SSD run times

[paulherrin]

jim, is there any possibility that there would be a noticeable difference if you were to say, do an enlargement? (between 3:1 and 5:1)

 

[Martin Stevens]

....or just post the "difference mattes" between the different compression ratios compared to a truly uncompressed frame.



Will the Epic "still mode" have a zero compression setting? Not that it's needed, of course.

 

[Jannard]

jim, is there any possibility that there would be a noticeable difference if you were to say, do an enlargement? (between 3:1 and 5:1)

You guys are straining at a gnat. You can't tell the difference at any enlargement. And why do you feel the need to order twice the number of SSDs to shoot the same footage? I can't help but ask... what is it exactly that you are planning to shoot? Or is this just a hypothetical exercise?

Jim

 

[paulherrin]

i knew what you'd say. well not the straining the gnat part. i like that. sorry about the aggravation. if i'd just said it... well, i don't carry the same authority.

but hypothetically, could you see the gnat at 3:1?

case closed then?

 

[Jannard]

We wish we had time to accommodate every request. If you don't believe what we are saying, you can always do your own tests to decide which you choose to shoot when you get your own EPIC. I can't believe our posting a 3:1 or 5:1 image here will be a "make it or break it" piece of info whether or not to buy an EPIC.

Jim

 

[paulherrin]

many of us have taken your expertise (along with the other accomplished groups and individuals who have used or worked on this new camera system) without question. i took it for granted as soon as you said it. you know what you're talking about.

the problem is, you know a lot more than we do. so in the defense of those who do have questions, consider that the things you guys are doing with compression are revolutionary. it doesn't make sense according to precedent. allow us a little time to understand your extraordinary achievements.

thank you, and good night.

 

[Jannard]

many of us have taken your expertise (along with the other accomplished groups and individuals who have used or worked on this new camera system) without question. i took it for granted as soon as you said it. you know what you're talking about.

the problem is, you know a lot more than we do. so in the defense of those who do have questions, consider that the things you guys are doing with compression are revolutionary. it doesn't make sense according to precedent. allow us a little time to understand your extraordinary achievements.

thank you, and good night.

Paul... you are right. We are all just a bit frazzled working to get these out the door. We'll try to post some comparisons when we can. Sorry for the "short" response.

Jim

 

[paulherrin]

totally understandable. i really appreciate your patience with my attempted sarcasm, and with all of us who whine and complain while you guys change the world. i can imagine the frustration when the beneficiaries seem ungrateful.

as for comparisons... i always enjoy beautiful imagery.

strange and wonderfully funny things happen on the last lap... for perspective.

again, thank you.

 

[Antonio Forjaz]

Gnat

Gnat

You guys are straining at a gnat.
Jim

I had to get the dictionary out for this one

"gnat |nat|
noun
a small two-winged fly that resembles a mosquito. Gnats include both biting and nonbiting forms, and they typically form large swarms. • Several families, including Simuliidae (black flies) and Ceratopogonidae.
• a person or thing seen as tiny or insignificant, esp. in comparison with something larger or more important : I was only a gnat in the affair.
ORIGIN Old English gnætt, of Germanic origin; related to German Gnitze."

 

[paulherrin]

further clarification. jim's reference originates from a famous discourse. spoken like a true revolutionary.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"

the image here is filtering a bug out of your drinking water, while unknowingly swallowing a camel. these guys were so caught up in the tiniest observations of the laws (many of which they had made) that they forgot why they (the laws, and themselves) were even there in the first place. sometimes when we place the importance on the little specific details, it's quite easy to forget the bigger picture. Forest for the Trees, and whatnot...

what's really important here is that these cameras deliver amazing resolution. the process also allows for visually lossless compression. that's good for us. there is, of course, and even bigger picture, but we won't go into that just now.

 

[Elsie N]

You guys are straining at a gnat. You can't tell the difference at any enlargement. And why do you feel the need to order twice the number of SSDs to shoot the same footage? I can't help but ask... what is it exactly that you are planning to shoot? Or is this just a hypothetical exercise?

Jim

From my perspective, I have one extreme low-light scene with some detail involved. I don't mind blowing through media for that one scene because I think it will be what is most remembered about the movie. (My current remaining camera is M sensored, so forgive me for being afraid of the dark.:scared

And while I do take your word for what 5:1 on an Epic sensor will accomplish, I will probably shoot this one scene at 3:1. Reason? Because I want to have any and all information in the scene recorded, however minute it may be, just in case you guys invent an even more capable Color Science:shocked:.

But unlike what some other poster suggested, the low compression ratios aren't the main reason I ordered an Epic. There are about 25 more important features ahead of that. And I will likely shoot all daylight scenes at something like 9:1

 

[paulherrin]

elsie, we're really going to have to wait until we both understand and have access to the compression ratios to make these decisions. it seems counterintuitive to shoot compressed anything when it's RAW... but they're onto something here. let's let them finish their work, and we'll see soon enough.

 

[David Battistella]

it seems counterintuitive to shoot compressed anything when it's RAW... but they're onto something here.

REDCODE RAW is, in my humble considered opinion, the very best technology that RED has invented. It carries all of the flexibility of RAW workflows within a package which could be recorded to CF card media.

Prior to the introduction to this technology there was a company called DALSA who had 4K uncompressed camera. The recording devices made it completely impractical to capture in any kind of reasonable way (as in the drive array needed was literally the size of a cooler attached to a fiber optic cable).

REDCODE is an enabling technology. It enables the camera to be portable, it enables the camera to record a RAW signal, through a very smart compression scheme.

To be fixated on uncompressed is nothing more than an obsession. You have every right to be pixel obssessed obsessed but is there a real practical reason to be because at the moment it just feels like bitching about wanting something that will never exist with REDCODE?

PS: I feel Jim has been very patient in this thread, but I understand the need to understand the way things are the way they are.

David

 

[Steve Sherrick]

REDCODE RAW is, in my humble considered opinion, the very best technology that RED has invented. It carries all of the flexibility of RAW workflows within a package which could be recorded to CF card media.

Prior to the introduction to this technology there was a company called DALSA who had 4K uncompressed camera. The recording devices made it completely impractical to capture in any kind of reasonable way (as in the drive array needed was literally the size of a cooler attached to a fiber optic cable).

REDCODE is an enabling technology. It enables the camera to be portable, it enables the camera to record a RAW signal, through a very smart compression scheme.

To be fixated on uncompressed is nothing more than an obsession. You have every right to be pixel obssessed obsessed but is there a real practical reason to be because at the moment it just feels like bitching about wanting something that will never exist with REDCODE?

PS: I feel Jim has been very patient in this thread, but I understand the need to understand the way things are the way they are.

David

I agree with this David. 4K of res is amazing, and certainly what helped RED establish themselves. REDCODE is the brilliance of the entire system. It's why many of us are able to use the camera in the ways we use it. And in my opinion, it is what should win RED a technical achievement award at some point.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

REDCODE RAW is, in my humble considered opinion, the very best technology that RED has invented. It carries all of the flexibility of RAW workflows within a package which could be recorded to CF card media.

Prior to the introduction to this technology there was a company called DALSA who had 4K uncompressed camera. The recording devices made it completely impractical to capture in any kind of reasonable way (as in the drive array needed was literally the size of a cooler attached to a fiber optic cable).

REDCODE is an enabling technology. It enables the camera to be portable, it enables the camera to record a RAW signal, through a very smart compression scheme.

To be fixated on uncompressed is nothing more than an obsession. You have every right to be pixel obssessed obsessed but is there a real practical reason to be because at the moment it just feels like bitching about wanting something that will never exist with REDCODE?

PS: I feel Jim has been very patient in this thread, but I understand the need to understand the way things are the way they are.

David

David - I agree and I think this is something that is often overlooked. People talk about the resolution or the modularity or the low light performance, etc., all of which are VERY noteworthy. But, some people go on and on talking about how the AF-100 or the DSLRs or the Sony F3 are going to compete with the new REDs. But they go right past the biggest thing those cameras DON'T HAVE - REDCode RAW!! It makes all the difference. Until someone else offers this quality in a RAW, manageable format, there is no competition.

 

[Martin Stevens]

I for one am not looking for UNCOMPRESSED, however I wish to have the option
to record using a "MATHEMATICALLY LOSSLESS" compression setting.

If 2.5 to 1 on the EPIC is Mathematically Lossless then I see no harm in having this option.
Artists are often emotional people and so they just might choose
their compression settings using the emotional, rather than the scientific
part of their brain.

I will buy Epics with whatever settings Jim decides to offer.
2.5 to 1 will not effect my Red purchasing decisions.

 

[David Battistella]

Artists are often emotional people and so they just might choose
their compression settings using the emotional, rather than the scientific
part of their brain.

Whole brain thinking is best.

Why do you need this mathematically lossless so badly? I am really curious.


David

 

[Martin Stevens]

Whole brain thinking is best.

Why do you need this mathematically lossless so badly? I am really curious.


David

The simplest reason is because I don't want to have any compression artifacts in my Digital Negatives.

Since Jim's/Red's goal is to have a worthy, and/or better replacement for film,
then having zero compression artifacts in the RAW files makes total sense to me.

I just wish that the 10 to 1 compression option was the Mathematically Lossless option,
but as of today it is not. In the future it might be.

Also, I have PPSD (Post Production Stress Disorder).



After years of seeing horrible video compression artifacts, my Doctor
says the only cure is an Epic Camera with preferably no compression artifacts.

 

[paulherrin]

let's wait and see.

 

[Jannard]

The simplest reason is because I don't want to have any compression artifacts in my Digital Negatives.

Since Jim's/Red's goal is to have a worthy, and/or better replacement for film,
then having zero compression artifacts in the RAW files makes total sense to me.

I just wish that the 10 to 1 compression option was the Mathematically Lossless option,
but as of today it is not. In the future it might be.

Also, I have PPSD (Post Production Stress Disorder).



After years of seeing horrible video compression artifacts, my Doctor
says the only cure is an Epic Camera with preferably no compression artifacts.

And what if you had zero compression artifacts at 6:1? Martin... you keep asking for something before you have seen any results. Just sayin'.

Jim