WHY!!!! are people still using color baked DPX's F&%*@#%*#K!

[Michael Lindsay]

But I got the Red camera for 4k, or 3k finish.
Plus, until they fix it, the rocket is the only way to get sharp images. I dare you to compare ( pixel peep ) the results. Want to make your $7K lens look like a $700 lens ? Use no card.
The results is what I care about, hence my previous posts.

Funny.. I own a RR and think it is 'essential' for editorial rushes creation but not always for finishing... The software decode is sometimes a better choice. Especially if you want the least 'electronic' picture.

M

 

[jimhare]

Michael, so you turn off the RR decode during grading?

Funny.. I own a RR and think it is 'essential' for editorial rushes creation but not always for finishing... The software decode is sometimes a better choice. Especially if you want the least 'electronic' picture.

M

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Sorry if I'm ranting a bit here, but I've run into this a couple times this month already... "We can process ARRI RAW in real-time, but our systems choke on EPIC 5K... RED sucks...". Never mind that ARRIRAW frame is only 36% of the number of pixels and 36% of the total uncompressed bayer data, 36% of the total resolution or detail and has relatively no decompression overhead. 5K full on EPIC is 13.8MP in size... 16bit RAW... That's 26.4MB per FRAME for RAW and uncompressed 80MB per FRAME as 16bit RGB. That is 1.9GB/s for 24fps motion... Which leads us to one other concern with GPU acceleration. Most GPUs are notoriously slow for getting data off the GPU card and back onto the PCIe or system bus. On a PCIe 2.0 bus, you need the dedicated outbound capacity from your GPU of 4 lanes to accommodate that and to put that into perspective, most all current GPUs, even the Quadro 6000 and GeForce GTX585 don't have that sort of outboard data throughput. Sure, they exist as 16-lane devices and can swallow massive amounts of incoming data and process it for display to a monitor via their onboard path, but most of them have little more output capacity than what is required to build and send out framebuffer data to support portions of a ~2K framebuffer used in SLI mode for games. Most SLI configs choke on displaying to dual 27 or 30 inch displays because of the outboard bandwidth from individual cards. It usually takes 3 cards in SLI to swallow dual 24" and larger (1080p +) screens.

What about those crazy-sweet (and red) ATI cards? They do much better at multiple high resolution monitors and are supposed to have way more bandwidth going both ways. Don't know about the details, just saying that if the last time video cards were tested was during Tesla, we should definitely give current cards a try.

I love the RRocket, but there should be no stone unturned, no wall left standing on the way towards an all-out RAW nirvana. Cards are getting INSANE, their performance is so flippin' stupefying they make me thing of EPIC. Can't help think they are a couple meant to be together. Well, I actually think an EPIC should get it on with multiple sexy videocards at once... Pun not intended, but oddly appropriate. We are already in the days of Scarlet, so a $500 multipurpose card capable of handling R3D development fits like a glove!

 

[Carter Cammack]

ATI cards work in some instances, but not in Adobe, which is the choice of many. Adobe uses CUDA, and Nvidia has the lock on that for now. So if you're using Premier, ATI cards are not for you.
I like the FirePro line for CGI work in Cinema4D, ToonBoom, and Poser. The midrange 5900 is a score as you can use two cards for about the price of a Quadro4000 and stomp the higher-end 5000. They run on 75 watt slot power and are only a single slot wide. I don't know how they handle RED files though. Maybe someone else here has some insight.

It's still no debayer card, and no option to take the debayer/demosaic load off of the CPU, which is what some people want.

 

[Les Dittert]

Sample Images. See for yourself. Nuff said, a picture is worth 1000 words, etc ....

Sample Images. See for yourself. Nuff said, a picture is worth 1000 words, etc ....

So I checked RCX beta 6 against RCX beat 10, same software render quality on output.

Here is the difference between RCX software debayer and RCX Rocket renders. If I apply a 0.5 Gaussian blur to the Rocket version, it makes it look like the software rendered one. I want the sharper version please.
( cropped from 3k image. ISO1600 Rendered as 16 bit Tif, full quality, no resize on output from RCX )
Ignore washed out CC, that's not the point. Save image and view 200% to see better.

Some more. Shot rather dark, but the difference is easy to see.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Michael, so you turn off the RR decode during grading?

I have elected to not render with RR for the finishing of a quite a few projects. It isn't just so I can choose a softer output there is also more control with a software render.

I have to confess that I am a fan of effortless resolution not processed sharpness... so your taste may cause you to disagree. This is not to say that the Rockets output is bad in any way. It is a fantastic tool - super quick and very clean.. I couldn't work without one... For example I absolutely insist on looking at full debayer HD for ofline and rocket is essential of this in our workflow

 

[Les Dittert]

Here is the Rocket render with a 0.5 Gaussian

blur added.... looks just like the Software render now ! ( effortless ? )



and here the software debayer .... looks same now !!!

 

[Martin Stevens]

Here is the Rocket render with a 0.5 Gaussian blur added.... looks just like the Software render now ! ( effortless ? )

and here the software debayer .... looks same now !!!

Very, very interesting!

 

[Joe Minuni]

So I checked RCX beta 6 against RCX beat 10, same software render quality on output.

Here is the difference between RCX software debayer and RCX Rocket renders. If I apply a 0.5 Gaussian blur to the Rocket version, it makes it look like the software rendered one. I want the sharper version please.

Really...until this thread I had no clue that Red Rocket actually effects final image quality...I was under the impression that it was only for realtime speed increases during editing and grading. For better or worse, but still thought the difference in debayering was simply speed. Thanks for the wake up

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Interesting. I would take the software debayer though, the Rocket result looks quite ugly. As Michael said, looks too "electronic" or artificially enhanced. Hope someone from RED can comment on this.

 

[Les Dittert]

Interesting. I would take the software debayer though, the Rocket result looks quite ugly. As Michael said, looks too "electronic" or artificially enhanced. Hope someone from RED can comment on this.

It has more recoverable detail, or high frequency energy as compression scientists might say.
This will result in more detail and sharpness after a temporal noise filter is applied. The temporal filters, for example: neat video, just love that detail, and latch onto it very effectively leaving you with a sharper image and reduced noise that gave it that 'crunchy, electronic buzzy' look previously.
Guess what ? Now you are getting closer to 4K resolving power ! With less noise. If your are after 4k, you want detail. Still shooters are looking as well.
I can always soften/mist/make organic in further post processing. The blur I applied to the Rocket images is not what I'm after. Anybody can blur Red doesn't want to blur.

I suggest Red provide a couple of new debayer options. Some debayer methods may look odd in motion, with edges looking a little buzzy or ropey. Fine. Pick a couple that tend not to exhibit this.
SI2k folks have choices, we should too. And those who shoot 2k, wow, they are real picky of the debayer because they are already starved for detail from the get go!
I'm sure Red will address this, as the ultimate excellence of the image is crucial to them.

 

[David Battistella]

May I add an important point of clarity here as I understand it.

These examples are with build 10 of RCX pro.

Build 6, for example, does not exhibit the same results.

David

 

[Les Dittert]

MacBook I add an important point of clarity here as I understand it.

These examples are with build 10 of RCX pro.

Build 6, for example, does not exhibit the same results.

David

All my tests are PC versions for software debayer, Mac for rocket.
David were you trying to post examples?

 

[Michael Lindsay]

I haven't done software renders in RCXpro so it may have changed but I am assuming there are still debayer options?

Also are we looking at 1 for 1 images (Les D)?

I do aprecaite that the stills guys often want very sharp... (show me a Medium format camera that has a OLPF). Stills guys also, against basic sampling theory, want hard detail at a pixel level.

great thing about raw ... we all get what we want.

M

 

[David Battistella]

All my tests are PC versions for software debayer, Mac for rocket.
David were you trying to post examples?

I am understanding that this is ONLY with the CURRENT BUILD 10 of the software.

With build 6 you would have the same result.

I know that the detail and sharpening controls are disabled with the ROCKET so a software only debayer gives you control over that, where you do not have a choice with the ROCKET installed.



David

 

[Gunleik Groven]

In case you're not aware, on the major features that Lightiron has done DI work on, they were in almost all cases done with DPX transcodes, for exactly the reasons I mentioned earlier. So if you're looking for an example.....

I didn't wanna jump in on this, but: LOL

There are many good and valid easons for a transcode for large form. Of course depending on the people doing it knowing what the heck they're dealing with.

But the same is true or a RAW online...

 

[JanneJansson]

I dont usually deliver full 4k/5k to my cutomers, most 1080. This is how the image quality look when i full res for me.
I'm using beta 6 and red rocket. I think the software image is better. The closeups are 200%.

In 1080 both rocket and software are identical.

 

[David Battistella]

Thanks for posting that Janne.

Man. I love it when useful threads like this happen on REDUSER.

David

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

Thanks for posting that Janne.

Man. I love it when useful threads like this happen on REDUSER.

David

+ 1,000

Thanks for posting that, Janne.

The software demosaic is not the same as the Rocket hardware demosaic. The software demosaic is too complex to run in hardware, but it benefits from being smoother, whereas the Rocket demosaic is sharper. The R3D decode, matrix and LUTs are fully matched between hardware and software.

Jean - there is no sharpening in Rocket, and that's fine because we don't recommend you sharpen until the end, with respect to the desired output format.

Graeme

It's nice to put an image on Graeme's explanation...

 

[Mark Toia]

Hand ball...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?71518-4k-2k-PRO-RES-DNxHD-MODULE-who-wants-one