Raw...

[Steven Caesare]

Look Redcode Raw is amazing but it really isn't raw. It is compressed, information is thrown away. I'd rather use it than raw actually because of the data rate but it seems a little disingenuous to go on about how great raw is when that's not what the cameras record.

I don't think RED has ever attempted to misrepreset what REDCode is: compressed RAW.

In the context of this thread, the virtues of REDCode (as opposed to other "RAW" formats), is that it is truly UNPROCESSED as far as the image transforms typically applied to images: gamma, color space, etc...

Now, if you want to share concerns about the compression, other such threads have been started, and I'm sure you could resurrect one of them and continue.

And if anything, the previous addition of REDCode34 and the current "Color Science" initiative demonstrates that RED takes all such concerns about image quality quite serious, no matter where they may lie.

-Steve

 

[Vico Martin]

obviously we need more 3rd party.

The actual HRD soft is focused in stills, a hard work in a normal production.

Anyway this is the most important advantage working with RAW, this is the limit of the HDCAMSRs, they record the signal behind a DSP, a single Gamma is applied.

RAW rules!

 

[Lee Fingersh]

Why is everyone capitalizing "raw" like it's an acronym? It isn't, it's just a word.

raw
Pronunciation:
\ˈrȯ\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
raw·er Listen to the pronunciation of rawer \ˈrȯ(-ə)r\ ; raw·est Listen to the pronunciation of rawest \ˈrȯ-əst\
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English hrēaw; akin to Old High German hrō raw, Latin crudus raw, cruor blood, Greek kreas flesh
Date:
before 12th century

1: not cooked2 a (1): being in or nearly in the natural state : not processed or purified <raw fibers> <raw sewage> (2): not diluted or blended <raw spirits> b: unprepared or imperfectly prepared for use c: not being in polished, finished, or processed form <raw data> <a raw draft of a thesis>

 

[Graeme Nattress]

RED tends to capitalize things.

Graeme (or is that REDGraeme)

 

[Mathias Seebacher]

Then give us the possibility to shoot raw (Those who can't afford Red 1)

Waiting for Scarlet since more than a year now.

Regards

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

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.

Holy cow Dan... You're a knowledge machine man.

I just keep saving your posts to study and learn a lot from them.

 

[David Rasberry]

We're not bashing the 5D because it competes with RED in any form. We're bashing it because it produces video that is inferior in quality to just about any 3-chip HD video camera out there, except for low light sensitivity and the DOF flexibility afforded by a larger sensor. Some place high value on those two characteristics and are willing to put up with the many shortcomings of the 5D to get them.

 

[David Doko]

I think Jim's original post anyway was not knocking Canon, but rather highlighting the advantages of RED raw. I believe he's a Canon fan too (for stills).
The other members are probably probably responding to some other threads comparing the Lumix GH1 / 5D2 with the specs of the Scarlet, without really seeing them as apples and oranges.

Graeme, you should be a lawyer. I'm still waiting on your closing arguments!

 

[Robert Frank]

I think Jim's original post anyway was not knocking Canon, but rather highlighting the advantages of RED raw. I believe he's a Canon fan too (for stills).

That's what I got out of this thread too.

 

[Obin Olson]

I could not agree more, however is this not old news Jim?

I am working with(or rather fighting) this avchd in a Lumix HG1..great cam, awful compression!

can't do shit in post with compressed images like you can with RAW. NO comparison. period.

 

[Obin Olson]

i'll be shooting tons of remote control helicopter footage soon...what will I use? the only product on the market that is small and can use good glass...a 5d....wishing I had RAW all the time for a SMALL camera! awesome POV shots etc I can't get with a Red due to size.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Obin, a bit off-topic, but... with all the motion a helo can yield, aren't you concerned about the 5D2's severe jello-cam effect? Have you tested it on a helo before?

Just wondering...

 

[Steven Caesare]

I don't get why you guys from RED feel the need to keep defending yourself and bashing the 5DII.

Probably 95% of 5DII owners will trade up for a Scarlet if it is as good as it sounds on paper, so you have no need to waste your energies berating a camera that is doing a good (but not great) job for most people now, but will be redundant (or a B cam) when Scarlet is launched.

Forget about the competition and get to work ;-)

On topic, as a photographer moving into film/video... raw footage sounds simply amazing.

I think in many of the posts involving the 5DII, you'll find that somebody has compared it to the Scarlet first (see post #2, then 12 in this thread).

If someobdy wants to compare, then the comparison should include all aspects.

 

[Stu Mannion]

It is compressed RAW and it maintains all the same flexibility of grading and exposure latitude as uncompressed RAW. Doesn't seem disingenuous to me... seems ingenious, though.

Jim

Good comeback. I asked for that.

 

[Nick Andreetta]

I could not agree more, however is this not old news Jim?

I am working with(or rather fighting) this avchd in a Lumix HG1..great cam, awful compression!

can't do shit in post with compressed images like you can with RAW. NO comparison. period.

AVCHD has been around for three years now and a search on Google for conversion solutions mainly turns up suggestions that the user purchase a $40 program for the sole purpose of making these files usable. Now, certainly there are other methods that are cost-free these days, but the fact that there are numerous forums of nonplussed users who are paying for additional software to get their cameras to function in a basic way is pretty ridiculous. I've been helping my friend with his AVCHD camcorder and once I finally found a way to convert the silly MTS files (capturing through iMovie instead of Final Cut for whatever reason), the footage still looked like rubbish.

Did I mention that I'm ready for raw and for Scarlet?

 

[Sergio Perez]

Graeme, thanks for the response to my 5d post in page 5. It is important to clear some misconceptions about the 5d and your positioning and commitment on your new, upcoming products.

A question concerning current RED workflow from a P2 man: On a Mac, with FCP, would I be able to create HD (1080p) content today and edit with the ease and speed I'm editing in prores and DVCPRO HD?

I've wanted a RED ONE camera since, well, day one. But it just didn't make economical sense for my business of TV Spots, event Coverage and my own independent creative projects. Not only was the aprox. 28k basic package of Red One plus battery, LCD, recording media and non optimal Still lenses a big big stretch for my budget, but the investment I would have to make to upgrade all my support gear designed for lightweight cameras would jump the RED package price beyond 40k. Just not realistic for a small production business.

The Scarlet, however, from what you guys have posted, seemed like a dream come true. 15k is still a big stretch, but manageable, for a production ready package.

However, Canon really did a good job on the 5d2. Its a 2k USD camera that's FF! And it really produces beautiful images. Does it have problems? Sure. Its limited? Of course. But can it be used professionaly? Can it be used for digital cinema? Professionals and acclaimed directors are using it right now. This trully means something, don't you think?

I'm ready to fork out the money for the Scarlet, Graeme. I really am. But It needs to absolutely smoke the competition. Not to sound arrogant, but I've been able to produce great looking International TV Spots with HVX200's. Its shortcomings are resolution, low light, 8bit codec and no interchangeable lenses (this problem was solved with a 35mm adapter).

In order to fork out 3x more (from my 5k bill of my HVX), I'm really expecting a Scarlet that will smoke both my 3/4 years old HVX and the 2k 5dMarkII in pure picture performance, workflow, and operation. Am I asking too much?

I'm, of course, confident on your response. I'm confident you'll be delivering this year a product like no other on the market. You'll be introducing new features to the announced ones, and hopefully, fantastic packages/bundles for particular production environments.

I'm just pushing you guys for more info, for a confirmation of your commitment to the new products, for your reasurance that the Scarlet is, point for point, feature for feature, years ahead of the competition. As a potential buyer, I cannot be reminded enough!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Compression standards like AVCHD or H.264 are likely to change going forward. RAW is forever.

Jim

??? But REDCode standards change too. RAW in an open, non proprietary and accessible format is forever. How is r3d any different from any other codec? I thought the battle cry was "Change is Good".

H.264 is at least an ISO standard. In 10 years I can play back an H264 pretty easily. If RED (god forbid) went out of business I would imagine finding a r3d spec would be far more difficult.

Kettle Pot Black.

 

[REDneck]

A question concerning current RED workflow from a P2 man: On a Mac, with FCP, would I be able to create HD (1080p) content today and edit with the ease and speed I'm editing in prores and DVCPRO HD?

right now, today, you can open the "log and transfer" window, select the directory of a red mag (just like a P2 image), and in two or three clicks be converting the whole shebang to 2k prores HQ (very smooth and quick to edit). byaammm. the only downside is the footage transcoding moves at about 25% of real time speed on a 2008 8-core mac pro. but that's not a big deal unless you have a ton of footage and only one computer.

it's really really easy, and pretty quick as these things go.

 

[Obin Olson]

I will see soon on the jello...

 

[David Rasberry]

??? But REDCode standards change too. RAW in an open, non proprietary and accessible format is forever. How is r3d any different from any other codec? I thought the battle cry was "Change is Good".

H.264 is at least an ISO standard. In 10 years I can play back an H264 pretty easily. If RED (god forbid) went out of business I would imagine finding a r3d spec would be far more difficult.

Kettle Pot Black.

As the current thread on Graeme's color science upgrades to Redcode show, one can use the improved codec to regrade old raw footage shot under the earlier versions with significant improvements in image quality. You still retain full control over the raw data and metadata just as if it was direct uncompressed raw. ISO speed, color temp, color balance, gamma curves, detail, edge enhancement, various FX filter plugins in programs like AE.

Once you encode footage to a release format like MPEG4/H.264, you lose the ability to make those kinds of image corrections with much degree of flexibility. Codec upgrades will likely not even recognize or play earlier versions.