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 :)

Red One connector "what is what"

The Red Drive and Red Ram has FW800 and USB2 connectors (and eSATA though it's using the custom connector)

The drives are FAT32 formatted.
 
Andrew said:
I don’t think the RAM buffer will be bulky.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a lot of unknowns right now. We don't know how large the RAW PORT is or how it attaches, we just know where. The FLASH options attach to the same point on the camera and have to be large enough to accommodate their FLASH options.

Depending on how much room is actually available inside the camera will make a difference on how such a RAM buffer attaches and how much exterior space will be needed. Also what sort of RAM is chosen will have an effect as will the capacity. A RAM buffer built around 1Gbit DDR SDRAM (need 8 of these to make a 1GB DIMM module) chips would be a lot larger physically than one built out of 2GB DDR2 chips (8 of these to make a 16GB FB-DIMM). Then there's the question of integrating the chips on proprietary PCBs and interfaces. Or do they use off-the-shelf modules like DIMMs... Using FB-DIMMs would allow you to stack 32GB into a two DIMM slot space, but it would generate a lot more heat in a smaller space and be a lot more expensive. Using 2GB DDR SDRAM DIMMs, the cost per GB would be a lot lower, but performance would still be plenty adequate. It might consume more power but produce less heat per square cm. It would be more bulky with this type of RAM vs. FB-DIMMs as you would need 16 DIMM slots to get to a 32GB buffer. Where are you going to put those? What would be rather bulky on the side of the camera.

If you take out the RAW PORT then wherever the raw port is plugged in you plug the RAM buffer card, like it is right now done for express flash card.
Click to expand...

You're not going to be able to use a RAM buffer "card". There are no memory/FLASH cards that are fast enough to handle the data rates. In fact there are no FLASH options, that approach the speed capabilities of the SATA buss right now. Or at least not without creating a rather large RAID stripe volume.

The other possibility is, to have lossless REDCODE RAW recorded to the SATA disk that uncompress exactly to the RAW, instead REDCODE RAW that do not uncompress exactly to the RAW data.
Click to expand...

OK, you lost me there. REDCODE RAW is "visually lossless". When you shoot 4K up to 30fps and 2K windowed up to 60fps, you can record in the "visually lossless" REDCODE RAW codec on-camera. The FLASH modules, RED RAM and RED DRIVE all have enough bandwidth to handle this. But at those max frame rates, you're pushing the limits of what the camera can process and encode internally. If you want to shoot those resolutions at faster rates or if you want to shoot the full 4.5K sensor area, the camera can't cope with the data so the concept is to dump it out to the "RAW PORT", which is uncompressed RAW or true RAW data. Theoretically, a RAM BUFFER could be attached to this RAW PORT instead of a large, tethered RAID (or attached in place of it) to intercept short bursts of this data. Then this data could be fed back into the camera at a lower rate for recompression (theoretically). For example, if you shoot 4K @ 60fps and it takes about 1GB/sec to store to a RAM buffer. If you have a 32GB buffer you could shoot a 30 second burst of 4K @ 60fps. It could then be fed back through the camera and encoded to REDCODE RAW... The camera could probably do this at about half real-time speed (given the ability to do 4K30 onboard) and write it out to the RED DRIVE or RED RAM... Not the FLASH module, because this RAM BUFFER would probably occupy that space on the camera. The other option is to not encode through the camera, but to dump the contents of the RAM buffer directly to a RED DRIVE or RED RAM. However, those both have eSATA interfaces. And I'm sure neither comes close to maxing out a SATA bus. Even if they did, SATA only provides about 29% of the bandwidth needed to transfer 4K uncompressed RAW from the camera in real-time. The max write speed of the RED DRIVE is probably somwhere close to 45~60MB/s, or about 20% of that 29%. So that just isn't practical.

As for compression, we can't compress on the fly... Not enough power in the camera, that's why the RAW PORT exists in the first place. If a RAM buffer is to exist, there must be an interface and buffer media that can sustain 1GB/sec. So it's going to be actual RAM with a fast memory controller and interface tied to some wide bus in the camera. The most logical place to attach it seems to be the same place the RAW PORT attaches.

Overall, I'm not so sure how practical such a RAM buffer is. Seems like a good idea on the surface. But there still must be some form of proprietary interface to the camera and control system. I wouldn't look for a RAM buffer to provide a cheaper alternative to the RAW PORT and it would be more likely to be a device attached to the RAW PORT anyway. And if that's the case, then what would be the practical application? Shooting in 30 second bursts with 1 to 2 minutes down-time between each take sounds just plain silly. And RAM is not cheap... If we're talking about placing 32GB of RAM into a box that attaches to a RAW PORT, why not go tethered and use a system based on hard drives (RED RAID?) that gives tons more storage with a much lower $$/GB ratio? No shoot for a few seconds and wait for it to encode in the workflow. Sure your're tethered, but only by a thin optical cable that literally can be 1.5 miles in length.
 
Andres, Jeff, thank you for enlightening me on the REDCODE RAW.
Didn’t know that it is not three channel one.
REDCODE RAW is "visually lossless" hmmm… I will not agree with this.
It depends who is looking.
If you can’t convert compression back to the original especially when we are talking RAW then what’s the point.
Jeff, I see you pay attention to details. Yes, I agree and see that camera do not have enough CPU power but I wonder if there is a way to design ASIC chip that will do some simple lossless compression in hardware?
 
Andrew said:
REDCODE RAW is "visually lossless" hmmm… I will not agree with this.
It depends who is looking.
Click to expand...

I agree... I haven't seen it in full 4K glory on a projection. But so far everyone who has seems to go nuts over it. We'll see what happens at NAB. For now, the word is "visually lossless". Definitely possible. There are plenty of "visually lossless" compression algorithms for still imagery. All of which do degrade the image to some degree. But you're right it depends on who is viewing and by which means they are viewing. More so, I'm very curious to see how the REDCODE codecs (RAW and RGB) hold up over multiple generations of recompression as can sometimes happen.

If you can’t convert compression back to the original especially when we are talking RAW then what’s the point.
Click to expand...

Compressed RAW (REDCODE RAW) just provides for a means to get the massive RAW data from the camera to your edit system by way of conventional media. It seems rather efficient, but I suppose the proof will be in the pudding when cameras start shipping and people actually start using all this stuff. Compressing RAW should theoretically be more efficient and less "lossy" than compressing footage that has already been processed into RGB data.

Jeff, I see you pay attention to details. Yes, I agree and see that camera do not have enough CPU power but I wonder if there is a way to design ASIC chip that will do some simple lossless compression in hardware?
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, I suppose. This would probably be an extra feature that few would use regularly within the camera. Unless it could provide some significant gains to every record function. But makes sense as a function of a RAM buffer type device to help gain additional record time.

I would also say it's reasonable to expect that the REDCODE compression algorithms will improve over time and as processing power within the camera is upgraded, more record options (frame rates approaching the 46K60 / 2K120) will become available on-board. It's also reasonable to expect in a couple years, FLASH technology will have progressed a great deal. Perhaps a future FLASH option could be installed in place of the RAW port, and provided 1+TB of on-camera FLASH storage capable of recording uncompressed RAW.

For now, I think it's safe to say we should all wait to see what RED has in store for us at NAB. After that, people will start receiving cameras and using them and new workflow concepts and suggestions will be presented. There's a good chance that in 2 months, we'll all be discussing workflows and possibilities that none of us have thought of just yet.
 
Abu Reno said:
Great diagram. What type of connections are E, G, and F. They don't look lie BNC to me.
Click to expand...

some people call them mini-bnc (which they arn't), they are the same connectors as the AJA kona 3 uses, and have a retarded name composed of numbers and periods i can never remember.

The good thing is, after using them the last couple months, i love them more than BNC. easy on, easy off and very durable. RED will provide adapters to BNC.
 
Do they lock or simply "pop off"? :-)
Im all Decklink, so haven't tried those connectors
 
they push on and lock... the connector has a colar that you pull back and they pop off. so if you pull the cable they wont come off, but if you pull the connector they will. Its a pretty cool system, and incredibly small.
 
Ok, sounds great. I have push/pull connectors on all my BNC's
Twisting a small metal piece in the cold really suck.
 
Andrew said:
Andres, Jeff, thank you for enlightening me on the REDCODE RAW.
REDCODE RAW is "visually lossless" hmmm… I will not agree with this.
It depends who is looking.
Click to expand...

We have shown several "industry experts", including an Academy Award winning director, RAW and REDCODE RAW... side by side on a 4K projector at a major studio. We asked them to tell us which was which. They got it wrong.

So please reserve judgment on whether or not it really is visually lossless until you see it 1st hand. It really is amazing and one of the key reasons that this camera is considered revolutionary.

Jim
 
I saw it at the Nuart theater and its indistinguishable. I remember that Ted was at the stage and he played the RAW footage.. a few minutes later He played the REDCODE RAW... no response... everyone was thinking " why did Ted just show the same clip twice?" Then he said that the second clip was REDCODE RAW. The everyone asked for him to play it again - as if they had been tricked or something. Very impressive footage and if you haven't seen it in person then you are in for a big treat at NAB.
 
Timecode connector

Timecode connector

The timecode connector is a 5 pin LEMO as used on audio equipment for film shoots. It carries timecode in and out. If you need one, there are LEMO to BNC adaptor cables available from places such as MarkerTech and B&H etc....
 
Ahhh. Got it

TC Connector: (Lemo Part FGG-OB 5 pole, FGG.0B.305.CLAD52)
1. Ground.
2. LTC In.
3 ASCII in/out
4. nc
5. LTC out
 
Jannard said:
We have shown several "industry experts", including an Academy Award winning director, RAW and REDCODE RAW... side by side on a 4K projector at a major studio. We asked them to tell us which was which. They got it wrong.

So please reserve judgment on whether or not it really is visually lossless until you see it 1st hand. It really is amazing and one of the key reasons that this camera is considered revolutionary.

Jim
Click to expand...

It depends who is looking.
If you can’t convert compression back to the original especially when we are talking RAW then what’s the point.

Jim, depends who is looking, was taken bit out of context.
I am more wary about the access to the RAW data for post processing and mixing.
I am curious if REDCODE RAW will allow us to manipulate the raw data as much as the original RAW data will do.
The second question is the slow motion, pause, and the content that is not just the event movie. Will REDCODE RAW have unnoticeable difference compared with RAW then?
 
CVB said:
I saw it at the Nuart theater and its indistinguishable. I remember that Ted was at the stage and he played the RAW footage.. a few minutes later He played the REDCODE RAW... no response... everyone was thinking " why did Ted just show the same clip twice?" Then he said that the second clip was REDCODE RAW. The everyone asked for him to play it again - as if they had been tricked or something. Very impressive footage and if you haven't seen it in person then you are in for a big treat at NAB.
Click to expand...

As Mike mentioned in another thread, indistinguishable and unnoticeable are two different things. I am more after the unnoticeable effect.
Indistinguishable is another story, just press the pause button and (I reserve the judgment after the NAB) come closer to the screen. What I am wary though, if final product shown after Green Screen keying, correcting, processing done on the original RAW or REDCODE RAW will have unnoticeable difference by general public.
 
I have keyed and corrected a REDCODE 4K image with stunning results... cleaner than anything I've ever seen before [and I've seen a lot]. This was using an older version of the REDCODE RAW codec [back in the 10-bit days]; it has changed considerably since then.

You have just as much control over the REDCODE RAW data as you would over uncompressed RAW. You will get "identical" results from either... within reason. That is, anything that you would ever want to do for the sake of improving or manipulating the image will not reveal compression. If you push it to 1600% saturation and maul the curves, well, yes, you'll probably see something. Will that be compression or faults in the sensor? Matters not to me. At that point, the wheels fall off of any image [digital, still, film, you name it.]
 
Brook Willard said:
You have just as much control over the REDCODE RAW data as you would over uncompressed RAW. You will get "identical" results from either... within reason. That is, anything that you would ever want to do for the sake of improving or manipulating the image will not reveal compression. If you push it to 1600% saturation and maul the curves, well, yes, you'll probably see something. Will that be compression or faults in the sensor? Matters not to me. At that point, the wheels fall off of any image [digital, still, film, you name it.]
Click to expand...

Brook, this is great news!!
So it looks like RAW port is only for OCD people:-)
I presume that you were looking at pixel per pixel representation of the picture on your computer screen that should give you approximately 40"-50"virtual screen size?
Did you try to go frame by frame?
Did you see any difference then?
I can’t wait to press this pause button on 4K or 2K REDCODE RAW and see it myself…
If I don’t see the clear difference then it means that Graeme is the genius.
 
Andrew said:
Brook, this is great news!!
So it looks like RAW port is only for OCD people:-)
I presume that you were looking at pixel per pixel representation of the picture on your computer screen that should give you approximately 40"-50"virtual screen size?
Did you try to go frame by frame?
Did you see any difference then?
I can’t wait to press this pause button on 4K or 2K REDCODE RAW and see it myself…
If I don’t see the clear difference then it means that Graeme is the genius.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a pixel-per-pixel representation. The composite was assembled in Shake. I didn't go frame by frame as it wasn't footage [just single frames]. Click here and try it yourself. Remember that this is using the old REDCODE on Frankie using an uncharacterized sensor without dead pixel correction or the current dynamic range..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top