Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Scarlet-W Bad Compression in HFR, Worse Than Epic-MX, Any Weapon Examples Out There?

Status
Not open for further replies.
People have mentioned motion and it's importance in red's compression but as far as I've ever heard or seen red compresses on a frame by frame basis, i.e. intraframe. There might be some benefit to motion because the motion blur will be easier to compress than stark detail but that's about it.
 
Anton Shavlik said:
People have mentioned motion and it's importance in red's compression but as far as I've ever heard or seen red compresses on a frame by frame basis, i.e. intraframe. There might be some benefit to motion because the motion blur will be easier to compress than stark detail but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are no GOP types of compression. I'm not an expert but I'm not sure if the compression is the usual "JPEG-like" compression but more of a file-compression, just like when zipping an uncompressed TIFF. Otherwise all the RAW data would be burned into the file. But maybe someone else with more compression knowledge could chime in on this?
 
Hello all,

I didn't have time to upload an R3D, but I did take two clips, exported them from RED Cine X as ProRes 4:4:4:4 clips, then uploaded to Vimeo. Because I took two different frame rates (one at 200fps and the other at 253 fps) you will notice the two different resolution sizes. So I put them in a timeline that had the highest of the two which was the 3K clip, 3072 x 1296. The other clip which was 2K, 2048 x 1024 I just left in there as normal and did no scaling. Unfortunately, Vimeo I believe down scaled this to 2K. I have a plus account, so I have the 4K capabilities, so I was hoping it would leave it as a 3K clip. I don't know the rhyme or reason why it was downsized to 2K.

https://vimeo.com/163654610

In any case here are some specs which are also on the clip:

Scarlet-W
First half - 3072 x 1296
200 fps
Redcode 11:1

Second half - 2048 x 1024
253 fps
Redcode 8:1

Settings consistent for both clips:
ISO 800
Skin Tone OLPF used
RedGamma 4 Lut
-No ND filter, Motion Mount was used to keep exposure under control.
-No denoising, exported as ProRes 4:4:4:4 from RED Cine X (Premiere isn't taking the footage yet, but it should soon in the next update.)
-No color grading

Now here is a clip of something I did with the RED Epic X, with no denoising, 150 fps and up. Can't remember the compression specs, but I will find out later and share that in another update.
https://vimeo.com/163041718

If you notice, it holds up very well, and you can play it back in true 4K, so that is why I was wanting to see if anyone had any Weapon footage, 150 fps and up to compare. Sure these clips are shot very differently which can make a difference, but I wasn't expecting the Scarlet-W to look the way it did even with 11:1 compression.

Now here is the kicker, I posted this earlier and some of you watched it. But what you may be shocked at if you are honest with yourself, the opening shot is actually a 3K 3072 x 1284, 201fps SCALED UP image! If I didn't say anything, some of you wouldn't have known IF you're being honest. Still looks great! Redcode is 7:1. I forgot it was that was the resolution until I actually dug up the specs.

Now maybe I am being picky, but you guys and gals can give it your honest opinion and hopefully you can see why I was little bit disappointed. Actually, the RED Epic shot has less noise as well, but I think Jarred said something about the noise being a compromise with the Skin Tone OLPF for the increased dynamic range and color in the highlights. DON'T QUOTE ME THOUGH! I have to search for that to clarify. I tried to attach screen shots so you all could verify my settings in Red Cine X, but I had a problem attaching it to this post, but trust, I am giving you the right information.

Thank you everyone for you patience. Like I said in a earlier post, I am working heavily on a feature film right now in post, so if it takes me a little bit to respond, I apologize. You can send me a private message as well if you want to get at me more directly, because I haven't had time to go through the thread everyday.

God bless!

-C. Phillips
 
Christoffer,

I just posted an updated comment with a clip as well. Check the end of this thread. Thanks!
 
C. Phillips said:
Hello all,

I didn't have time to upload an R3D, but I did take two clips, exported them from RED Cine X as ProRes 4:4:4:4 clips, then uploaded to Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/163654610
Click to expand...

Oh boy, that looks like dookie. Ya like really bad. That noise looks exactly like what I we saw with the dog on beach video in full sunlight and with the standard OLPF. Soo... Hmmm

Also maybe its just me but in addition to the compression noise, does anyone else see the larger white specks randomly thru-ought the frame? It kinda looks like glitter sparkling all over. not sure

I would say those fps are a no-go under almost any circumstances, unless theres to be something else going on.
Definitely stick to 4k 120 tops.

Either way, C. Phillips I feel your pain, thanks for posting those examples finally. kinda glad I canceled my S-W order and went the Weapon route :001_unsure:
 
Brody_B said:
Oh boy, that looks like dookie. Ya like really bad. That noise looks exactly like what I we saw with the dog on beach video in full sunlight and with the standard OLPF. Soo... Hmmm

Also maybe its just me but in addition to the compression noise, does anyone else see the larger white specks randomly thru-ought the frame? It kinda looks like glitter sparkling all over. not sure

I would say those fps are a no-go under almost any circumstances, unless theres to be something else going on.
Definitely stick to 4k 120 tops.

Either way, C. Phillips I feel your pain, thanks for posting those examples finally. kinda glad I canceled my S-W order and went the Weapon route :001_unsure:
Click to expand...

It was exposed for 800iso whereas it should have been metered for 320iso (skintone OLPF), and maybe it was even pushed more in post. When heavily cropped for HFR we should be more careful with exposure and avoid to push the iso in post. Just take any 5k well exposed footage @8:1, crop it to 2k in RCX and that's what you should get at the same 2k 250fps. People should try if they're scared, I'm amazed at how good it is, as I was expecting to never use 2k at all not so long ago (and I'm talking about the scarlet-D, not even the scarlet-W).
 
No reason to shoot ISO800 on a bright sunny day with STH. Would suggest lowering to even ISO250 to further help compression.
Another important note on those videos. These "Color runs" with fine-grain color dust can hurt your camera. I've seen a lot of lenses that are supposed to be weather sealed to get that fine dust into their mechanics. If they can enter that, there's a risk that it will enter onto the sensor easily.
 
Good to see the some footage now and take in the different aspects of the discussion. With the new Dragon sensor then I'm trying to determine the sweet spot if you are going to go for 120 and 240 fps. I have a raven and scarlet on order, and the ravens smaller sensor I'm thinking this will be even more of an issue. Though that's an assumption. So what can we deduce would be the sweet spot settings (compression - iso - resolution) for 120, and subsequently for 240, on Raven?
My orders haven't arrived yet so I can only speculate on where that sweet spot is. But it would be interesting to establish some new rules of thumb for 120 and 240fps acquisition, that stated something like: 3K - 150fps - 8:1 (this might be a fictive combo, I know) will be clean if you keep the iso rated at 320 or below, for example. And a list of golden settings for a couple shooting scenarios with 120-240fps in mind. I think that's what I'll be aiming to create once the first camera arrives.
 
I had a long focal length glass. I am aware of the dust, and had a cover for the camera, but I literally got three shots and bounced. I wanted to try the high frame rate modes while I was there. I ran that 5K in less than 19 minutes, so I definitely wasn't trying to film long!

In any case, the 800 ISO doesn't have anything to do with the compression. Since it's RAW, the noise is there regardless,, 320 would just lower the exposure making it less noticeable. Plus, 800 ISO is the sweet spot for even dynamic range in the highlights and shadows. below 800, the roll off in the highlights is not as good.
 
Kris Tait said:
Good to see the some footage now and take in the different aspects of the discussion. With the new Dragon sensor then I'm trying to determine the sweet spot if you are going to go for 120 and 240 fps. I have a raven and scarlet on order, and the ravens smaller sensor I'm thinking this will be even more of an issue. Though that's an assumption. So what can we deduce would be the sweet spot settings (compression - iso - resolution) for 120, and subsequently for 240, on Raven?
My orders haven't arrived yet so I can only speculate on where that sweet spot is. But it would be interesting to establish some new rules of thumb for 120 and 240fps acquisition, that stated something like: 3K - 150fps - 8:1 (this might be a fictive combo, I know) will be clean if you keep the iso rated at 320 or below, for example. And a list of golden settings for a couple shooting scenarios with 120-240fps in mind. I think that's what I'll be aiming to create once the first camera arrives.
Click to expand...

Generally I avoid going under 4K. But the compression is heavily relying on what type of scenery you are shooting and the amount of noise/underexposure. So it's not so easy to just pinpoint a sweet spot for that. If you are shooting a lot of movement and high detailed sharp images in 3K with a high compression like 10:1 or 15:1 it's going to look bad. Generally most of the time I go to 3:1 or 4:1 compression for high detail scenes at normal speeds. The Raven can shoot 3:1 at 4K so I would recommend that if you shoot lowlight or in a high detail scene. 5:1 is good as a kind of normal compression. Over 8:1 things start to break down on lower resolutions.

Generally, don't push to higher ISOs and shoot high speed in low light together with high compression and lower resolution. I would suggest taking the Raven out into a forest, shoot at T4.0 or T8.0 so most of the surroundings are in focus and play around with different settings, that way you will find a sweet spot that you think is good.
 
Kris,

I can try some tests when the time becomes available if you let me know some scenarios. But I must say, with the other example I provided with the Epic X, everything I shot was at 800 ISO, and lowering it didn't help the compression of it. I think noise is a fixed thing, and raising/lowering ISO affects exposure, and ultimately how visible that noise is. I could be wrong, but taking the noise out of it, the compression is still kind of yucky with these cameras at the high frame rates. Epic-X it looks great, even at 9:1 compression.
 
CHristoffer.

I can try with the Scarlet-W. I am with you on shooting at the highest compression ratio. I leave it at the highest at all times and I am not concerned about storage space. The caveat is that the Scarlet in certain scenarios like the 200 fps 3K mode, the best it can do is 11:1. Some settings, the best it can do is even 13:1. So it's almost like, there is nothing that can be done at that point. I did a Epic 3K 200 fps shot and the highest it could do was 7:1. Looked amazing. the 2K 250 fps on Scarlet-W did 8:1 at the highest. Dramatic difference with the results with noise and artifacts even though the compression ratios were almost the same.
 
Brody,

No problem fam! Glad it all makes sense now! That was the reason for me even starting this thread, to help people make informed decisions to let them know what they are getting into and help with their expectations. I had the Magnesium preordered at first but changed thinking the difference shouldn't be that bad. But, without seeing any examples out there, I made the wrong decision. People keep getting excited with the Raven "Carrion" video which is REALLY dope, but all of those shots are probably no higher than 48-60 fps which would maintain a pretty low compression at those frame rates, but we still didn't see what it would do beyond that.

Now, I am wondering if the Magnesium would be better. That $20,000 bump is just really high. If you get your Magnesium, I would love to see a quick clip at these frame rates.

Thank you for the feedback! Glad you feel better about your choice in purchase now!

Sincerely,

C. Phillips
 
The more I read the more I realize what a sneaky little devil the Raven is. At 3K 150fps 10:1 it is on par with SW. And given that the OLPF discussion is gone as I believe it is the excellent Standard only - what a great starter cam it is - and maybe finisher too.
 
Anybody mind if I move the best of this thread into the best practices thread?

Just wanted to check before I move anything over.

David
 
David Battistella said:
Anybody mind if I move the best of this thread into the best practices thread?

Just wanted to check before I move anything over.

David
Click to expand...

Yes, do it, saving good information is always key to everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top