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 :)

RED party reel powered by RED RAY

Kenneth Elkington said:
I expect Recode and Redray are the same codec(possibly with modified bitstreams, but the same methodology), just with different applications of compression. There's only so much in-camera horsepower that you can apply to compression.
Click to expand...

Redcode is a 35MBs (byte). RedRay is 10Mbs (bit).

That's an awfully significant difference in order to assume they are substantially the same.
 
Steven Caesare said:
Redcode is a 35MBs (byte). RedRay is 10Mbs (bit).

That's an awfully significant difference in order to assume they are substantially the same.
Click to expand...

I'll concede the point that they're in any way bitstream compatible. Redcode is Raw and Red ray is RGB, but it's not a substantial leap to believe that the methodology is a simple(or not so simple) evolution of redcode. Redray is also an interframe codec rather than an intraframe codec, and so a substantial amount of redundant visual information is just cut out from the stream.
 
Erik Bien said:
Forget blu-ray: expensive burners, expensive licenses, expensive media. REDray is presumably going to let you play content you've burned to $0.05 DVD-R discs using a $30 DVD burner that blows BR away.
Click to expand...
The flaw here is that you need a $1,000 player to view the content. If you think a $150 BD-R burner is "expensive," how do you anticipate sharing your new RED RAY content?
 
Erik Ponti said:
Right. Well, I guess it's up to you, but many people like me are now thinking "Eh. Pics or it didn't happen."
Not RED users, but people who have, or are going to, hear about it and be full of skepticism.
Click to expand...

I was reading this thread to find out more about RedRay and across I come to your posts. You seriously sound like someone who is a competitor or something. The RED team has nothing but the upmost respect and reputation for developing revolutionary products.

I am praying that these guys would even consider licensing this codec out, I would jump on it immediately. 10mb to deliver 4K, yes well we got the electronic format to deliver this exists now! Im sold, just let me know when we can ride!

Will Blanchard
Owner
www.muuvii.com
 
Please consider offering a 1080p capped version of this codec for Pc delivery. I understand the cinema model, but there is a bigger picture for this codec.
 
sven said:
I still vote for using Blu-ray readers instead of DVD.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time, when are you really going to need to put more than 2 hours of 4k footage on a disc that only a handful of people are going to even be able to play or have a display capable of resolving it. Let's face it, realistically if you were ever in a situation where you needed more than 2 hours of 4k footage, you could always stick it on a thumb drive or external hard drive, especially as fast as the prices of nand falling as fast as they are. Not to mention you could always use multiple discs, it's really not that big a deal.

At the end of the day optical media is dying, it would be a waste of time to bother wasting extra money on development and licensing for a technology that has yet is still coming in to it's own, is somewhat unproven, and will be out of date within a matter of years.

Especially with holographic disc media expected to start hitting the market in the next 2-3 years (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ge-breakthrough-validates-technology-enable/story.aspx?guid={2499C00A-95E1-48DE-941B-1E6B9040A8E4}&dist=msr_3)
 
As much as i can see the advantges of using non spinning storage, I barely refuse to believe that we'l ever see this becoming the main retail future.

We could have had this already for years, but manufacturing costs seems to be much higher then optical discs. There is a reason why they still progress and keep searching for more storage this way.
 
Häakon said:
The flaw here is that you need a $1,000 player to view the content.
Click to expand...

Right. But the request to include BD playback would mean REDray would have to include a blue laser and a SONY license, which would make it around, what, a $1500 player? Personally, I'd rather they stay separate devices — BluRay for the few clients that have/want that format, and a REDray I can drag around for dailies, show & tells and festivals.
 
William Blanchard said:
Please consider offering a 1080p capped version of this codec for Pc delivery. I understand the cinema model, but there is a bigger picture for this codec.
Click to expand...
Just like the fraunhofer LOL . The delivery format is the beauty of the Red equation... Cinema IS bigger than 1080p :) Got to love the Quality & Convenience
 
Kenneth Elkington said:
I'll concede the point that they're in any way bitstream compatible. Redcode is Raw and Red ray is RGB, but it's not a substantial leap to believe that the methodology is a simple(or not so simple) evolution of redcode. Redray is also an interframe codec rather than an intraframe codec, and so a substantial amount of redundant visual information is just cut out from the stream.
Click to expand...

Well I guees it all comes down to where you draw the line as to what would make them "the same codec", just perhaps modified.

Obiously we are both spit-balling here becasue we have no specifics, but other than being developed by RED, we don't know much else if anything that the the 2 have in common. However we can surmise a number of things they don't:

- Compression ratio difference of ~30X
- RGB output instead of RAW
- Likely interframe vs. intraframe*
- Likely not real-time origination and/or multipass encoding

Now there's a likliehood that they both employ wavelet encoding, but that doesn't neceassarily make them modified versions of the same codec any more so than calling H.264 a modified version of MPEG2 just because they are both DCT based...


* It is much easier to build an intra- version of a codec from an inherantly inter- codec (such as the H.264 flavors) than it is to do the reverse. This is becasue the inter- version already has I-frame suppport, whereas a intra- only codec does not. Retrofitting temporal compression in to a spatial-only compression codec is not necessarily trivial.

Now if Graeme want to shed some light on all of this talking out of our rears, and in the process spill some beans, then I'm all ears... :thumbsup:

-Steve
 
I'm having fun reading all the speculation... And I'm not about to divulge what we're doing. I prefer just to show the results.

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