RGB Compression

[tj williams]

If we originate in RED RAW it is wavelet compressed unnoticeably and we can derive HD 1080 720 even 4.4.4. color? Will this look better rendered out in RED Cine than if we just recorded HD on the mag?

If we put out straight 1080 or 720 RGB we can send this with the field producer, on drives by direct transfer fm the mag. It can be played on any client editing system that recognizes quicktime files. What is the compression on these files? How will they compare with high end HD cameras such as F900 Sony and Panasonic Varicam?

 

[Rob Lohman]

Same compression system as REDCODE RAW, with a few different tweaks & settings.

RAW files can be played directly through QuickTime as well.

 

[Nick Shaw]

So potentially IF the REDCODE Quicktime codec was freely distributable (maybe at least in a playback only version) you could put an installer for the codec on a drive together with the media, and give that to a client as a self contained package.

 

[Rob Lohman]

That is correct

 

[tj williams]

Rob about this part of the question?

Quote TJ Above: What is the compression on these files? Can they be directly recorded in 4:4:4: How will they compare with high end HD cameras such as F900 Sony and Panasonic Varicam?

 

[Rob Lohman]

RGB is 4:4:4 indeed, although it doesn't really make sense in that way (usually talking about YUV in such cases).

How will *what* compare to "high-end" HD camera's?

 

[tj williams]

When recording directly to HD on the magazine and putting the results on a hard drive.
1. will the results be as subject to compression artifacts as a Varicam or HDCam more less?
2. 4:4:4: output whacks their 4:2:2 color space.
3. Will my white balance and look be as adjustable as theirs when recording directly... This may show a lack of understanding here as I'm currently given to udnerstand that I can simply copy magazines recorded in HD to a hard drive without rendering for color correction lut etc.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

1) compression will be lower (and more modern), and I don't think you'll see any artifacts.

2) not just 4:4:4 but 4:4:4 subsampled from a much larger number of pixels.

3) white balance will be more adjustable, and look will have similar or greater power of adjustment, but be much easier to use.

Graeme

 

[Matt Redmond]

So as we know, REDCINE is used for Processing, Correcting, Re-sizing and Encoding the Red's RAW data into - whatever.

What about importing REDCODE RGB files? Being RGB it's no longer RAW so doesn't need a demosaic, but what if we still want to Correct, Resize, or Re-encode our REDCODE RGB files? Can that still be done in REDCINE?

 

[Rob Lohman]

Two very important things:

1) you DON'T have to put the RAW footage through REDCINE. It gives you the most flexibility, but it's not the only way. You should also be able to load your RAW footage into any QuickTime enabled application

2) REDCINE will also load REDCODE RGB for processing if so desired.

 

[Brook Willard]

Any word on REDCODE RGB data rates?

 

[tj williams]

Brook I thought I saw on another thread that it was actually slightly larger than the RAW files?

Graeme/Rob What wonderful workflow clarification... RED owners are gonna kick some CineAlta butt. Had a very pleasant shoot today with a regular commercial client. End of the day asked him how he would feel If I left him with a firewire drive instead of these tapes. 720/24/RGB/quicktime/etc. He was saying when will I have the camera!!! Producers have been much more receptive to hard drive delivery than I thought they would!

 

[Graeme Nattress]

TJ, that's good to hear about acceptance of a hard drive deliverable. I know it's time is coming soon.

Datarates - not yet. These things need a fair bit of fine (and rough) tuning and most of my work has been on the RAW side for the moment, although the benefits of that fold back to the RGB side.

Graeme