jan von krogh Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=76711 impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted November 1, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 1, 2006 Company develops product. Company promotes product online. Like, way out concept, man. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Chad Stockfleth Posted November 1, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 1, 2006 No doubt, the frame looks good, even with all the compression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 No doubt, the frame looks good, even with all the compression. Of course it looks good. At 4k an image should pretty easily be compressible to around 1 Megabyte using wavelett based compression. A 1k image is 1/16th the pixels. Therefore the image you're seeing at 1k should actually be only about 100 KB to maintain the same quality as a mildly compressed 4k image. I'm not saying the 4k looks bad, but showing a 1k image compressed to 500KB isn't an indication of anything. We have to take it on faith that it looks great on their end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted November 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 2, 2006 We have to take it on faith that it looks great on their end. Gavin, With respect you may believe what you are told, but I prefer to make my own judgement using my own eyes. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) Gavin, With respect you may believe what you are told, but I prefer to make my own judgement using my own eyes. Stephen Sorry the proper grammer to prevent any confusion should have read: "I'm not saying the 4k looks bad, but showing a 1k image compressed to 500KB isn't an indication of anything. One would have to take it on faith that it looks great on their end." My point wasn't to suggest we should, just that we can't possibly know anything from what they showed us. The english language can be a fickle mistress. ;) - Gavin Edited November 2, 2006 by Gavin Greenwalt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted November 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 2, 2006 Sorry the proper grammer to prevent any confusion should have read: "I'm not saying the 4k looks bad, but showing a 1k image compressed to 500KB isn't an indication of anything. One would have to take it on faith that it looks great on their end." My point wasn't to suggest we should, just that we can't possibly know anything from what they showed us. The english language can be a fickle mistress. ;) - Gavin Gavin, Pleased we cleared that up! You may remember about 4 years ago, (Rank) Cintel made some tests comparing 4k compressed 52:1 v 2k uncompressed. The 4k compressed had more resoloution! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted November 2, 2006 Author Share Posted November 2, 2006 Gavin, Pleased we cleared that up! You may remember about 4 years ago, (Rank) Cintel made some tests comparing 4k compressed 52:1 v 2k uncompressed. The 4k compressed had more resoloution! Stephen in my experience, higher resolution with stronger datareduction -looks- better, but, once in colorcorrection or VFX the missing details will show up miuch quicker than in the unreduced lower resolution. choice of two evils. however, wavelet basing reduction (i suppose red is using wavelet by the look, but i am not certain) is "milder" in comparision to the hardcore quantisation in jpeg when you push it through correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Looks good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) When I first heard the RED camera was going to use wavelett based compression to allow 4k on a single hard drive about 6 months I had never heard of wavelett compression and thought the whole thing sounded like a pie in the sky impossible claim. So I spent a sunday off doing nothing but researching and experimenting with waveletts. It was also my experience that between a 700KB 2k wavelett and a 700KB 4k wavelett the 4k was dramatically cleaner and sharper. And I decided that if I used the RED camera in my pipeline I would work exclusively in 4k. I also found that to achieve "visually lossless" compression the size difference between the two was only about 200KB. (1MB vs 1.2 MBs). Not worth the dramatic drop in quality, and about on par file size with uncomressed DV. Not to mention once the 4k footage had been downrezzed, any artifacting that occured in compression usually completely dissapeared. I then couldn't tell the difference between it and an uncompressed 2k. You can push a wavelett compressed image just about as hard as you would an uncompressed image when it comes to color. Don't think of it like JPEG where the image is built from garbage. Load up photoshop and play with JPEG2000. This wasn't with any of the RED footage, I played with the DALSA references. Edited November 2, 2006 by Gavin Greenwalt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted November 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 2, 2006 in my experience, higher resolution with stronger datareduction -looks- better, but, once in colorcorrection or VFX the missing details will show up miuch quicker than in the unreduced lower resolution. choice of two evils. however, wavelet basing reduction (i suppose red is using wavelet by the look, but i am not certain) is "milder" in comparision to the hardcore quantisation in jpeg when you push it through correction. Hi Yan, If planning serious color correction then I think one should work uncompressed, and only compress for final delivery. I just don't get excited about reducing the data rate to make life easy. FWIW I have never known anybody who shot 35mm say they wish thes had shot compressed video instead. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Hi Yan, If planning serious color correction then I think one should work uncompressed, and only compress for final delivery. I just don't get excited about reducing the data rate to make life easy. FWIW I have never known anybody who shot 35mm say they wish thes had shot compressed video instead. Stephen And I've never known anyone who loves hauling around a RAID array the size of a small family car. It's all in the trade offs. - Gavin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted November 2, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted November 2, 2006 And I've never known anyone who loves hauling around a RAID array the size of a small family car. It's all in the trade offs. - Gavin Hi Gavin, Well if you use hard drives from a Quantel Harry I see your point. AFAIK a raid of 28 hard drives should work, its not as big as a small family car! So if one really wants quality and easy handling then 35mm still would seem to win! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Greenwalt Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 (edited) Hi Gavin, Well if you use hard drives from a Quantel Harry I see your point. AFAIK a raid of 28 hard drives should work, its not as big as a small family car! So if one really wants quality and easy handling then 35mm still would seem to win! Stephen I exagerate a little. ;) If you plan on doing a film out, it's cheaper to shoot 35 as well! Then again... if you're going to be underwater for an hour and a half or in an airplane, or on a 10 year space mission to find new life and new civilizations, I would prefer a digital workflow again. Sometimes compressed is "good enough." I can't say I've ever been in one of those shooting situations. In fact I don't think I've ever been in a situation where a tether would be a problem either. - Gavin Edited November 2, 2006 by Gavin Greenwalt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted November 2, 2006 Author Share Posted November 2, 2006 I exagerate a little. ;) Then again... if you're going to be underwater for an hour and a half or in an airplane, or on a 10 year space mission to find new life and new civilizations, I would prefer a digital workflow again. Lol, James Cameron (who went digital for "aliens of deep") shot that movie: ABYSS. the hero dives in a gliding submarine to the bottom of the sea to discover new life and civilisations :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now