Scarlet Horrible compression issue.

[Jett He]

Just experienced this weird issue on my Scarlet. The footage would look fine then all of a sudden it becomes super muddy and blocky. This anomaly only lasted a few seconds or sometimes the full clip. The best way to describe it is if the compression ratio dropped from 10:1 to 35:1 or more. Have any of you experienced this yet? I've already submitted a ticket, but wanted to see if there was a solution or culprit on the forums.

all shots were black shaded the same day at 51-52c compression ratio was 10:1 and 12:1

Any info is appreciated, Thanks.

Normal shot 3k 48fps 1/96 before the weird compression

What happened the next clip.


Normal Close up

Compressed Close up


Quad zoomed out 4k 24fps 1/48th 10:1

Close Up

Different shot from the same day, same settings 10:1 4k 24fps, Looks GREAT.

100% Crop Completely Noise/block/compression free

Here's another one at 1K 120fps, just unusable, while other same setting shots look fine



R3D files

 

[Brandon J.F.]

Notice how your problem shots have a lot more detail in them? Specifically the grass. Grass and trees in wide shots can be problematic even at 8:1 compression. Your last example doesn't have the fine detail.

10:1 and 12:1 is too much compression in my opinion. I use 6:1 whenever possible. I've only once used more than 8:1.

 

[Matt Ryan]

yup, just had this on Epic at 12:1 shooting high speed in the forrest. Kind of a bummer when you see this in RCX. Not much you can do except shoot for a lower compression ratio. There's blocky compression noise and a softness to the entire image as if nothing is in focus despite having sharp focus on set. In the forrest I probably won't shoot below 3:1 ever again. Redcode doesn't like high detail scenes, but by the looks of Dragon, things appear to have improved.

Right-click, open in a new tab to view 100%. It looks okay at this small size, but look at it full res.

 

[Jett He]

In the first example, the clip just becomes blocky and noisy out of nowhere for a couple of seconds then returns. it's almost like the compression dropped from 10:1 to 35:1.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

In the first example, the clip just becomes blocky and noisy out of nowhere for a couple of seconds then returns. it's almost like the compression dropped from 10:1 to 35:1.

I think that's just the camera struggling to deal with compressing all the small detail. Shoot some tests at 6:1. If you see the same problem then something may be wrong.

 

[Jett He]

yup, just had this on Epic at 12:1 shooting high speed in the forrest. Kind of a bummer when you see this in RCX. Not much you can do except shoot for a lower compression ratio. There's blocky compression noise and a softness to the entire image as if nothing is in focus despite having sharp focus on set. In the forrest I probably won't shoot below 3:1 ever again. Redcode doesn't like high detail scenes, but by the looks of Dragon, things appear to have improved.

Right-click, open in a new tab to view 100%


100% crops

Those shots look fine. Mine looks like that as well then boom! a sudden drop in compression to a blocky almost internet like compression error. Thanks for the tip, Ill try to keep them all 8:1 and under.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I wouldn't call that shot fine. I'd call them unusable at 4k...Plus if you saw the dancing compression in motion it looks worse than in this still. If you saw the shot in person and then in RCX you'd be scratching your head. Prior to Redcode compression they are in tack sharp focus, and no noise. Post Redcode, noise and soft images. But again, you can avoid it by shooting a lower compression ratio.

 

[Scott Crawley]

In the forrest I probably won't shoot below 3:1 ever again.

Yup, that is prudent...makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[Matt Ryan]

Yup, that is prudent...makes sense, doesn't it?

it does, but at the same time not one bit... I don't see other compressed camera formats react like this. It's a RED specific thing that I have to take into account.

 

[Scott Crawley]

it does, but at the same time not one bit... I don't see other compressed camera formats react like this. It's a RED specific thing that I have to take into account.

I have seen it, and read other similar accounts here. I have also seen other cameras respond poorly to high detail images. Dense foliage is notorious. The difference I have seen, is that other compression schemes don't get it at all... So you never see detail disappear.

3:1 is the number the bigger dogs (bigger than me) here also suggest.

 

[Matthew Scott]

I noticed this the other day too, since I've shot some stuff at 12:1 and it looked great, so I decided to shoot the whole day like that.....turns out wide shots turn to a disgusting mush. Good to know, but yeah, it was a shock to have some shots look fine and others unusable.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I have seen it, and read other similar accounts here. I have also seen other cameras respond poorly to high detail images. Dense foliage is notorious. The difference I have seen, is that other compression schemes don't get it at all... So you never see detail then loose it.

very true, but it usually keeps things that are in focus, in focus. I wouldn't have minded all the foliage to break down and get mushy, but not the subjects in sharp focus lol. That was just a fun shot at the end of the day luckily and isn't for anything other than facebook. Everything I shot for the shoot was 5:1 and those are much better, but 3:1 would have been optimal. Now I know for sure

In saying that, by the looks of Dragon, higher compression ratios might actually work with high detail scenes. We shall see in time.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I noticed this the other day too, since I've shot some stuff at 12:1 and it looked great, so I decided to shoot the whole day like that.....turns out wide shots turn to a disgusting mush. Good to know, but yeah, it was a shock to have some shots look fine and others unusable.

yeah, only happened in a wide, high detail shot with deep focus. Shallow DOF and tighter shots aren't affected as much.

 

[Scott Crawley]

it does, but at the same time not one bit...

How do you hold the details of fine lines when you are throwing away pixels at a higher rate? You can not.

very true, but it usually keeps things that are in focus, in focus. I wouldn't have minded all the foliage to break down and get mushy, but not the subjects in sharp focus lol. That was just a fun shot at the end of the day luckily and isn't for anything other than facebook. Everything I shot for the shoot was 5:1 and those are much better, but 3:1 would have been optimal. Now I know for sure

In saying that, by the looks of Dragon, higher compression ratios might actually work with high detail scenes. We shall see in time.

Yeah, 3:1 for big, wide detailed shots. That is my guide.

 

[Matt Ryan]

How do you hold the details of fine lines when you are throwing away pixels at a higher rate? You can not.

I didn't write Redcode so no idea. I'm sure there's a way to analyze on the fly, after all, that's what Redcode does (throws out the non important details)..

Then if that's the logic, why offer 100fps at 5K if only at 12:1 and it's basically unusable in high detail scenes? Just saying...

You don't have to defend RED, I'm not calling them out or saying the camera sucks ( I use it as much as possible and wish I owned one). Just bringing an issue to light. I'm as big a RED fan as the next, so don't hate on me.

 

[Scott Crawley]

While playing point/counterpoint with you on this my last post went too far, so I am revising it.

If when you say "important details" you mean that it tries to preserve sharply focused lines, and discards info in areas of soft focus first then yes. Compression appears to use that as part of it's logic and has for years. I was foolish to try and refute it.

It is a little funny to think of the camera like the confused robot we see in sci-fi all of the time as it struggles with a scene completely in focus. Oblivion comes immediately to mind as that is the last film I saw, with the drone struggling to identify Tech 49.

Why enable a shooting mode such as 100 fps 12:1 if it is unable to render scenes of massive detail? Maybe it is because not all slo-mo shots require it, and there are times when it will be useful in spite of that limitation.

I have no hate for you or your argument. I approach these discussions like a sporting event. Have you ever taken a philosophy class or been part of a debate team? You are usually assigned a position and are challenged to defend it regardless of what you might personally believe. The exercise almost always teaches everyone something. That is my hope when I engage here. I try very hard to keep things from getting personal.

I will say that your posts Matt, have exhibited a keen mind and fine character.

I didn't write Redcode so no idea. I'm sure there's a way to analyze on the fly, after all, that's what Redcode does (throws out the non important details)..

Then if that's the logic, why offer 100fps at 5K if only at 12:1 and it's basically unusable in high detail scenes? Just saying...

You don't have to defend RED, I'm not calling them out or saying the camera sucks ( I use it as much as possible and wish I owned one). Just bringing an issue to light. I'm as big a RED fan as the next, so don't hate on me.

 

[Jett He]

I'll be taking it out today for further testing and hopefully find the cause of it. I'm thinking it might be an overheating issue, redmag speed, or possibly a bandwith bottleneck. This time I'll keep compression at 8:1 or lower and see if that alleviate the issue.

 

[Brandon J.F.]

I'll be taking it out today for further testing and hopefully find the cause of it. I'm thinking it might be an overheating issue, redmag speed, or possibly a bandwith bottleneck. This time I'll keep compression at 8:1 or lower and see if that alleviate the issue.

You can still get compression artifacting at 8:1 filming high detail wide shots.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Yeah don't forget even on Prometheus they shot 5:1 normally, but 3:1 when they faced very complex backgrounds (foliage, water, etc).

I think its the nature of digital cinematography to struggle with complex backgrounds. Movement adds a whole other dimension to this as well. For example, a stationary INTERVIEW with no movement can be shot at much higher compression levels (we've shot them at 12:1 and gotten great results). However things get much more complicated say with a sweeping STEADYCAM shot, especially if the background is very busy.

Dragon has twice the refresh rate as Epic MX, so I'm optimistic this will provide a boost in these tough scenarios. Toia's early tests gave us much to be hopeful for. His footage of the dogs at 120fps, 4000iso, at 17:1 compression looked as clean as a whistle to me. Iwas very, very impressed.

 

[Robert Hart]

Loss of resolution when there is fine texture or detail across the entire image was being reported on dvinfo.net way back in the times of MiniDV and early HDV.

The image would either suffer detail loss due to compression or reproduce sharper at slower frame rates. As fast as the tech improves, we will always be unsatisfied and gnawing at the edges of its capability.

With film, your options are - to open the lens iris wide and lose some sharpness, select slower frame rate or pour in lots more light for faster frame rates. We are spoiled these days with being able to switch in more gain versus having to change to a mag containing a faster but sometimes grainier ( image noisy ) film stock. Curiously, similar compromises remain even though the medium is entirely different to film.

The new Dragon sensor and its processing chain seem to have pushed the limits outwards. Now let's see how long it takes before our need and greed for performance breaches those limits as human nature will naturally demand.


Perhaps think back to the days of hand-packing fruit into the old paper-lined wooden cases. You could fit more fruit into a case by systematic packing versus putting it in loosely.

Either method would result in some spoilage. The systematic method would loose some fruit due to crush damage but less fruit would be lost to uncontrolled movement inside the case during shipping. Pack it in too tightly and more crush damage would occur.

The systematic method resulted in nice presentation when the cases were opened and directly displayed at retail. The labour cost involved ultimately saw it fall away in favour of unsystematically loaded bulk bins, retail bag packs and much smaller systematically packed presentation trays as the value-added product. - In other words, compromise one way or another. For the grower, hand-packing was a tiresome chore most were happy to see the back of, though the cost of deposits for bulk bins might be another matter.


Now, back in the day when ochre images were carved, painted or sprayed by mouth on the cave walls, - let's not go there... Animating cavewall images by flickering the eyelids open and shut whilst running past was a technical dead-end. The synchronisation and frame rate issue was never really solved. The handcarried firestick providing the light would extinguish in the windrush. The presentation running time was also severely limited both by the physical endurance of the runner and the length of the recording media, the cave wall. But just think what might have been. We live in remarkable technical times.