Jump to content

JPEG frames


Phil Rhodes

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I've just been looking at a couple of JPEGs on the Red site.

 

It's very creditable stuff. Highlight handling isn't great, but then, it's fundamentally a video camera. OK. So far, so good. You could shoot a movie with it, as much as you could shoot a movie with a Viper.

 

They're JPEGs, so it's hard to make any very critical judgments (which in itself makes me suspicious), but what strikes me is this: it looks like it's all been slightly unsharp-masked. This is an artifact typical of DSLR owners with feeble cameras trying to make very large prints look better in Photoshop, and it is somewhat effective.

 

However.

 

It is also an artifact typical of overoptimistic de-mosaic work, to the point that here I think it may have been processed so much to get every last iota of information out of it, that it's actually been damaged by the effort. The dark suspicion I can't avoid here - and honestly, only because the Red people have been so vocal about it - is that it has exactly the problem that I (and anyone who can count) said it would have, in that you can't make a very convincing 4K picture out of a 4K bayer array.

 

But I want to see TIFFs or something more concrete.

 

The one that particularly alarmed me is here:

 

http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/009000.jpg

 

Look at the crosspoints on the mesh on his helmet.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil... the only thing you have forgotten to mention is that these were shot with Alpha prototypes (from two months ago) and we have been quick to point out that we had a lot of work still in front of us. We choose to be open about the process, including showing work from unfinished prototypes. You criticque is valid, but only if you consider what I have just said. We have come a long way since then. Your skeptcism remains valid until we post newer.

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could shoot a movie with it, as much as you could shoot a movie with a Viper.

Many would disagree with you here, even discounting the full frame 35mm vs. 2/3" sensor size.

They're JPEGs, so it's hard to make any very critical judgments (which in itself makes me suspicious), but what strikes me is this: it looks like it's all been slightly unsharp-masked. This is an artifact typical of DSLR owners with feeble cameras trying to make very large prints look better in Photoshop, and it is somewhat effective.

Agree that critical judgment is hard to make on a jpeg. No sharpening done in Photoshop (or anywhere in the process) as you would suggest. Demosaic has changed several times since this posting.

 

However.

 

It is also an artifact typical of overoptimistic de-mosaic work, to the point that here I think it may have been processed so much to get every last iota of information out of it, that it's actually been damaged by the effort. The dark suspicion I can't avoid here - and honestly, only because the Red people have been so vocal about it - is that it has exactly the problem that I (and anyone who can count) said it would have, in that you can't make a very convincing 4K picture out of a 4K bayer array.

You won't get any support on this from anyone who has seen the footage.

But I want to see TIFFs or something more concrete.

Maybe you would have a different point of view.

The one that particularly alarmed me is here:

 

http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/009000.jpg

 

Look at the crosspoints on the mesh on his helmet.

What exactly?

Phil

 

Again... Alpha prototypes that produced an image that all said looked fantastic at NAB on a 4K projector. But we are already much further along since then.

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

To be precise, color negative film has more dynamic range (not reversal, for example.)

 

But what I saw in the Peter Jackson film was certain workable, contrast-wise, considering the short was made under pretty harsh daylight conditions in NZ (sort of a worst-case scenario in some ways), and the Red team says they gotten a few more stops of dynamic range out of the camera since the demo was shot.

 

The ironic thing is that a certain percentage of people who have tried to color-correct the short film themselves invariably add more contrast and throw away some dynamic range to make the images conform to their tastes regarding "war photography" -- so while more dynamic range is always a good thing because it allows highlights to blow-out more gracefully, and shadows to roll-off into black more naturally, half the time we then take that footage and add more contrast for dramatic reasons. Better to have the info and toss some of it away than to not have it when we need it...

 

Also, some artifacts are more apparent in still frames than in motion (of course, others are more apparent in motion than in a still frame.)

 

My impression is that Graeme, Jim, and everyone else at Red have been nitpicking these images more than anyone else and know the artifacts quite intimately, hence the announcement of further improvements and tweaks on the way, both at the camera end and in the processing end. This is all very hopeful. I think it's going to be a great camera when it's finally released.

 

Due to color negative's non-linear response to light, you'd almost need to design a digital camera that exceeded the dynamic range of film in order to then apply gamma curves to compress the highlights and shadows and end up with a dynamic range that is the same as film. So far, I haven't seen any digital camera really match film's dynamic range, but it's also clear that the technology keeps improving so never say never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Due to color negative's non-linear response to light, you'd almost need to design a digital camera that exceeded the dynamic range of film in order to then apply gamma curves to compress the highlights and shadows and end up with a dynamic range that is the same as film. So far, I haven't seen any digital camera really match film's dynamic range, but it's also clear that the technology keeps improving so never say never.

That has been my thinking as well. The problem with current digital cameras is not the latitude, but that as soon as it clips, it looks very ugly. Harris Savides says as much about the Viper also. The only way to remedy that would be a chip that never clips, similar to HDR images, so that one could blow out the highlight s gracefully in colorcorrection if one so choses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, I haven't seen any digital camera really match film's dynamic range, but it's also clear that the technology keeps improving so never say never.

With due respect Mr Mullen, unless some person finds a way to make image sensors out of some brand new alternative to silicon, I am quite confident to say "never". Silicon Carbide might give 4-5 stops more, but we are nowhere even vaguely near to that achievement.

 

It may, (well, almost certainly will) get higher resolution with more pixels, but you will never get much more dynamic range than there is now. The dynamic range of even standard definition CCD has not improved all that drastically in even more than 15 years.

 

Every stop improvement needs a 6dB downwards shift in the noise floor. But the noise floor is already at rock bottom. Even the ultra-wealthy owner of Oakley simply cannot order silicon atoms to lie still :lol:

 

Cameras today seem to have lower noise due to clever signal processing, not so much that they generate inherently better signals.

 

I am quite happy to allow that the RED could be a great benfit to videographers, but cinematographers, no.

 

So please don't hold your breath. You will turn RED, blue, black, and various shades of decomposition before a video camera is the equal of movie film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, I haven't seen any digital camera really match film's dynamic range, but it's also clear that the technology keeps improving so never say never.

 

Hello,

 

May I ask you your opinion regarding the Dalsa? I was given a demo at a meeting and the tech guy show how much details he could get from a blown-out sky, and that's really impress me, seemed just like an HDR done with my DSLR. The output is 16 bits though.

 

Thanks,

Eden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
May I ask you your opinion regarding the Dalsa?

 

Just from the general shots that people like Dave Stump shot, I'd probably say that the Dalsa is the best I've seen so far for dynamic range in a digital cine camera, but that's not based on real testing.

 

All the high-end digital cine cameras are not too far apart though in effective dynamic range though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I fully expect even big-budget Hollywood films to be shot on the Red, after all they have shot on the F900, Viper and Genesis as well and are looking at the Dalsa too.

 

But I'm very curious if those films actually go uncompressed or shoot Redcode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 4K demo (projected with the Sony 4K) Dalsa footage I saw was quite good re response in the highlights - candles on a dinner table did not bloom etc and detail seemed to hold in the flames.... No hot sky through window type torture tests in that footage tho....

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
But I want to see TIFFs or something more concrete.

 

The one that particularly alarmed me is here:

 

http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/009000.jpg

 

Look at the crosspoints on the mesh on his helmet.

 

Phil

 

Hi Phil,

 

There is also some 'edge' around the gun & arm. What would that be if there is no detail used in the Red camera?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully expect even big-budget Hollywood films to be shot on the Red, after all they have shot on the F900, Viper and Genesis as well and are looking at the Dalsa too.

 

But I'm very curious if those films actually go uncompressed or shoot Redcode.

 

Every single one (so far) is planning on shooting REDCODE RAW. I think "Crossing the Line" changed a lot of minds on what compressed raw can look like. There is no reason to carry huge drives around unless there is a meaningful visual advantage.

 

Before we will accept an order for a RAW Port, we will make sure that the customer has seen a side by side comparison and just isn't assuming that uncompressed is better. REDCODE RAW looks as good, shoots on portable media, is much easier to clone for backup, and has several very convenient workflow options.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's not what it looks like straight off the camera, though, is it?

 

It's what it looks like after a whole post chain.

 

You seem to have convinced CML that compression is OK, though. I'm impressed.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Due to color negative's non-linear response to light, you'd almost need to design a digital camera that exceeded the dynamic range of film in order to then apply gamma curves to compress the highlights and shadows and end up with a dynamic range that is the same as film. So far, I haven't seen any digital camera really match film's dynamic range, but it's also clear that the technology keeps improving so never say never.

 

Great summation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you will be quite surprised at what films will be shot with RED this year...

 

Jim

 

 

Look mister, I for one have been absolutely AMAZED "at what films" have already been shot with absolute rubbish "cinematography" cameras, like, Star Wars for example? I still can't understand how Warner Bros allowed a flagship franchise like Superman to be shot on crap equipment; the picture quality of the 30 year old original was miles better.

 

Not that I'm saying your cameras are crap; I'm just making the point that I don't think that's a terribly good argument to use.

 

Why don't you make a new Oakley ad with the RED and arrange to get it shown in cinemas? Not only will you able to write it off as a business expense, but everybody will be able to see some RED footage without having to travel to Las Vegas or wherever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you will be quite surprised at what films will be shot with RED this year...

 

Jim

 

Ah dear, more Nostradamus-like steam from master of vaporware Jannard. I declare, if RED press releases were cornflakes, there would be more calories in the carton :rolleyes:

 

No I would not be surprised too much at what industry "pros" who should know better do in the name of hip-ness. I have been surprised in the past, but I am over that now :lol:

 

And so, it is entirely possible we will see otherwise worthy films shot with all the stunning dynamic range offered by video cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah dear, more Nostradamus-like steam from master of vaporware Jannard. I declare, if RED press releases were cornflakes, there would be more calories in the carton :rolleyes:

 

No I would not be surprised too much at what industry "pros" who should know better do in the name of hip-ness. I have been surprised in the past, but I am over that now :lol:

 

And so, it is entirely possible we will see otherwise worthy films shot with all the stunning dynamic range offered by video cameras.

 

Here we go again. These RED threads go in circles don't they. I must agree that with all this open process we keep hearing about there is still a reluctance to show more footage and quality stills even though the camera is still being tweaked. Aside from the dynamic range and other limitations of video cameras the reason RED will always get all this attention is because of two factors. Cost and workflow. The thought of getting high quality video images, being able to edit on a laptop, on a variety of storage solutions for a very affordable price and not its competition with film is the reason for the candlelit vigil outside the hospital waiting room you are currently seeing.

Edited by Michael Peploe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is everyone so passionate one way or another over this camera. As I see it, Red is just another tool that can be considered when planning a project. Yes, film has a number of aesthetic advantages over video, but video or in this case 4K have a number of economic advantages. From a producers stand point, maybe your working on a really tight budget, consider that by alleviating the cost of film stock and possessing you may have more to spend on production design, costumes, postproduction, or what ever. I know this is the wrong place to say this but, the cinematic process is only part of the film not the entire film. My point is, what ever tool allows you to make the best possible movie with the time and money allowed is the better format. If you have the budget and time to shoot film do so, but it?s nice to know that we also have another acceptable choice if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Most of live and work in the real world where we have to deal with both digital and film technologies, and just want all of them to get better. We don't have the luxury of "taking sides".

 

We basically want these new digital cine cameras to have more resolution than HD when needed, a dynamic range closer to color negative film, a lack of compression artifacts, good color depth, to be a compact design, to have a relatively simple workflow on set and in post -- and to cost less than film because otherwise we'd probably use film, unless there is some other advantage to the all-digital set-up.

 

The RED camera is a significant step in that direction, perhaps more significant than its competitors, especially in the cost issue. The Dalsa Origin may have better dynamic range and fewer compression (since it records 16-bit uncompressed 4K RAW) or de-Bayering artifacts (I'm not saying it does, just that let's assume it does for the sake of argument) but it's size and probable cost of rental, and the awkwardness of the on set workflow, etc. -- all of these factors make the RED camera more attractive to someone on a tighter budget who wants to work faster on the set with a smaller camera.

 

In other words, keep on that slimming diet, Dalsa... you need to lose a few more pounds.

 

Several years ago we were all asking when we'd see 35mm-sized single-sensor digital cine cameras, and now they are finally arriving, so we are still in the early stages of that particular development, but it is a major development.

 

Regarding compression, I guess the issue is that there is a healthy win-win race to either make compression algorithms better and more "lossless" or make data recording faster, at greater volumes, and both will make 4K recording more practical. I think there is a happy balance somewhere there, where a minimal amount of compression combined with a decent amount of data recording will yield excellent results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Carl and Werner... it sounds like your position is that any cinematographer that uses RED is really NOT a worthy cinematographer? And their work should be discounted because they chose another medium besides film?

 

As for marketing tactics... we said we had someone shooting our NAB fotage but couldn't say who it was. At that point we were called down for "hyping". As it turned out, Peter Jackson shot the footage, which turned out to be a mini-movie. I don't think ANYONE felt like we had over-hyped the reality of what we showed. It is really hard to stay quiet here about what is happening because of all the "real men won't shoot RED" posts.

 

Here is the good news for you. You can shoot film all you want. The good news for us is that no matter how married to film you are, we are going to build and finish this camera. And we will continue to improve it over time.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...