Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A lot of reviews about RED cam say that it records in RAW files?

 

And yes, on the LCD.. it does show the information about technical adjustments during shooting

 

But how bout the output of the visual after transferring into the computer? Is RAW means we can only see the adjusted visual on the LCD during production ? but the recorded visual are plain not according to those adjustments like gain, aperture, shutter, brightness etc...

 

Thanks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the RED ONE camera are able to shot in RAW.

 

I am not sure exactly about what you'r asking...but I assume RAW on the RED ONE camera means the same as on still photography. RAW and JPG compression are very similar. The advantage you will get shooting RAW, is the better control over the Brightness, Gamma, Contrast, Colors etc. in Post.

 

The Image Quality you will receive after transferring the footage to the computer will be the same you saw on your LCD Monitor while shooting. And of course, considered you shot in 4K and the monitor only displays up to 1080p, there will be a difference in resolution which can affect the level of detail, but all-in-all the image on the monitor and the transfered footage will look the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

On set, the RED will display a quick and dirty "view" of the image on it's LCD display in whatever color space you choose to monitor in. As it's recording it's creating a .r3d file, which is it's raw data, and unless disabled by the user a quicktime movie proxie. These proxies are edited on the computer of your choosing, though they do not represent exactly what was captured. Later on, after the edit, one can go back and conform to the 4K material and give it a color correction before exporting it. Once exported it is no longer RAW. Or, one youl export all the footage with rough corrections and edit that.

The benefit of RAW is that there is no [or better put less] compression done in camera and as it's just sensor data, nothing is fully baked into the image giving you more control of color and brightness/contrast in post as mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Point of order:

 

The benefit of RAW is that there is no [or better put less] compression done in camera and as it's just sensor data, nothing is fully baked into the image giving you more control of color and brightness/contrast in post as mentioned.

 

Red uses an absolutely massive amount of compression - beyond 12:1 by even the most generous calculations. The reason it stores things as a compressed version of the bayer matrix is that they then don't have to bother putting debayering hardware in the camera.

 

The fact that you then get to defer all your colour decisions is, I suspect, entirely coincidental.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point of order:

 

 

 

Red uses an absolutely massive amount of compression - beyond 12:1 by even the most generous calculations. The reason it stores things as a compressed version of the bayer matrix is that they then don't have to bother putting debayering hardware in the camera.

 

The fact that you then get to defer all your colour decisions is, I suspect, entirely coincidental.

 

P

 

 

Phil,

 

How much compression is there on 35mm?

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Point of order:

 

 

 

Red uses an absolutely massive amount of compression - beyond 12:1 by even the most generous calculations. The reason it stores things as a compressed version of the bayer matrix is that they then don't have to bother putting debayering hardware in the camera.

 

The fact that you then get to defer all your colour decisions is, I suspect, entirely coincidental.

 

P

 

Hi Phil,

 

If Red recorded truly raw data from the sensor, the cameras performance would not be improved with the new firmware updates on a regular basis.

It's therefore my understanding that the data is processed before the compression.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
Point of order:

 

Red uses an absolutely massive amount of compression - beyond 12:1 by even the most generous calculations. The reason it stores things as a compressed version of the bayer matrix is that they then don't have to bother putting debayering hardware in the camera.

 

The fact that you then get to defer all your colour decisions is, I suspect, entirely coincidental.

 

P

 

Point of math: 4096x2304x12bit*24fps = 324MB/s. RC28 ~28MB/s, which is 11.57:1, which is less than 12:1. RC36, about 36MB/s leads to 9:1, and RC42 leads to 7.7:1, approximately.

 

There is full demosaicing in hardware, which you can tell by pressing the 1:1 LCD view switch, which passes through a crop of the full demosaiced image to the outputs.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
There is full demosaicing in hardware, which you can tell by pressing the 1:1 LCD view switch, which passes through a crop of the full demosaiced image to the outputs.

 

But that's intended mainly as a video tap substitute, right? Isn't the game plan still to do much better de-Bayering in post?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Point of math: 4096x2304x12bit*24fps = 324MB/s.

 

The claim of the sensor being 4500 sites wide has been fundamental to your claim of 4K resolution. Or at least I rather hope it has...

 

What's even more amusing is the hyperbole I had to suffer to look that number up. Call me a hater and mail me to Murmansk, but I do find it hard to relate on a technical level to someone who regards himself as part of a "highly elite group of visionaries", but who's willing to hide behind shiners like "red does not record video, which is defined as an RGB signal". As opposed to, ah, well, more or less every camcorder ever made, which record a YUV signal. I knew there was a reason I never read the red site, but good grief...

 

You must accept that it is very difficult to reconcile a "highly elite group of visionaries" who clearly can't count and lack a solid grasp of the very basics of their field.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim of the sensor being 4500 sites wide has been fundamental to your claim of 4K resolution. Or at least I rather hope it has...

 

What's even more amusing is the hyperbole I had to suffer to look that number up. Call me a hater and mail me to Murmansk, but I do find it hard to relate on a technical level to someone who regards himself as part of a "highly elite group of visionaries", but who's willing to hide behind shiners like "red does not record video, which is defined as an RGB signal". As opposed to, ah, well, more or less every camcorder ever made, which record a YUV signal. I knew there was a reason I never read the red site, but good grief...

 

You must accept that it is very difficult to reconcile a "highly elite group of visionaries" who clearly can't count and lack a solid grasp of the very basics of their field.

 

P

 

4.5k wide mode is 4480x1920*12bits*24fps is approx 295MB, giving slightly lower compression ratios than the 4k 16:9 mode I used earlier.

 

Phil - I see that people are posting here asking questions to help them understand things. Surely that's what this forum is about, not picking fights whenever anyone asks a question about RED, and then giving them wrong information.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So what d'you get out of that, an image with a usable resolution of what, 2k by 1k? What's that for?

 

Oh, no, wait, I get it: that's for establishing your claim on a 4K RGB image, isn't it! Silly me.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what d'you get out of that, an image with a usable resolution of what, 2k by 1k? What's that for?

 

Oh, no, wait, I get it: that's for establishing your claim on a 4K RGB image, isn't it! Silly me.

 

P

 

It may not be true 4k, whatever that is, but I know my colorist tells me that the 1080 out of quad HD he's timing on my show is perceptibly sharper than the F35 footage he's getting from some rather big shows - and he's not one to be affected by hype.

 

For a fraction of the cost that's pretty impressive to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil sure makes a compelling argument about the proposed marketing facts of Red.

 

I thought he was making a compelling argument that 11.57 was greater than 12, with his statement "beyond 12:1 by even the most generous calculations.".

 

So here we have in the "students ask questions here" section of the forum, someone asking some pretty reasonable questions to help them understand more what's going on, and Phil comes in with his "point of order" which is incorrect, and demonstrably so using basic high school math.

 

Phil also knows that so called "1080p" cameras don't actually measure 1080p resolution. They're called that because they live in a 1080p container, but we know that actually measuring resolution is the only way to know what the resolution of the system really is. When we measure the highest-end of HD cameras (Sony F35), we see resolution that doesn't reach quite out to 1920 horizontally, and fine detail corrupted by significant chroma aliasing and mis-alsignment of the RGB channels. We also see rather strong vertical luma aliasing that is strong enough to make it through to broadcast, rather than just appear on test charts. With video, digital or otherwise, there has always been a disparity between the resolution of the container and the measured resolution of the underlying image. That is why we told people initially that although a sensor might record 4k samples across it's width, the measured resolution would be around 75% of that. When we did our first actual measurements we found that number to be 78%, and now with advances in compression and processing techniques, we can see up to 85%. Similarly, charts show very low luma aliasing and chroma moire, because it's not worth having a high measured resolution if most of it is corrupted by aliasing.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me if I understand this correctly, I'm a bit confused.

 

RED markets its cameras by stating the 'resolution' of its sensors i.e. the number of RGB pixels you get out of it.

That's 4096x2304 pixels or put it another way about 9.5 megapixels. If the Red 1 had been a digital still camera it would have been described as 9.5MP sensor in its marketing. Is that correct?

I know there are ather shooting modes, like 4480x1920, but my basic question is do the pixels that Red is talking about equate to the kind of pixels manufacturers like Canon or Nikon are talking about in their stills cameras?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me if I understand this correctly, I'm a bit confused.

 

RED markets its cameras by stating the 'resolution' of its sensors i.e. the number of RGB pixels you get out of it.

That's 4096x2304 pixels or put it another way about 9.5 megapixels. If the Red 1 had been a digital still camera it would have been described as 9.5MP sensor in its marketing. Is that correct?

I know there are ather shooting modes, like 4480x1920, but my basic question is do the pixels that Red is talking about equate to the kind of pixels manufacturers like Canon or Nikon are talking about in their stills cameras?

 

Thanks.

 

Sensor in RED One is active area of 4520x2540, or 11.4mp. In normal shooting, the area beyond 4096x2304 (or 4480x1920, or whichever shooting mode you're in) is used for look-around so that you can see what is coming into shot before it gets into shot. When we're talking sensor pixels like this, we're talking exactly the same as Canon and Nikon etc. are on their digital stills cameras in stills mode.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for replying so quickly and clearly.

 

--

 

In that case I don't see that there's a problem with what Red is saying. Few people buying a digital stills camera would think that the number of pixels directly translated into the amount of detail the camera/lens/processing system could capture. For example, a 6mp phone camera is going to be nowehere near as good as a 6mp Nikon or Canon DSLR with stock lens.

 

I would expect anyone considering spending tens of thousands of dollars on a digital video camera would know that, right? Or was Red claiming something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for replying so quickly and clearly.

 

--

 

In that case I don't see that there's a problem with what Red is saying. Few people buying a digital stills camera would think that the number of pixels directly translated into the amount of detail the camera/lens/processing system could capture. For example, a 6mp phone camera is going to be nowehere near as good as a 6mp Nikon or Canon DSLR with stock lens.

 

I would expect anyone considering spending tens of thousands of dollars on a digital video camera would know that, right? Or was Red claiming something else?

 

With any camera system (lens / filter / sensor / recording / image processing), and it doesn't matter who makes the camera, there is the size of the recorded image, and there is the amount of detail that can be measured through the system. With every camera, there's a a container specification, and a measured result.

 

Graeme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...