDCODE is a compressed version of RAW. It is a very good compression to be sure, but the data is altered from what the sensor sees however minimally.

RAW is great, but there are applications and reasons for using all formats. I would say that the vast majority of news shooters using RAW digital cameras from Nion and Canon are actually shooting JPEGS ecause they need the space and speed of workflow. There is justification for all in this market.
.
Click to expand...

Not if they are shooting color. With the big cards and sat links, most of the folks I know are shooting RAW.
 
Ian Laurie said:
Hold up. Are you suggesting that the stuff i shot in early test under too little lighting may look better once i use this new color science? if this is correct, this will be truly the first time in my life that something electronic has caused my mind to be blown.
Click to expand...

I did an aerial shoot last month. The Red was mounted in a housing on the wing - no adjustments possible. 1 stop under exposed at dawn. Looked perfect. By 9 am I was two stops over exposed. When I looked at the RAW file, it seemed blown out and unusable. I changed color space in Red Alert, and suddenly it was beautiful. RAW rocks!
 
James Brundige said:
I did an aerial shoot last month. The Red was mounted in a housing on the wing - no adjustments possible. 1 stop under exposed at dawn. Looked perfect. By 9 am I was two stops over exposed. When I looked at the RAW file, it seemed blown out and unusable. I changed color space in Red Alert, and suddenly it was beautiful. RAW rocks!
Click to expand...

wow that really is amazing.
 
For features, Fiction, and even documentary when time is not an issue, nothing beats RAW.

The advantage of the other formats, like AVC-Intra, XDCAM 4:2:2, H264, etc. is Speed- No need for demosaic, color balance a "vanilla" picture, etc. The RED will be able to do this, if my understanding is correct, by adding the 4k Red Rocket on the Editing machine.

So, back to the new generation of cameras, like the 5d Mark II. Like someone said, its a matter of economics: a 2k USD 5D Mark II can give a spectacular picture, well beyond what anyone can achieve with a Sub 12k camera right now (dinamic range, low light, resolution, bokeh, even compression- losing to maybe AVCINTRA and being probably on par with XDCAM EX). Is it superior (in teory, since the Scarlet only exists on paper) to a Scarlet? Obvioulsy not, but will it, with high end post production and having been used and well lit by a good DP, look that much worse? I don't think so.

Of course I would love to be able to shoot Scarlet and RAW- but the complete package, following previously announced pricings, for an S35 Scarlet is 7k Body only. I'll have to add to that the LCD, sound and in out module, and also add the RED Rocket if I want a DVCPRO HD/ PRO RES like performance in editing. This will take me beyond 15k, at least.

However, the big comparison here shouldn't be the Scarlet with the 5d. In fact, a 5d would probably be an excelent perspective camera (car mounts, extreme shots etc.) for a Scarlet shot feature. The main competition should be from Canon's video division.

If rumours are to be true, Canon is preparing a new entry into the prosumer camcorder market. Following the incredible surprise of the 5d Mark II video performance and firmware update, we can expect an APSC sized sensor XL ( S35 ), probably with either the same h264 encoding or something better (cineform?). This will be sub 10k with everything the XL series camcorders have to offer right now, and, obviously, optimized for Video.

Jim, I'm saying this as a potential and eager Scarlet buyer. Its a matter of value for money. Features and blockbusters have been shot with XL H1 and distributed in theatres. Some acclaimed directors over here (Hong-Kong) are using the 5d Mark II for some interesting projects. Yes, different tools, but with today post-production being so powerful, if you have a clean sensor and picture, manipulation can be done in a way that allows for a high quality image that can be displayed in theatres- heck, how was the Phantom Menace shot?

I would love to see a complete S35 Scarlet kit with some form of RED Rocket for sub 10k. Maybe this is asking too much. Maybe sub 12k?
 
Ryan Valle said:
Also, AVCHD and H.264 is a pain in the butt to edit :)
Click to expand...
When using Avid MC, they are easier to edit than .R3D. All of them require transcoding, but at least when AVCHD is transcoded it has audio.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
There are vast differences in different raw formats because nobody can agree on the "best" way to do things, and what metadata to store, and how that metadata should work to process the image. We add further to RAW by developing a RAW format suitable for motion imagery, with a compression scheme that looks great at the kind of data rates that allow 4k 24fps RAW onto a compact flash card.

Some of the image processing we do is unique - like DRX, which I don't see in other RAW converters and was indeed developed specifically for RED because of problems we saw in partially clipped colors in those other RAW converters.

To get even more complex, different demosaic algorithms are more suitable for video than they are for stills, as some artifacts which some might think acceptable on stills stand out more in motion.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Bad ass Greame. Exactly. its all about motion. reminds me of
Raiders of the Lost Ark
"they are digging in the wrong place"
 
Tell all your friends... :-)

Jim
 
Not sure how many 733t speakers peruse this here form. So I thought I should point out the obvious. R3D is RED in 733t(leet) speak.

Its a funny way of branding the format. I thought it was quiet cool.
 
this is all very nice.. but bring the cameras!! :violent:

edit
scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet.. scarlet..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top