Resolving 4K from R3D , debayer with Red Rocket/ RCX software debayer / new methods

[Les Dittert]

I thought this topic, which was ventured into on another thread should have a more direct disscussion here.
Fist off: Folks finishing in HD can move along, nothing to see here for you.

I discovered something when I compared a shot processed in RCX beta 10 with and without the Rocket card in play.
The rocket card makes sharper images. Plain and simple.

Some examples: ( left: Rocket render---------- center: RCX software -----------Right: Rocket render with 0.5 blur applied )

Notes:
If Rocket render is blurred in post ( Gaussian blur 0.5 Photoshop) it looks almost exactly the same as RCX software version.
The Rocket version has less color aliasing on the gold spike highlights. ( unexpected given the cruder method in card)
These are 1:1 crops, ISO 1600.
Can't recover lost detail with post sharpen/smart sharpen/etc applied to RCX Software version.
Rocket render has mod 2 pixel stair stepping on egges, evident more when images are denoised temporally. ( Expected from the more crude method card uses )

Another way to examine detail is this: Scale rocket down to N% than back up to 100 %, comparing with RCX software image until they look the same.
I found that N is about 70 %. Doing some math : 4096 * 0.7 = just under 3K. Significant difference.

So if I render my project with RCX software version, I don't get the detail I'd like to see.

Comments paraphrased from other thread:
I don't see the difference ( can I recommend seeing your eye doctor )
Red does not sharpen R3D ( me: Good, who needs false HD looking edges anyhow. Skip atrificial detail please )
I don't like the electronic look ( me: OK, blur it in post with a slider to make it look like the current software debayer )

I would recommend at a minimum to allow the same fast and crude debayer to be available on card-less systems.
Or add a couple of different options, let the user decide which one fits their taste.

Again, scaled to 1920x1080 output, nothing to worry about. You have the bit depth to allow color grades, all is good.
But with all the prominent talk to promote 4K , 4K displays, projectors, seems that we need to re-investigate the ultimate image quality available now. Thank God the data is in the R3D, ready to be developed by advances in the demosaicing methods!

 

[Les Dittert]

Some more images, also 1:1 crops : Left is Rocket

300% blow up ( pixel replicate )

 

[Dustin Cross]

The Rocket does not allow you to change "detail" and software does. I think the Rocket always renders with "detail" of "8". Software can be set to detail of "1" or "Leading Lady" which is smoothest. Do you know what your detail setting is on your software render?

Also there is the "scaling" algorithm that is used. Not sure if the Rocket can use any scaling algorithm.



Dusty

 

[Les Dittert]

The detail settings slider just made it look worse. A joke. Horrible ringing and post sharpen looking. Butt ugly.

No scaling done, I rendered with export set to debayer FULL and same size output as the r3d was. 16 bit TIF export.

I am trying to round up a Sony f65 for some tests. Also will present some alternate debayer methods applied to the R3D, to hurry the solution along

The Rocket does not allow you to change "detail" and software does. I think the Rocket always renders with "detail" of "8". Software can be set to detail of "1" or "Leading Lady" which is smoothest. Do you know what your detail setting is on your software render?

Also there is the "scaling" algorithm that is used. Not sure if the Rocket can use any scaling algorithm.



Dusty

 

[Martin Stevens]

I prefer the software render because to me it looks more like a film scan.

 

[Sergio Perez]

I just tried my rocket yesterday with some shots provided by redusers here. For low light shots processing (the ones I tried) I definitely like the rocket output better. Haven't tried any noise reduction.

 

[Dustin Cross]

Les,

The Detail slider makes the image softer. Not "horrible ringing and post sharpen looking". The Rocket looks like it has post sharpening and digital artifacting. But you really have to get deep into the pixel peeping to see this stuff.


Dusty

 

[Rob Lohman]

As has been said in the past the debayer in the Rocket is different than the software debayer due to hardware restrictions. There's no sharpening in the Rocket, it's just a different way to develop the RAW. Some people prefer the Rocket debayer, others prefer the software one.

 

[Les Dittert]

Rob,
Will Red perhaps consider offering either the Rocket style or other 'sharper' looking demosaic methods for software rendering ?
That would be fantastic!
Thanks for checking in,

 

[DJ Meyer]

Interesting. The guys over at fxphd found the opposite, that software was a bit sharper. Perhaps it depends on the footage.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Going by this example, I would choose the software sample to work with. And the rocket look would not be difficult to match, should one wish.

 

[Les Dittert]

Bill, I'm not sure I understand.
I can match the Software one by blurring the Rocket. Blurring destroys fine detail. So how do I get it back ? Sharpening gets close, if you stand back a few feet. The real detail is diminished.

So if I have a certain $700 lens who isn't as sharp as another lens, by the same account I can just sharpen to make the two equal, in terms of sharpness ?
Can I sharpen a 1920x1080 image and make it 4k ? 3K ? 2K ? It's all a cheat.
Of course, using a Bayer sensor is a cheat too, but at least we can attempt to get the most detail possible from it, right ?

The Rocket version looks noisy, true. Don't fear the noise. It can be dealt with. Ever looked at a 4k film scan at 1:1 ? Even that has 'hidden' detail that can be extracted.
For that 4K experience. Not the 3K experience.

Going by this example, I would choose the software sample to work with. And the rocket look would not be difficult to match, should one wish.

 

[Scott Brown]

Software should always deliver a better quality than hardware when it comes to encoding, conversion and processing of video. I've had long discussions with Snell & Wilcox people over the years about this - software will usually take longer but will give the best results.

Scott

 

[Les Dittert]

Software should always deliver a better quality than hardware when it comes to encoding, conversion and processing of video. I've had long discussions with Snell & Wilcox people over the years about this - software will usually take longer but will give the best results.

Scott

Scott,
I agree 100%. Software de-mosaic methods are very tricky these days, and make decisions based on edges and other almost 'fuzzy logic' methods that attempt to deal with the classic problems such as far away picket fences, mesh patterns, close up shots of bridal veils, etc. Throw in having it hold up in motion, and you have even more issues like crawling/roping etc. Hardware hates these types of algorithmic branches. The easy way out, just blur it and call it a day.
The other problem: patents and associated leaches

 

[Chuck Z]

I, too, prefer the software rendered output. When you blur the Rocket output, it appears you desaturate the blue channel as well.

 

[Frank Cueto]

Less, Could you share these R3d's? I would like to try em out on my software/hardware combo, see if we get anything similar or some different results.
Reason is, I have never seen pixels sooo evident on our red rocket system.

 

[Les Dittert]

Sure, I'll get some samples you can try. BTW these were high ISO, hence the noisy look.
I also have some r3d's that have been encoded into Cineform RAW that I will post.

That's right, cineform RAW .... preserving the raw aspects of the r3d that we all love so much, but allowing usage in other workflows.
Can you say 24 fps 4K playback full debayer / selectable debayer methods .... I knew you could! CPU only. No card. On the fly color changes.
( I am not selling or sharing this code, but will share some MOV's generated by it )