Redcode 28 versus 36?

[Jeff Barklage]

I have always shot Redcode 28 for the past few years...never even thought about switching it to 36 or higher.
Recently, on a blue screen shoot, my AC asked me if I would consider going to 36 to help the image quality..I called the editor, and he had no idea what to advise....so we stayed at Redcode 28 ( build 21)
But, I thought about shooting a little test with all three Redcodes just to see if there is a perceivable image quality difference.

Before I do, I wanted to ask the Reduser Group if they had any thoughts on the various Redcodes.
Please advise.

 

[PaulClements]

Redcode 36 is better. Redcode 42 is better still, but doesn't have 4K 16:9 as an option. Shooting 4K HD rc42 is probably the best option for blue screen.

With rc28 you can still get small artifacts in the noise that look a little bit ugly. rc36 tends to fair a lot better with noise as it's simply not as compressed. I generally use rc36 for everything. rc28 is great if you are on a tight turnaround and need to process footage fast or do an online because the files aren't as heavy as rc36 or 42.

For blue screen I would at least use rc36 and would try and push for rc42 4KHD. The blue channel of the camera naturally suffers the most so the less compression being used the better. You might also want to think about filtering with 80c or similar but sometimes the loss of light negates any benefit.

Cheers
Paul

 

[Jordan Livingston]

In theory, less compression is always going to be "better." The tradeoff, of course, being that less compression requires more storage space. But RC36 and RC42 are still relatively "small" files, in my opinion, especially compared to their uncompressed counterparts in the online.

I always opt for the least amount of compression possible in origination. The only time I don't shoot RC42 is if I need to record 4K 16:9 for some reason, which is rare (4K HD is usually preferred).

Best,

- Jordan

 

[Jeff Barklage]

Thanks for the info Paul!