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 :)

Uncompressed 3K RAW

Radoslav Karapetkov

Radoslav Karapetkov

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Sofia, Bulgaria [EU]
If "Uncompressed RAW 4.5K at 24p comes in at roughly 323 MB/sec."...

... then Uncompressed RAW 3K from Scarlet would come in at something like ~220 MB\sec. [just a guesstimation]

That's not too far away from the announced "up to 100 MB\sec. REDCODE RAW".

And probably comes to say two things:

1. What about Uncompressed 3K RAW from the Scarlet? [in the not so distant future]?

Delivering in Uncompressed should be easier for the camera itself. The media speeds are the problem for that, AFAIK.

2. The announced "up to 100 MB\sec. REDCODE RAW" is probably going to be of INSANELY high quality, given that it's almost 50 % of the bandwidth of full Uncompressed 3K RAW.

What`cha think?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=79GSriibjvE

:)
 
REDCODE RAW will serve perfectly for 3k, no one can realistically edit uncompressed, compression is good, we like compression, but good mathematics come into play with codecs, and ones like Redcode RAW and cineform come to mind.
 
100MB/sec is for 120fps, so 24p 3k Redcode RAW will probably be 1/5 of that (20MB/s). Red One's Redcode Raw is about 36MB/s I think. 3k is 9/16x as many pixels as 4k, so that comes out to about 20MB/s also, but they may have lower (and higher) compression options too.
 
Chris Newman said:
100MB/sec is for 120fps, so 24p 3k Redcode RAW will probably be 1/5 of that (20MB/s). Red One's Redcode Raw is about 36MB/s I think. 3k is 9/16x as many pixels as 4k, so that comes out to about 20MB/s also, but they may have lower (and higher) compression options too.
Click to expand...

Well said... and with Build 16 DSP and new sensor technology, Scarlet will not disappoint.

Jim
 
Chris Newman said:
100MB/sec is for 120fps, so 24p 3k Redcode RAW will probably be 1/5 of that (20MB/s). Red One's Redcode Raw is about 36MB/s I think. 3k is 9/16x as many pixels as 4k, so that comes out to about 20MB/s also, but they may have lower (and higher) compression options too.
Click to expand...


Wow, now that master Jim has commented on this calculation, I have confidence that it's an accurate one.

I have no doubts about Redcode RAW and\or Scarlet.

I'm just one of the spoiled little brats arond here. :tongue:

But I'm cool.

Can I have one now? :clown2:

I'm ready to beta-test any time. :tongue:
 
sorry for my ignorance guys but are we talking about mbits or bytes? How does 20mb/s compare to the HDV compression rate of 25mb/s?

Cheers
 
oh right so 20 megabytes/sec is about 160 megebits per sec? Or about 6 times the data rate of HDV?

Cool
 
The most important thing is that it's RAW.

HDV and such are pretty much "cooked up" when you have it, but RAW is... raw. :) It's the (almost) untouched data of the camera sensor.

You get the freedom to tweak things a lot with much smaller noise and much higher quality.

And HDV is MPEG-2, GOP interframe crap, which means that if you try and tweak it in post, you start seeing all kinds of sh*t in the footage, noise, artifacts and all kinds of degradation.

Good for home movies and maybe event shooting, but not for pro cine work.
 
HDV compression
Click to expand...

I skipped HDV and I will never use it, because of Scarlet.
I'm so glad I'm stubborn and stick with DV, because clients and customers never been more happy about the image quality of my footage.
Resolution isn't as important as how a camera compress the footage.
HDV is shit and that nightmare is something I never enter :)
 
HDV stuffs HD footage in a place which is narrow even for DV. :)

OMG, one more post to go!

Here I come, RED hotties :).
 
there are MB and mb

MegaByte and megabit

FW800 is 800mb/s but its about 80MB/s
 
x86box said:
there are MB and mb

MegaByte and megabit

FW800 is 800mb/s but its about 80MB/s
Click to expand...

actually its 100MB , 8bits in a byte, 1024 bytes in a kilobyte, 1024 kilobytes in a megabyte , 1024 megabytes in a gigabyte, course getting harddrive manufacturers to stick to this is a little hard these days.
 
1 bit = 8 bytes (B).
1000 B = 1 kB
1,000,000 = 1 MB etc.
To alleviate confusion, there is a "new" standard for "binary" numbers (i.e., multiples of 1024, which is kiB, and MiB, and is pronounced "kibibyte" and "mebibyte".

Hard drive manufacturers use the correct notation, mostly because it gives them higher numbers, whereas Microsoft reports "MiB = MB" in Windows. I'm not sure where Apple and Linux stand on the issue, but it's about time it got fixed.
 
Mega bits or bytes data rates do not give a true picture. Such numbers don't tell much. Better measures would be such as PSNR, and even those ones that are weighted with visual response metrics.
 
Goose said:
sorry for my ignorance guys but are we talking about mbits or bytes? How does 20mb/s compare to the HDV compression rate of 25mb/s?

Cheers
Click to expand...

Lets do a straight forward comparison.

Scarlet:
=====

20 MBytes / sec = 160 MBits /sec for an image of size 3072 x 1728.

HDV
===

~20 Mbits / sec for an image of size 1440 * 1080.

Comparison:
========

Scale factor for Scarlet:HdV :: 3.4:1

Approximate data rate required for HDV to have similar video quality as Scarlet is ~90 Mbits /sec. However, Scarlet probably is just intra-frame, where has HDV is inter-frame (temporal) compression also. Hence, temporal compression has yielded HDV a factor of 90/20 = 4.5, which is not surprising at all, as typically going temporal from pure intra-frame results in much higher factors.

HDV multi-generation work becomes problematic because of MPEG-2 encoding. If they had opted for integer transforms, such as those used in H.264, which are perfectly invertible, then even multi-generation work would have been fine.
 
Remember that that Scarlet is a RAW tool...
It gets problematic just to compare to any other videoformat.
 
Glazarus said:
I skipped HDV and I will never use it, because of Scarlet.
I'm so glad I'm stubborn and stick with DV, because clients and customers never been more happy about the image quality of my footage.
Resolution isn't as important as how a camera compress the footage.
HDV is shit and that nightmare is something I never enter :)
Click to expand...


HDV has it's uses... I guess.

but I'm glad I never have to invest in an HDV camera.
 
karapetkov said:
HDV stuffs HD footage in a place which is narrow even for DV. :)

OMG, one more post to go!

Here I come, RED hotties :).
Click to expand...

And you talk crap. HDV movies made it into cinemas. DV movies made it into cinemas. When you are waiting for Scarlet, you missed a chance to get a movie into cinema. Post like this are so ignorant. HDV is a great format with its limitations as does every format out there. Uncompressed is nice but you will need tons of storage space to comfortably work with it. HDV has always been about concessions. But with the right handling and care, you can achieve amazing things with HDV and Canon's implementation for example is very good. There is a movie called "The Signal" and it was shot on the Canon XL-H1 to tape (so HDV codec, no HD-SDI capturing) and it is in cinemas now worldwide. So don't say stupid things please.

I am very interested in the Scarlet. But for now, I really enjoy my Canon XL-H1 and the footage I get out of it. HDV works like a charm.
 
dieseljunkie said:
And you talk crap. HDV movies made it into cinemas. DV movies made it into cinemas. When you are waiting for Scarlet, you missed a chance to get a movie into cinema. Post like this are so ignorant. HDV is a great format with its limitations as does every format out there. Uncompressed is nice but you will need tons of storage space to comfortably work with it. HDV has always been about concessions. But with the right handling and care, you can achieve amazing things with HDV and Canon's implementation for example is very good. There is a movie called "The Signal" and it was shot on the Canon XL-H1 to tape (so HDV codec, no HD-SDI capturing) and it is in cinemas now worldwide. So don't say stupid things please.

I am very interested in the Scarlet. But for now, I really enjoy my Canon XL-H1 and the footage I get out of it. HDV works like a charm.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings.

It's a free world, you can shoot HDV all you want. :)

I am a crap-head [karap-head :) ] and I'll be betting on RedCode RAW. :construction:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top