Peter Jackson clips and grabs...

[Jannard]

We have decided to post 1K clips of the movie today or tomorrow (as soon as Jarred can finish) and 4K frame grabs on www.red.com by the end of today.

We really do want everyone to see the whole movie in 4K. We are trying to figure out a way to get that done around the world. In the meantime, we'll give you something to chew on.

Jim

[Brook Willard]

You rock... thanks!

[Álex Montoya]

Fine with that. If they are 1K clips I guess they will be encoded mith MJPEG.

[Yash Keough]

Sweet thanks Jim! :biggrin: :bleh: That's awesome!

Yash

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

Thanks, wonder how this will effect my already lousy going-to-bed-early routine...

4K stills are very exciting! and 1k clips will be a blast too, the more, the merrier, thanks again!

[Kevin Halverson]

Really looking forward to seeing both the clips and the frame grabs!

[RED-Tank]

Thank you very much Jim, this is quick !!

Is it possible to make it as HTTP/FTP download ? I can't use bit-torrent... (i shall say I scare of BT :<..).

[damonbots]

... and Jim said, "Let there be clips"; and there were clips

sweet potato pie... thanks!

[Brook Willard]

People generally host clips on their own web-space after they've been released to speed things up. This is mostly from the pre-BT days, so the guys may not want people to do this anymore. We'll find out soon enough.

[IAN SUN]

Excellent Jim! We are ready in Toronto for that 4k screening. We'll provide a beautiful theater and a packed audience.

[Fix]

Good news!

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Exciting News Jim! We All Are Looking Forward To It...thanks For The Hard Work!

[Ace]

Awesome!

[Joshua Murray]

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[renderman]

Thank you so much.
This will really be exciting to see.

Thank you for also "doing what you say you are going to do".

Not enough companies can say that.

Hope you don't get so nailed with download hits that it brings the
site down...

[Ronnie Silos]

Saw the clip at NAB. This will be a well deserving clip to add in my AppleTV.

[Shawn Bannon]

You guys should tag the short on the front of a feature film thats being released soon.

[Mardi_Gras]

Awesome, Jim. That should take care of the flared nerves. LOL.

[Petr Dvorak]

... We really do want everyone to see the whole movie in 4K. We are trying to figure out a way to get that done around the world. ...

I must say that this is really good idea, my eyes are wide open and ready for any 4K stuff :w00t::blink:

[Jarred Land]

The 4k single frames will be up on red.com in a few minutes.

The first 1k extract from the video will be up in an our or two.

[REDAndWhite]

That's great news !
I had the chance to see the footage at NAB, but having a 1K version at home and a few 4K grabs still sounds amazing.

Thanks RED crew.

[Mardi_Gras]

The 4k single frames will be up on red.com in a few minutes.

The first 1k extract from the video will be up in an our or two.

U's the man, Jarred. Keep'em coming!

[Kenn Christenson]

http://members.ccountry.net/file_transfers/197/mr_burns.jpg

Exxcellent!

[Brook Willard]

[downloads furiously]

[Brook Willard]

"WANGANUI"
Presented by
M&ER JACKSON
WANGANUI
NEW ZEALAND

[jbeale]

Thanks so much for putting these up. With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo
http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/002318.jpg
the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser. Does anyone else see this? Is it a question of the JPEG compression, or is this just to be expected when viewing a 4k still at 1:1 ?

edit: ...or maybe it's just that the foreground is in focus and the background is out of focus.

[Álex Montoya]

I guess it's the REDCODE since the jpg's are pretty big. I guess that was unavoidable with such compression rate.

[Jaime Vallés]

Fantastic stills! Love the one with the full airplane. Can't wait to see the clips.

[Jannard]

I guess it's the REDCODE since the jpg's are pretty big. I guess that was unavoidable with such compression rate.

It is NOT REDCODE.

Jim

[Álex Montoya]

I am sorry. I really thought it was. I apologise.

[Yash Keough]

It's a JPEG image and it's for the web so I'm guessing maybe that's simply because of the compression - either way, it looks gooooodd :P The wide plan shot is very nice :D

[Charles Perkins]

thanks a lot for posting these.

[John Allardice]

Yeah...its gotta be the jpeg...those artifacts weren't visible at the screenings, and its not really visible in the other stills. Jim, might I suggest a replacement or re-jpeg of that particular still, you just KNOW the detractors are gonna call it out as a redcode faliure.

[Brook Willard]

The posterization and similar effects are a result of the JPG compression [at least I fully expect they are]. Remember, they cranked 12-bit all the way down to 8-bit for this distribution.

[Zach Hilton]

Yeah. These look great. The actual 4k projected film looked better (as Jim says), but what can you do with jpeg compression and internet distribution. Thanks!

[Álex Montoya]

Wrong... it is NOT REDCODE. It is so irritating to read stuff like this. Who are you?

Jim

W-who am I?

Well, I am a costumer of yours, sir. I ordered a RED a couple of days ago.

This strangely reminds me the episode of BBC's Extras starring Ben Stiller.

[Desert Rune]

Has some sort of spline interpolation been applied to these stills? They look nothing like the previous milk girls still images.

[Ace]

These look amazing. When you see them at full scale, you really start to see how similar to s35mm the imagery really is.

The posterised effect seems to be a deliberate effect I think, since we see no other discernable artifacting in any of the other redcode images posted, including ones shot in previous environments.

[Jannard]

hehe... sorry for the strong knee-jerk reaction. My bad. I'm just very protective of REDCODE.

Jim

[Yash Keough]

Excellent Jim! We are ready in Toronto for that 4k screening. We'll provide a beautiful theater and a packed audience.

4K screening in Toronto eh? I like the sound of that one! :P Please make that happen Jim! :biggrin:

mmm...4K...:bleh:

Yash

[Zach Hilton]

Has some sort of spline interpolation been applied to these stills? They look nothing like the previous milk girls still images.

Once again, although these images look fantastic, they are NOTHING compared to the actual film. The film was perfect, clean, and crisp, so anything you are seeing WASN'T and ISN'T in the actual footage, or REDCODE, or ProRes footage. So just be calm...it looks great!

[IAN SUN]

4K screening in Toronto eh? I like the sound of that one! :P Please make that happen Jim! :biggrin:

mmm...4K...:bleh:

Yash

You'll be blown away Yash. The PJ film is amazing. Well worth my first trip to NAB.

I'd like to see some of that soon to be shot drag racing footage at the screening too!

Oh yeah.

[Jannard]

We have a problem here... to package this stuff (including the clip) to a size that is downloadable, it just will NOT look as good as the 4K footage. We'll post, but need some understanding until we can figure out a better way to deal with 8 bit delivery to all of you. The 12 bit is incredible.

Jm

[Steve Freebairn]

Jim, Not only should you be proud of REDCODE, you should be really proud of the Mysterium sensor, that thing is so noiseless, it is incredible. :weight_lift:

[jbeale]

Maybe with really high-resolution images, in smooth out-of-focus areas, 8 bits is just not enough to avoid visible posterization. It makes sense- just for example- if you need 8 bits to have a visibly smooth gradient at 1024 pixels wide, then the math says you need 9 bits to see that same smoothness at 2048 pixels and 10 bits for 4096 pixels. And I don't know if that's even true, maybe you actually need 9 or 10 bits for smooth gradients at 1024 pixels, in which case 12 bits are needed at 4096.

I think one thing is, I'm used to seeing images that have more grain or noise, and that gives you a natural "dither" to smooth out any banding or posterization. Super clean images without added noise need a higher bit depth to give you visually smooth effects.

Can we get an option to add noise? :-)

[Ace]

Once again, although these images look fantastic, they are NOTHING compared to the actual film. The film was perfect, clean, and crisp, so anything you are seeing WASN'T and ISN'T in the actual footage, or REDCODE, or ProRes footage. So just be calm...it looks great!

I agree. To understand what these images mean at this size, take a look at a full resoloution graded scanned s35mm frame to compare:

http://www.lasergraphics.com/us/files/directoroutputsample2graded.zip

[IAN SUN]

And yes, the footage is pristine, there was none of the compression artifacts evident in these stills.

mmm... perhaps they could be replaced with .png or even eek- tiffs for download?

[Yash Keough]

You'll be blown away Yash. The PJ film is amazing. Well worth my first trip to NAB.

I'd like to see some of that soon to be shot drag racing footage at the screening too!

Oh yeah.

I'm looking forward to it! :P I guess somebody would need a Sony 4K projector though right? Are there any in Toronto that you know of? Just curious!

Yash

[Jannard]

We could post TIFFs, but download size is a problem. We'll probably do that for a couple of them.

Jim

[Brook Willard]

mmm... perhaps they could be replaced with .png or even eek- tiffs for download?

Give us an inch... :) ;)

I kid. I'd absolutely love a tiff of the wide shot from behind the plane if the opportunity is there.

Any chance of one of those frames from the in-flight footage? That amazing shot where they're cutting through the trees? I just can't help but ask. Ignore me.

[Steve Connor]

Perhaps you could add a watermark saying "Use your imagination!!!"

Just accept that the eyewitness accounts of no grain are true and enjoy the pictures.

[Jannard]

Did Concrete forgive me yet? :-)

Jim

[Laco Zamba]

Jeeeeeeej :-) Slovak railway station :-)


I agree. To understand what these images mean at this size, take a look at a full resoloution graded scanned s35mm frame to compare:

http://www.lasergraphics.com/us/files/directoroutputsample2graded.zip

[garageman]

Whatever artifacts are due to compression, they still don't detract from how amazing these stills look. I mean to think 24/25 of these are shot every second is mind-blowing, and they only give us an impression of how good they'll look at full 4K.

[John Allardice]

mmm... perhaps they could be replaced with .png or even eek- tiffs for download?


yeah...at least have the option of downloading one or two in that format, just to demonstrate the difference. The plane still would be a great example, as it seems to be the one that has suffered the most from the bit reduction.


EDIT...Jeezus you guys are fast, you've just made this whole post redundant :)

[jbeale]

You can make a 16-bit-per-color PNG file but I'm wondering how do you properly view that on a 8-bit depth display? I'm guessing that most of us like me are using displays that only have 8 bits per R,G,B color.

[IAN SUN]

We could post TIFFs, but download size is a problem. We'll probably do that for a couple of them.

Jim

That'd be great Jim, perhaps y'all could make em available through torrents to ease the bandwidth.

[Karl H]

there is something wierd going on in these images.

before I get flamed, I dont think it's Redcode, but equally it's not JPG compression either.... something else is arwy JPG problms shows us as distinctive blocking, not as this posterisation/distortion.

Put it this way, I shoot with a 9Mpixel camera jpegs of about 2MB (bear in mind these RED jpgs are 6Mb and over), and my 2MB jpgs look perfect. even at 200% zoomed in; so I think there is some export or conversion mishap here...IMO

i do like the lok of the images tho, shame about the posterisation. thanks for posting these...

[Álex Montoya]

Did Concrete forgive me yet? :-)

Jim


No need to. I fully understand that you love your kid and that the REDCODE is an especially amazing accomplishment.

We have so much to thank you that you apologising to any of us feels kinda embarrassing.

[Thom Steinhoff]

We could post TIFFs, but download size is a problem. We'll probably do that for a couple of them.

Jim

Posting TIFFs would absolutely shut everyone up from pointing out flaws in the JPEG compression and browser color spaces. Maybe you could Torrent those, too?

I agree with you--after seeing it in person, 1K compressed and JPeg stills just don't do it justice. It was amazing. However, the 1K and JPegs, plus my words and enthusiasm will help explain the quality and the quantum leap in technology to my friends who couldn't make it!

[Martin Drew]

We could post TIFFs, but download size is a problem. We'll probably do that for a couple of them.

Jim

Shouldn't be too bad as a torrent though. There is enough interest to make that fly. 16 bit Tiffs would be great

M

[Axel Mertes]

We have a problem here... to package this stuff (including the clip) to a size that is downloadable, it just will NOT look as good as the 4K footage. We'll post, but need some understanding until we can figure out a better way to deal with 8 bit delivery to all of you. The 12 bit is incredible.

Jm

Jim,

do you get color banding by going down from 12 to 8 bit?
If yes, I'd suggest dithering (like Floyd-Steinberg) for doing the down-conversion. In Fusion this is an easy task using the Krokodove free Dither plugin. I am sure you have something similar on hand for the Mac's.

The problem is always that you scrutinize compression efficiency with any kind of unwanted additional noise, like dithering. This is just not very effective. MPEG for instance will try to smooth out this again.

I'd really like to see full color depth 16 bit LZW/ZIP TIFF files to download.

I'd also like to see at least a single entire shot in full 4K as download sequence if at all possible. Maybe this can be done via the torrent solution.

From here (germany) the red.com server is completely unreachable. Bad, really bad. I guess I need to wait until the rest of the US went to bed again :)

What kind of bandwidth / connection do you have (if the question is allowed)?

Thanks,

Axel

[Fix]

fabulous pictures! The jpg compresion is present. But thats what you expect of that format. I cant wait to see some movies with this cam. To bad I never manage to go to NAB. A big cheerio to the red team!

[Justin Kirchhoff]

Wow, despite everyone talking about artifacts and such, those images are incredible still. Just look at how everything pops on screen. Very suttle, yet, very intriguing. Congrats Jim, the Mysterium has done it again.

[Andreas Fernbrant]

I second a package of TIFFs to download via Torrent.

The JPEGs are not fair to REDCODE or the Mysterium sensor.

[Häakon]

Maybe with really high-resolution images, in smooth out-of-focus areas, 8 bits is just not enough to avoid visible posterization.
Apple's new ProRes codec is 10-bit and should help with that issue considerably, as both a 'proxy' as well as a delivery codec. My guess is that the excess compression we are seeing in these stills is due to the JPG compression; I saw the film up close as well and saw nothing like the results I'm seeing from the stills on the web. I really appreciate the speed at which the Red team is getting these online for people to see, but I also feel that they aren't doing the footage justice in some way. I don't even remember this much compression on the milk girl shots - are they just being compressed heavily to avoid thousands of people hammering the server? If so, we need to find another way - because the point of posting the clips is to show off how amazing the quality is. Shrinking the file sizes for the web, while efficient, defeats the original purpose.


I think one thing is, I'm used to seeing images that have more grain or noise, and that gives you a natural "dither" to smooth out any banding or posterization. Super clean images without added noise need a higher bit depth to give you visually smooth effects.

Can we get an option to add noise? :-)
It's just one guy's opinion, but my guess is that when you see the footage projected you'll be stunned at how clean and beautiful the pictures are. I also honestly believe that as new generations of film audiences become accustomed to movies shot with cameras like RED, "noise" and "grain" are going to become undeisred artifacts of the past, associated with an archaic format that will be used less and less as time marches on. Sure, plenty of people will still shoot film - some will have aesthetic reasons for using it, while others will probably view it as a "purer" medium (being that it's analog) like vinyl has in the world of audio - but I do wager that the majority will be shooting digitally sooner than later.

Apple actually had a ProRes demonstration in their booth which ironically had this very same Red footage displayed on one monitor and an uncompressed 2K film scan on the other. The biggest difference I noticed immidiately was that the amount of grain in the film sample looked downright ridiculous compared to the stuff shot with RED. It reminded me of one of those Disney DVD commercials where they remaster the old film footage and they show you side-by-side clips of the original and the restored movie that's clean and vibrant and everything you'd want your four-year-old to see. Granted, I have no idea what the film was they were showing and the grain could've been intensified by an older, less dense stock, but the point remains that the RED images are pristine and beautiful, won't degrade one bit (pun intended) after multiple copies get sent out across the world, and have enough resolution (finally) to hold up to pretty much anything else that's shot out there. RED ONE isn't the "end" - we'll of course continue to get bigger and bigger, and find better ways to display this stuff - but what it does mark is the first time digital really has a viable alternative to a format that has been in use for nearly a hundred years. As soon as this hurdle was overcome in the still market, it took much less than a decade for the world's professional photographers to "make the switch," as they say.

No, the biggest problem here is that RED has made a beautiful 4K camera and a lot of people are still going to be distributing the stuff they shoot with it on regular ol' DVD. How painful is that reality? The advent of Blu-ray will surely help, but even that tops out at less than a quarter of resolution of 4K (and even worse, is encoded at 8-bit, 4:2:0!). RED needs to get those 4K displays out as fast as possible if they want people to truly see the magic of the RED ONE. My guess is they know this and that's why they are moving forward with such a venture. All I can say is god bless them... it would be 2050 before Sony or Panasonic got around to making one.

[Yash Keough]

8 bit, 4:2:0??? Ouch. I have only seen a bit of Blu Ray so I can't really judge but that's not very good. :S For a next gen format you'd think the color space would be up there too...

Yash

[Dennis Guskov]

I did not see the RED/PJ short, but judging from the pictures posted, I think some of the shots [or all] were heavily graded and/or treated. Is that right? Some of them look like paintings (e.g. 'watercolor' photoshop filter or something).

[Pete Horvath]

How about delivering some stills with 16bit png files?

Cheers,
Pete

[Häakon]

I did not see the RED/PJ short, but judging from the pictures posted, I think some of the shots [or all] were heavily graded and/or treated. Is that right?
Yes, I think it's safe to say that the footage was graded in some way to acheive a look they were happy with. Some people seem to really like it, others don't. But that's all completely subjective and the beauty is that you have the flexibility when shooting RAW to really push it in whatever direction you like. Also remember that the team only had a week and a half to get this stuff finished... I think they did a pretty remarkable job.

[Desert Rune]

The posterization and similar effects are a result of the JPG compression [at least I fully expect they are]. Remember, they cranked 12-bit all the way down to 8-bit for this distribution.JPEG compression artifacts produce macroblocking, not posterization.


With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo
http://www.red.com/skin/img/gallery-still/002318.jpg
the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser. Does anyone else see this?
The more I look at that image, the more I think it was uprezzed to 4K using S-spline interpolation from a lower resolution JPEG-encoded image. This would explain what we are seeing, and the effect is really noticeable on the numbers in the tail section.

Could the person responsible for the image explain the workflow he used to convert this image?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Holy freaking crap...... Even as compressed JPEG, it blows away all pro HD formats I've worked with....:w00t:

[Yash Keough]

Chris,

Unrelated but I just wanted to say you've got a really superb website there and some beautiful shots! Very nice and an inspiration! :D

Yash

[Poi Boy]

Right on Haakon.
-A

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Chris,

Unrelated but I just wanted to say you've got a really superb website there and some beautiful shots! Very nice and an inspiration! :D

Yash

Awww shucks...:blush: Thanks! I made it myself in Notepad (I do web design old skool!) I can't wait to have a chance at using this camera, I have my first feature film pending (waiting on investors...), and I requested a Red One to work with:sorcerer: Hopefully that $$ will come thru!:biggrin:

[Karl H]

compression artifacts produce macroblocking, not posterization.




exactly right. The strangeness in these images is not to do with jpg compression, it looks like something totally different.

I wouldnt jump to conclusions and say that there is some interpolating going on here, especially as it isnt evident in the milk girls pic. I wonder if the pablo grade introduced some artifacts? or whether some noise reduction has maybe been applied in the grading process

Like I say it could be just some strange setting on export. For clarity I just looked at a 1.8Mb jpg still from my Canon 350D (3456 x 2304) -no artifacts of any kind and thats 1/4 of the size of these Red jpgs.

[Yash Keough]

Nice man well best of luck with that! :D

Yash

[Brook Willard]

JPEG compression artifacts produce macroblocking, not posterization.

Given - my calling it posterization was to identify what I was referring to per a question earlier in the thread.

[Graeme Nattress]

I'm seeing stuff in them that I've never seen before, so it's probably best filed under "alpha camera, alpha images". But boy are they not beautiful though! The movie that PJ made was the nicest alpha test footage I've ever seen - let's not forget that.

Graeme

[Brandon Rice]

Wow, these are genius! You guys have a winning camera on your hands!

[Karl H]

Given - my calling it posterization was to identify what I was referring to per a question earlier in the thread.

with respect Brook, I think what he's trying to say is the artifacts we are seeing in the image are not from jpeg compression.

We're not saying they are from Mysterium or from Redcode, but the point is a 6.5MB jpeg would not produce artifacts of any kind at 100%, it should be clean.

do tests on any high res images you have, you dont get this result.

Not trying to stir anything up, just being practical, and the blame is being put squarely on jpg compression which I think is unfair....

[Alexander Nikishin]

The stills look BEAUTIFUL considering the amount of compression.

Sure they don't do the 4k presentation any justice, but they look great none the less.

Some tiffs would be prefered though.

[PaulClements]

Looking good... Looking forward to the vids and hopefully at least one of the images dl'd without any artifacts for comparisons.

[Alex Boothby]

I wonder if the pablo grade introduced some artifacts? or whether some noise reduction has maybe been applied in the grading process


You can achieve a very similar effect using the DEGRAIN tool in Flame, which keeps the detail in high contrast area but blurs out the low contrast areas. It is possible that Pablo has a similar toolset. From experience I know that most colorists tend to keep noise reduction on (and cranked!) by default - I think it has something to do with grading film all the time. :biggrin:

[Albert Cheng]

I agree, I'm seeing some wierdness in some of those images that to my eye, look as if they've been run through a subtle median filter or something and the loss of detail is unpleasant. Regardless of whether it's from the alpha cam, jpeg compression or whatever, I would heartily recommend pulling those images until you guys can figure out what they are. Any professional that comes and looks at them at full size is going to scrutinize and get a very wrong impression. I can already see forum trouble brewing.

I'm being protective as well.

[Deanan]

edit: ...or maybe it's just that the foreground is in focus and the background is out of focus.

The background should be out of focus. It looks similar to bokeh
I've seen on some lenses. Sometime bokeh can appear patchy
depending on the lens design and the distance between
in focus and out of focus.

I've seen this on a few lenses before with film but it's
less obvious because it's hidden behind grain.

Deanan (has obsessive compulsive bokeh disorder)

[Martin Jäger]

is there any ungraded - unprocessed footage?
it looks like mentioned allready; heavy noisereduction / sharpening
i'm quite sure this came along with the grading process - i don't
want to beliefe it's a matter of redcode or mysterium - and IF it is;
graeme, can we have a bypass function?

and yes, i agree with opcode - take them away until there is clarification...

martin

[P Andersson]

maybe it is possible to take a look at unprocessed (raw) version of the plane image say as a tiff (if too big a part of the smooth wing, wires and forest would do good),

my guess to is that something in post was intentional, and it doesn't show up when viewed at 24fps, a median, or noise reduction tool of some sort.

[Deanan]

The jpeg compression and going down to 8bit seems to be adding
it's own funk to the mix that I haven't seen before on these images.

Deanan

[Deanan]

FYI, these images went through Pablo so there was first
a 16bit to 10bit conversion, grading, and then to 8bit jpeg.

[Graeme Nattress]

I didn't see anything like this when I was de-mosaicing the RAW images. That said, you can make a de-mosaic algorithm look like pretty much anything you want and give a range of subtle textures. There's no sharpening in the de-mosaic so that must have come in at the grade.

The images were graded and produced to be projected, and only graded on a 2k projector.

In the lab we looked at the raw footage, de-mosaiced, and then projected at 4k and didn't see any real funkyness.

Graeme

[Deanan]

another note, some of these images my also have a digital push in but without
looking at all the raw footage, we won't know which ones they are.

[Martin Jäger]

well i do beliefe that even like this the images look great when they're moving.
and i have to say that i saw this kind of artefacts many times before with heavy treated 35mm scanns.

and graeme - that's actually a complement: i'm sure with one of your own scaling algorhythms you'd
be able to make a 2k image look like those... ;)

pleaze; only one 16bit png woud do - directly from redcode...

[P Andersson]

That said, you can make a de-mosaic algorithm look like pretty much anything you want and give a range of subtle textures. There's no sharpening in the de-mosaic so that must have come in at the grade.

Will REDCINE have options of doing these in gradually different ways in the same way that we can convert our raw still images from dslrs.

It doesn't look like sharpening to me, more like the opposite of sharpening - an intentional smoothing out of close pixel details.

We know you wanted this camera to look creamy, perhaps it is time to use half and half.

[Poi Boy]

Whatever the funk is, these images are really stunning to see in PS at 100%. Can't wait to make my own !
Aloha
-A

[Obin Olson]

Great!

[Alex Boothby]

I think we can all agree on that.

[Graeme Nattress]

Remember REDCODE had it's first time turn on with these cameras, and it completely un-tweaked, and that can make the world of difference. As I pointed out to people at NAB who saw the movie - "That's the worst redcode will ever look", and quite frankly projected at 4k and running at 24p, it looked amazing.

Graeme

[Floris Liesker]

Could anyone within the read team please compare the jpg to the original file and find out where and why the pics went berzerk. It looks like photoshops 'smart blur' was put over it. It looks very much like it.

This type of artifacts wasn't in the milk girls, so it cannot be the sensor or the redcode, right?

[P Andersson]

This thing seems to me to be obviously a tweak thing, not dependent on the sensor or camera, it is how it is dealt with in post as the milkgirls looked completely different.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/251_1177361285.jpg

[Alex Boothby]

Really, I only see a problem in the wide plane shot (my fav btw.)

[P Andersson]

It simply proves how flexible the RED will be for creating a personalized look.

[avocade]

Sounds excellent! Too bad there are no 4k (or even 2k) digital cinemas anywhere close to where I live (Goteborg, Sweden). Haven't heard of any DCI-compliant theaters at all in Sweden actually :(

[Alex Boothby]

I'm guessing a degrain and then a re-sharpen in Pablo. Yes there is mild bokeh in the bg trees but then the edge of the hills indicate re-sharpening. Picky picky - geeeezzzee.

[Karl H]

its speculation but my guess is the pablo has done it, weve seen redcode stills before and they look nothing like what we're seeing here.. it looks like a noise reduction filter, which in all honesty, you might not notice at 24fps. persistance of vision and all that...

im very happy with the color and highlight handling from what ive seen

[jbeale]

To be fair- I believe the milk-girl shot is focused right on the eye or close to it. The biplane shot is focused on the biplane and the background is out of focus, so you don't expect to see distinct detail. One person was suggesting a lens Bokeh effect, and maybe that's part of it.

edit: I should also add I'm just commenting on this type of detail out of technical interest. The stills are obviously very good quality, and they're certainly miles above anything produced by any motion picture camera I have operated to date.

[Rune Hansen]

Remember REDCODE had it's first time turn on with these cameras, and it completely un-tweaked, and that can make the world of difference. As I pointed out to people at NAB who saw the movie - "That's the worst redcode will ever look", and quite frankly projected at 4k and running at 24p, it looked amazing.

Agreed, the material looked incredibly stunning projected, and for my usage (most likely finishing at 2K/HD resolutions) even these frames look absolutely fabulous.

Would be cool to find out what happened to that frame, and where in the process (and to have some "as-raw-as-possible" TIFF files to play with would be awesome). The wide establishing shots are the ones I'd most like to play with in full resolution and uncorrected, I think.

I tend to agree that there has been some recomposition and definitely some filtering on the plane frame (median or other noise reduction) in the Pablo. In the short film, many of the frames clearly went through some compositing system, for example to generate the rather odd-looking digital shell-shock camera shake. I would be loathe to think that the guys at Park would have screwed this up somehow.

Also I find it interesting how the highlights blow out towards that digital salmon pink I hate so much -- definitely an area to explore and recover with the Highlight magic you showed within RedCine.

Oh, and if you could post some George Bush files that would rock also (since they had a colour chart).

--The Real Rune (not the Desert Rune)

[Emery Wells]

I have dual 23" cinema displays and I was STILL panning around the 4k image! :w00t:

Makes you realize how badly we need 4k displays...

[Karl H]

agreed, scale these down to 2K and they look stunning! A 1080p quicktime would look great.

Perhaps that's half the problem, if these were monitored at 2K through the process then this NR would have gone unoticed in the pipeline, and its not like they had the time to go back and check....

But I am curious to know like others at what point in the chain it occured.

[Häakon]

Also I find it interesting how the highlights blow out towards that digital salmon pink I hate so much -- definitely an area to explore and recover with the Highlight magic you showed within RedCine.
There were only two things that bothered me about the footage when I saw it projected in 4K, and this was one of them (the other was the fixed pattern noise that only showed up in a few shots which Jim assured me was an issue of the footage being vastly underexposed). I assumed that the tendency toward "salmon" (it looked almost orange to me on the projection) was a result of intense color grading and not a side-effect of the footage being digital, but who knows. I think it could be dealt with, at any rate. I agree with the users who would like to see some of the stuff non-color corrected, as I feel that they may have overdone it in some shots (and it would also help to determine if some of the unwanted artifacts are a result of the post process as opposed to being in the footage originally itself).

[Desert Rune]

The Real Rune (not the Desert Rune)
Sorry about the similar username. I only discovered reduser.net a couple days ago, after hearing about Red at NAB.

ps. Desert Rune is an anagram of Reduser.net

[Pol Turrents]

with a 30" cinema display looks... A M A Z I N G!

[Floris Liesker]

I magnified a part of the shot 200% without anti-aliasing, to take a closer look at the pixels.

This part of the tail of the plane shows a sort of smart-blurring above a certain treshold, so we'll see sharp and noisy stuff around the wires and more blurry surfaces along over the tailwing, with some sharp spots here and there where some noise appearantly surfaced above the treshold level.

I am positive this is done in grading, and it perhaps indicates this shot was quite noisy originally, maybe it was accidentally underexposed 2 stops, who knows?
I do believe however that it is very important for Red and the Redusers to make a quick end to all speculation about the cause of these artifacts, or certain people will be more than happy to use this as an 'evidence' to prove why the Red One stinks.

[garageman]

with a 30" cinema display looks... A M A Z I N G!


Yeah it does, but it's still too big for the screen! Roll on 4K displays.

[garydxd]

We have all seen trailers on the net. We know that Lord of the Rings was shot using film to the highest standards, we know that Spiderman was shot using the best talent possible. We know that trailers are a lower res version of thier high end counterpart. I think we all just want to see how the footage compares to all the rest. We know it's not going to be the best it can be, but it's in the same boat as the others.

[Alexander Nikishin]

I like my Red footage like I like my women, teasers.

In other words, I'd agree with a few other people on the advice of pulling the stills until everythings flushed out.

Red users understand the reasoning for the anomalies on the stills, potential customers and competition won't, and those competitors will stab at it every chance they get....

[Mike Zinner]

Red users understand the reasoning for the anomalies on the stills, potential customers and competition won't, and those competitors will stab at it every chance they get....

I absolutely agree with that. Please take the JPGs offline until we know what exactly happened (e.g. we applied the posterizing filter because it makes the images look better on the Sony 4K projector or something).

[Rune Hansen]

ps. Desert Rune is an anagram of Reduser.net

I was kidding about the nick, but now I have to admit that it's pretty cool!

Welcome to the club.

-rune

[Ezana Tekeste]

[Snip] "That's the worst redcode will ever look", and quite frankly projected at 4k and running at 24p, it looked amazing.

Graeme


Hi Graeme,

Thanks for putting the two thoughts that have been running in my head as I read the reaction to the frame grabs. I think what we should be keeping in mind--and not just as a background information in our head--is that these images were grabbed from a short film that was intended to be projected as motion pictures. I'm sure if Peter Jackson or the Red Team were using the Red One as a still Camera to grab images, they would have gone the uncompressed raw route.

Although I have not yet ordered the Red One (perhaps this might explain my lack of worries:mellow:) I will be getting one in a little over a year and half, once I finally finalize my commitment to a project in my current line of work.

My point here is not to discourage critical analysis. I'm simply stating that looking at these particular screen grabs as if they were shot on a DSLR isn't going to be useful. Again, for that sort of analysis, we will have to get uncompressed raw captures. Until then, those of us who didn't attend the NAB might have to settle for reports from those who saw the projection and reacted to it here and elsewhere. And from what I've read so far, especially the discussion list at CML-2k-444, where the Red One had been initially been received with skepticism, the reaction has been very favorable.

The Red Team took on a gargantuan challenge and has created an amazing cinematic tool. Like the many members of this forum who believed in the project, I am as excited about this camera as I used to be when I first started following it development on dvxuser.com.

Mike

[Alex Boothby]

... certain people will be more than happy to use this as an 'evidence' to prove why the Red One stinks.

We have some pretty good counter-evidence.

[Mike Prevette]

Even if these artifacts were camera original (which i know they weren't) They are still pretty damn incredible.

_mike

[Floris Liesker]

I'm simply stating that looking at these particular screen grabs as if they were shot on a DSLR isn't going to be useful. Again, for that sort of analysis, we will have to get uncompressed raw captures.

Of course you cannot really judge a camera this way. I think most Redusers don't need to be convinced that the artifacts aren't caused by neither the sensor nor the Redcode. I am merely afraid stuff like this will easily lighten up more bashing of the camera. Some people maybe will say: you see? It's just a very noisy camera with a built-in denoising device or whatever they will think of.

[Jarred Land]

remember guys.. the 4k JPG stills and the video im about to post.. has gone through many generations of compression, grading, and then back out and re-compressed. your gonna see compression artifacts, without a doubt.

[garydxd]

Is this a greenscreen shot by chance? Look at the background. Zoom in, it looks like a matte painting. It feels painted.

[Poi Boy]

The thing is that the bashing has been here from day one and will continue no matter what is posted for a year or so. After that enough people will be doing amazing things with the camera that it will become THE CAMERA that everyone wants. It is only a matter of time and I plan on taking advantage of the head start, I'm tired of trying to convince the naysayers.
Aloha
-A

[Rune Hansen]

RED # 86, #1031, Zoom #35

Cool, we have #84 and #85 down here in Mexico -- Aloha!

-rune

[Antoine Fabi]

Not funny...you'll get yours before me :)

...I have #403...

[Jarred Land]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1883

there you go guys.

and no.. none of it was greenscreen.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Thanks to the RED TEAM to post stills and for deciding to post 1k clips.
The pictures look amazing and I can't wait to see moving images!

[Floris Liesker]

remember guys.. the 4k JPG stills and the video im about to post.. has gone through many generations of compression, grading, and then back out and re-compressed. your gonna see compression artifacts, without a doubt.

Jarred, we understand that. But will new customers and the competion?
I think it is very unwise to post pics as promotional stills that have gone through unknown routes and contain artifacts that even Graeme admits he hasn't seen before. I'd rather wait and still my curiosity for PJ's movie than see Red's imago go down the drain for some ill-denoised pics.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Thank you so much for posting these.
BUT NOW COME ON !!!
The wide plane shot is completly screwed up and should be removed AT ONCE.
This is really asking for trouble guys, unless you've got mud in your eyes, this one picture looks like oil painting, with a great composition skill by the way.
But who wants this picture all over the net.
I can perfectly understand that something be posted by mistake, but now you have been WARNED several times, so leaving this pic up is something I am not getting at all.

Yours "quiet furious at the moment" Emmanuel

[schnauzer]

yeah... I would have to agree with Emmanuel ! :-/

[Bruce Dunn]

Try using millions of colours and a resolution of 1024 x 768 or above. The pics look great on my machine.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Try using millions of colours and a resolution of 1024 x 768 or above. The pics look great on my machine.

Are you serious ???:blink:

[Bruce Dunn]

I'm using 1280 x 960 resolution on a mac with millions of colours, viewing the images with quicktime pro using full screen view. (you have to loop the image or it only stays on the screen briefly) and the image is quite detailed.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Thanks for posting the pics, guys. It means a lot to us over the seas...

The images are really great (with some compression issues). Rich colurs, great latitude.



We could post TIFFs, but download size is a problem. We'll probably do that for a couple of them.

Jim

I think you might have a much larger problem if new people check the site and the first thing they see on the first pic are the artifacts.
Remember - many people are not familiar with compression artifacts and haven't seen milkgirls 4k framegrabs. People often jump to conclusions and the blame will go down either on Mysterium or Redcode.

I'm sure the real deal is phenomenal, though.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

I am talking about one single frame who looks weird behind reason, and it's 4k picture so please stop that nonsens with screen resolution.
Anyway nothing personal here Bruce, I'm going to bed now and I've done my work on this issue, so leave this picture online and we'll have a good time defending the RedOne one boards all over the net.
By the way I'm using a calibrated (2.2gamma) Apple 30'' monitor on which any other Red grab looks allright if not great.

Emmanuel

[Stokestack]

People often don't examine close-ups critically, because the objects depicted (and "little" things like eyelashes, buttons, and so forth) are bigger. It's not just the wide shot of the plane that's revealing:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/740_1177371577.png

Also, to put the JPEG speculation to rest, the 4K bubble-blowing JPEG is smaller (5.5 MB) than the Crossing the Line stills, and look at the nice smooth bokeh and lack of the artifacts found above:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/740_1177372091.png

Another one from the bubble still. Note the smooth falloff of reflections in the eye.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/740_1177372686.png

Granted, the bubble shot is less complicated (black background) and thus will compress smaller, but the plane still is almost 20 percent bigger.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Those Jpegs look horrrrrrible. I'm going to assume that's because of the Jpeg compression and isn't reflective of RED or else all of the comments from NAB would have been. "Worst HD camera ever."

[Stokestack]

The point of the post above is that it does NOT seem to be the JPEG compression. The bottom two images are also from a 4K JPEG (bubblegum shot from Red), which was only 5.5 MB. The wide plane JPEG, for example, was about the same file size as the bubblegum shot but a smaller image overall. The other Crossing the Line stills were about 1 MB bigger than the bubblegum shot, and the image area smaller. Therefore one would expect at least comparable quality.

[Poi Boy]

I am ALMOST at a loss for words, "horrrrible" we must be in different realities. There is some funkiness but horrible is a huge leap. They look awesome on my screen at 100% in PS. If you where looking at moving footage I don't think you would see anything wrong. I took the images, printed them on my epson 9800 at 100% size and showed them to a couple of AD clients, told them they where screen grabs and they did not believe me ! They look awesome.
Aloha
-A

[Brook Willard]

Somebody commented on the pink falloff towards overexposure... that's not the camera, that's grading... at least I think. I believe they graded the skies pink to give the film an early-morning look.

Somebody also made a point about the splotchy bökeh... stating that it could come from the lens. Below is an image of mine from a 20D through... something at 300mm. I don't remember the glass. It's no S4, but you get the picture. Some of this can be blamed on the lens. I should note that the JPG is 100% quality.
http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/bokeh.jpg

Remember, I don't actually know these things, this is just speculation.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I agree with smokestack, there is wonkiness going on but it's not the JPEG compression. It looks like what would happen if you over compress something with JPEG2k.

There's 2k worth of good image in there. I can't stand the look of it at 1:1, I feel like I'm looking at the image through an old runny window and I just know that would boil on a matte.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that it was a result of over post, or a poor export. But as is I'm not impressed with the compression.

[Graeme Nattress]

Don't worry too much about the compression. That was just Boris and Natasha straight out of the bag, so to speak and we're doing a lot of work in that area. For instance, some of the stuff in the compressed raw pathway wasn't turned on in camera (as you know, we only had a minimum featureset enabled). Once we get the rest turned on, and tweaked into place for where there are differences between Frankie and the production cameras, we'll all be in a better place to judge compression. Until then, enjoy the images as early test images, on an alpha camera, that made a pretty fun movie.

Graeme

[Pete Horvath]

Would it be possible to get that large biplane image exported directly from Redcode to EXR for 32bit inspection in after effects?

Cheers,
Pete

[Alex Boothby]

Both biplane jpegs are no longer on red.com

[Jannard]

We are showing frame grabs from a test shoot of Alpha prototypes. Unless you know all the facts, amount of exposure correction in post, pipeline of post to delivery here... speculation can be dangerous. We are posting all along the path of development. If anyone gets too worked up about any imperfection, we might just be better off holding for clips and grabs from a finished camera.

Jim

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Jim,

I think you and the Red team are doing great. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, those alpha cam frame grabs look better than any frame grabs I've seen from other pro HD formats to date. Keep up the great work, can't wait to use the finished cam!

[Pete Horvath]

Jim,

Those images are just whetting our appetite for more. I think people may be picking at them because the images look too good to be true. I'm sure the final shipping cameras and redcode will make imagery that looks even better than what we see today.

Congrats,
Pete

[Jason Francois]

Looks fuckin' great to me.

[Don Woods]

Awesome guys just wanted to say great work again. Everyone needs to see this in 4K it will take your breath away. and for cameras that just had run/stop basicly that is an amazing picture. a fantastic place to start good work guys.

[Jarred Land]

everyone needs to take a breath and remind themselves that this is prototype footage.. there is things that will not be 100%, it was the purpose of the test shoot to find those things so we can fix them.

Its a tough decision to open this test footage up to you guys, and if it keeps getting critiqued for what its supposed to be, that decision is gonna start going the other way.

[Evin Grant]

This is the problem with 100% viewing. No matter what the original capture size or sensor/lens combo everything is at it's limit at 100%. So all the things we will never see in a moving, projected image are set out there to be torn apart by the mesurebaters. Sometimes that's necessary, but remember that 35mm film is essentially a half frame of 35mm still and blown up to 100% will look like utter dog shit! Even if the Red has the pixels to match a D2x or 5D a direct comparison of a still image at 100% is totally missing the context of the footage.

These are by far the best looking "Stills" I have ever seen from a cinema camera. And there only gonna get better!

[Don Woods]

I agree with Jarred, If this is just going to enable the naysayers then why... I know for a fact that about 99% of the people that have actually purchesed a camera are stocked that they are going to have a camera that can produce images close to that, let alone that is just test footage. from cameras that were not fully working models. I think everyone out there that has a camera they can do even close to that image qulity should just be happy with what they got and be on their merry way. But for the rest of use that don't and would like to own a camera that can even come close to the test footage. I think that this is a great day and an amazing test. I for one never thought I would own a camera that could ever come close to that and not have to go the lab everythime I wanted to use my footage.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Well I don't want to compliment it in fear it stays that way. :)

I think the fear was that there was so much back slapping going on about the (very very pretty I might add) footage that people were happy with the result and this is what we should begin to expect. I'm fine looking at pre-production footage, but I also want to make it perfectly 100% clear, that is not acceptable 4k compression for vfx, even if it looks great projected at 24fps. So while Evin's opinion is perfectly valid about the audience not looking at a film at 100%, there are those of us who spend most of the day squinting and nitpicking @ 300%.

All I wanted to hear was "yes yes we know we're working on it calm down. Dont' get your panties in a twist" and now that that's happened I can relax knowing it's in good hands.

[Brook Willard]

All this does is make me ridiculously excited for a 4K monitor...

[P Andersson]

This is all valuable information to all parties, great work, keep it coming, it can only make the camera better until it reaches a point where it is impossible to improve anything anymore.

Would love to see samples of one raw frame as is and then exported with a few different settings in REDCINE.

[Bruce Allen]

Everything (stills and video) looks tight like a tiger. Please post bittorrent seed of 1080p version of whole movie. I am a WWI plane fanatic and am desparate to see the S.E.5s filmed with my favorite camera. Or any movie that involves biplanes and decent filmmaking, for that matter. Everyone please stop complaining so that Red can feel comfortable to post the whole thing. My dad is a WWI plane nut too and he lives in the small town of Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, so unless Red are planning on doing a 4K showing of it there too, the people complaining are denying him (and a whole lot of other people the world over) a whole lot of fun ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Chris Kenny]

We are showing frame grabs from a test shoot of Alpha prototypes. Unless you know all the facts, amount of exposure correction in post, pipeline of post to delivery here... speculation can be dangerous. We are posting all along the path of development. If anyone gets too worked up about any imperfection, we might just be better off holding for clips and grabs from a finished camera.


Yeah, you guys are in a tricky position. If you post ungraded full bit depth stuff, some people are going to complain because they don't know what they're looking at ("It's too flat", etc.). If you post graded stuff, any artifacts introduced anywhere in the pipeline will get blamed on your camera by some. And, of course, if you hold things back, some will claim you have something to hide.

I think the best approach might just be to post a lot of stuff, graded, ungraded, etc. with information about how shots were set up. People could get an accurate view of how the camera performed and would probably stop obsessing over every little artifact.

Of course, there's probably just not that much stuff yet.

Once you guys start shipping cameras out... well, some people are going to make your camera look good, and some people are going to manage to make it look bad, I'm sure. Having a diverse collection of professionally shot material available for people to evaluate before that starts happening would probably do a lot to offset any potential damage done by those who, however unwittingly, end up falling into the latter category....

In general, though, I don't think you guys need to worry quite as much about PR management as a company making a consumer product would. Maybe this is just horribly naive of me, but I think people in the market for a camera like this are likely to do serious research, and maybe even rent one for test shoots. Internet gossip about early images isn't likely to do much damage, under such circumstances.

[Poi Boy]

Looking at any image at 300% is idiotic for anything other than refining a selection. It means nothing with regard to what your eye sees, period. get over it !
-A

[gurney]

Its a tough decision to open this test footage up to you guys, and if it keeps getting critiqued for what its supposed to be, that decision is gonna start going the other way.

OK, it's honorable and laudable to post these stills at this early stage, and it does open them up to criticism. But the team knew that, and threatening to take away your toys and go home if people call out artifacts is not respectable. If you don't want them picked apart, then they damn well shouldn't have been posted.

After looking through it, anyone can see that the last thing this board needs is more mindless cheerleading. The groundless naysayers are annoying and occasionally maladjusted, but one "AWESOME!" message after another simply results in 15-page-long threads that contain very little productive discussion. Furthermore, this juvenile fawning embarrasses and undermines the credibility of Red supporters, some of whom take an objective, hopeful, but discerning view of the product.

These images reveal some shortcomings. Deny it to yourself if you want, but deny it to those with open eyes and your credibility will be zero. The point of an "open" development project is to obtain useful feedback, and an analysis of these images is useful feedback.

Did people consider that perhaps there are aspects of the encoding that can be tweaked at the expense of others? Some kinds of artifacts that result from allocating bits against others? Then the Red team needs to know what kind of problems are going to result in negative reactions from us.

If all you're going to do is shout "Hooray! OMFG! That's totally awesome! Perfect! Ship it!", then Jannard and company are wasting their time monitoring this board or sharing anything with us.

[Ace]

OK, it's honorable and laudable to post these stills at this early stage, and it does open them up to criticism. But the team knew that, and threatening to take away your toys and go home if people call out artifacts is not respectable. If you don't want them picked apart, then they damn well shouldn't have been posted.

After looking through it, anyone can see that the last thing this board needs is more mindless cheerleading. The groundless naysayers are annoying and occasionally maladjusted, but one "AWESOME!" message after another simply results in 15-page-long threads that contain very little productive discussion. Furthermore, this juvenile fawning embarrasses and undermines the credibility of Red supporters, some of whom take an objective, hopeful, but discerning view of the product.

These images reveal some shortcomings. Deny it to yourself if you want, but deny it to those with open eyes and your credibility will be zero. The point of an "open" development project is to obtain useful feedback, and an analysis of these images is useful feedback.

Did people consider that perhaps there are aspects of the encoding that can be tweaked at the expense of others? Some kinds of artifacts that result from allocating bits against others? Then the Red team needs to know what kind of problems are going to result in negative reactions from us.

If all you're going to do is shout "Hooray! OMFG! That's totally awesome! Perfect! Ship it!", then Jannard and company are wasting their time monitoring this board or sharing anything with us.

Well, Since youve posted so many constructive posts, I guess youd care to enlighten us some more with your useful feedback?

If you care to see constructive feedback then perhaps you should practice what you preach. I have not seen one constructive comment from you on this board thus far.

And where do you get off making fun of compliments to the RED team on their fruitful footage? Most posters on this board have been involved in rigourous constructive discussion regarding the camera for nearly a year now. They will recieve criticism when its due. As far as this footage is concerned, its a token from the redteam to those who couldnt make it to see the 4K versions. This isnt technical footage and isnt a final test, and we all seem to understand this concept except you. Chill out. The footage IS awesome.

[Poi Boy]

I understand your point but I have shown these stills to a lot of talented pros and without fail they are blow away. stills always have flaws that you can not see in moving images, no matter it it is film or video.
-A

[Jannard]

It is a delicate balance between sharing early footage and not. That's why other companies do not. We have chosen to, but it is a bit frustrating to read some of the posts that make assumptions not based in fact. Then we are spending our time on the defense and trying to explain every situation. Right now, we need to let people know that we are well on the way. We are not finished yet. To engage in details at this point is time spent that we just don't have with our limited team. If you are encouraged by the footage posted, great. If there are things you don't like... we are probably working on them or have already worked on them. If you really want answers to every detail and don't feel you are getting them right now, sorry. Wait until you are happy before you buy, or just don't buy. Pretty simple.

Jim

[Drew Mylrea]

If these frames were really shot at 2 stops under and pushed in post - then the small artifacts that we are seeing are actually really low and impressive for a CMOS sensor (I think, here is my reasoning); I just pushed some Canon 20D Raw images up 2 stops in Photoshop and I got MUCH more noise than is exhibited in these frames.

EDIT: Jim, I am behind you guys 100 million percent and trust that you want this camera to be as bad ass as all of us do. I feel privileged to be a part of the proccess and look forward to the updates on a daily basis.

[Emanuel A.]

I didn't watch yet. Dial-up here by now. However, IMHO maybe it's just a question of final adjustements or even digital look. Regarding to me and my former experience unitil now, if you deliver a similar product than F900 CineAlta, I wouldn't mind to shoot with 'such defects' during the rest of my shooter life.

On the other hand, I remember when HVX came, there was who bought. And others like me who thought that acquisition device had no the basic requirements that we were looking for.

If you are interested to improve and you have time and development for such achievement, why not? I don't think this discussion may be a danger for the RED interests. There's no perfection anywhere.

[Ace]

I didn't watch yet. Dial-up here by now. However, IMHO maybe it's just a question of final adjustements or even digital look. Regarding to me and my former experience unitil now, if you deliver a similar product than F900 CineAlta, I wouldn't mind to shot with 'such defects' during the rest of my shooter life.

On the other hand, I remember when HVX came, there was who bought. And others like me who thought that acquisition device had no the basic requirements that we were looking for.

If you are interested to improve and you have time and development for such achievement, why not? I don't think this discussion may be a danger for the RED interests. There's no perfection anywhere.

Wait till you see the clip. There are no defects. The defects seem to be idiosyncratically linked to a couple of still captures for undetermined reasons.

[Emanuel A.]

Thanks for the confidence of your words, Ace. I have no reasons to doubt. After all, RED is already part of the family. And some of you seem to me like brothers. Would/will Jim be our grand-father? ;-) No way. He's just so young as ourselves and our (sorry Jim but not only yours! :)) baby... LOL

[gurney]

Well, Since youve posted so many constructive posts, I guess youd care to enlighten us some more with your useful feedback?

If you care to see constructive feedback then perhaps you should practice what you preach. I have not seen one constructive comment from you on this board thus far.

So? How many empty-headed "OMFG!" posts do I have to make before I've earned your badge of respectability? Your reply was the typical, specious response made by someone who doesn't really have any ground to stand on.

You want an example of constructive? Take a look at Brook's post with the 20D image earlier in this thread. That image does show interestingly similar distortion (although we could use some more details about the source image).

And in your capacity as spokesman for "the rest of us", you should have noted the other people who brought up concerns about the stills. Try actually reading the posts.

[Jannard]

gurney... looks like you still have a few to go. And your response to my post? Are you really interested in constructive criticism or stirring it up? Just an honest question...

Jim

[Gavin Greenwalt]

There's no criticism of my own work I hate more than: "Awesome!" "Perfect!" "Great job!' "Really sweet!". Because I always know what's wrong with it and if I know the flaws are really obvious then I feel like people are being dishonest about my work.

I just try to extend the same courtesy. It's a shame the RED project has fallen under such unwarranted criticism that you guys feel you have to get so defensive about everything you release and every image becomes a "Well maybe this'll be the last one" scenario.

I think the best steps you could take in the future to ensure things stay civil are:
1) Keep releasing tons of material to even the odds
2) Be clear and concise from the onset about where you think something is pretty close to where you want it and what you know needs improvement.

There need to be some set out ground rules for discussion or else you can only expect to hear it all. People are going to make judgements. whether they voice their criticisms or not. It's up to you as producers to set the framework for what conclusions can be reached if any.

We know we know this is a whole new world of customer interaction and we're all learning as we go along.

[Ace]

So? How many empty-headed "OMFG!" posts do I have to make before I've earned your badge of respectability? Your reply was the typical, specious response made by someone who doesn't really have any ground to stand on.

Take it elsewhere mate. I asked where were your constructive posts.


You want an example of constructive? Take a look at Brook's post with the 20D image earlier in this thread. That image does show interestingly similar distortion (although we could use some more details about the source image).

Again, where are your constructive posts?


And in your capacity as spokesman for "the rest of us", you should have noted the other people who brought up concerns about the stills. Try actually reading the posts.

LOL. Okay. Seems like your the one who isnt reading the posts.

The concerns regarding artifacting were valid. They were aired and were discussed. Greame addressed these issues in his posts. Great. Those shouting "Awesome" and "Great" knew exactly what was going on in the imagery and did not feel the need to interrogate. But you on the other hand seem hellbent on calling these people out and shutting them up. Albeit that you have made no posts of your own and have offered no constructive criticism so far. Reduser isnt a book, it isnt a magazine, this a forum. Contribute or put up.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hahaha I wouldn't mind an OMFG! filter myself. Jim likes 'em so I say make sure to leave them in to keep him motivated. But it can be tiresome to find new posts of interest when one is short on time. ;)

While we're at it can we develop a viewing option that filters out the:

'Lame...'
'SHUT UP HATER!'

Sub topics as well?

[Brook Willard]

If people want more of my original photo, here (http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/orig.jpg) is a 30% scale of a 100% crop.

[casey warren]

If people want more of my original photo, here (http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/orig.jpg) is a 30% scale of a 100% crop.

Was it hot that day? I think some of the reason the background imagery is really soft might be due to the heat waves rising from the ground.

I've taken lots of video + still images when its been really hot outside I and have wondered why some of the backgrounds looked wierd, but then I realized it was from the heat waves close to the ground.

[Ace]

There's no criticism of my own work I hate more than: "Awesome!" "Perfect!" "Great job!' "Really sweet!". Because I always know what's wrong with it and if I know the flaws are really obvious then I feel like people are being dishonest about my work.

Gavin, I totally agree with you. This is why I make a concious decision never to show clients or friends, unfinished works in progress. Its a risk. And Reds taken that risk and have taken great value through feedback and critique.

However, me along with many other people are holding back full critique untill RED releases finalised test footage from fully enabled cameras and as you mentioned, releasing a larger variety of test footage. Otherwise, we would only be criticising Peters work.. Or Perhaps Jabez's work.. Or the CC guys work.. Or Weta's work.. or the guy who captured the stills work.. etc etc.

Until then, we dont really have enough data for legitimate peer review and scrutiny.

[gurney]

gurney... looks like you still have a few to go. And your response to my post? Are you really interested in constructive criticism or stirring it up?

Few to go with what? Your post is even-tempered and reasonable, exactly what people should hope for. Those who shout down anybody who brings up the slightest challenge do not serve the cause of quality or effective development.

I'm sure it is frustrating to have to defend incomplete work. But when companies issue beta software to testers, they do not attack those testers for filing bug reports. Quite to the contrary, they are happy to know that people are looking at it with a critical eye.

Ever been to DPReview.com and checked out the forums there? You see very similar behavior in that and other Internet forums: Anyone who raises the shadow of a doubt about a product gets pummeled with strident whines of "Troll! Troll!" just because people don't want to feel uncomfortable about their own purchasing decision. So they want to bury anything they perceive to be dissent, and they try to shame any discordant voice into silence by claiming that "everyone else gets it." That was done here, and it's easily discredited. And that's just another example of what I mean by "juvenile."

It's disheartening to see people sooo meek and afraid to post a question regarding something they have concerns about, and to have their reluctance validated by bullies. If nobody can air their concerns without fear of reprisal, then this ceases to be a useful forum.

I neither attacked the Red effort nor dismissively said, "This sucks." I suggested that tweaks might be needed, and that real feedback is useful to you guys. I gave Brook credit for an interesting post. So one guy was so shaken up by my suggestions that he lashed out. Too bad.

[Brook Willard]

Nah, it wasn't too hot. What you're seeing shows up in other images with that lens at 300mm as well.

Gurney... you're not making any friends here. Three posts and you're knocking on our members, our forum... come off it, man. There *is* a way to have a proper discussion without stirring up the hornet's nest. Blame it on others if you want, but fix it yourself.

Let's stay friendly, constructive and interesting. :)

[casey warren]

Nah, it wasn't too hot. What you're seeing shows up in other images with that lens at 300mm as well.


I see.

[Ace]

So one guy was so shaken up by my suggestions that he lashed out. Too bad.

I was neither shaken or stirred :ph34r:

Your initial post came accross as rude and insulting, your use of language was more befitting elsewhere.

All in all, take a read at your first post and think this over.

[Desert Rune]

Your initial post came accross as rude and insulting, your use of language was more befitting elsewhere.
It didn't across as rude or insulting to me, but rather fairly objective. I will say no more (I've stated my objections to the posted image), in fear I'll get jumped on.

[Brainstorm]

gurney... looks like you still have a few to go. And your response to my post? Are you really interested in constructive criticism or stirring it up? Just an honest question...

Jim

It seems to me that quite a few of the more persistent critics posting on this board don't quite understand the meaning of the word "constructive".

Duh? What's that?

IMHO, one of the most important realizations anyone has on the path to becoming a good film maker is the genuine realization that it's a 'cooperative' activity. i.e. People working together in teams to achieve a positive result. (The same goes for designing and building a new camera!)

Anybody who's worked with a fascist director or producer who learned his "management style" from Hitler knows they generally end up being held in low esteem. And so it is with forum members who only focus on the negative without contributing something useful themselves.

You CAN make critical observations here in a POSITIVE way. Those who do gain more respect.

[Brook Willard]

Here are two more from a different picture. Frankly, we're over-analyzing something we shouldn't be bothering with... Jim, I hope it's ok with you that I'm continuing with this.

I'm posting this because it's an interesting lens artifact that - whether present or not in the image you posted - is something people should be aware of. It's not something to expect from nice high-end lenses, but such things do exist.

This is the main reason it doesn't really apply to the original discussion here - you guys used awesome lenses. It's just an opportunity to discuss an interesting lens artifact.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

Anyone who raises the shadow of a doubt about a product gets pummeled with strident whines of "Troll! Troll!" just because people don't want to feel uncomfortable about their own purchasing decision. So they want to bury anything they perceive to be dissent, and they try to shame any discordant voice into silence by claiming that "everyone else gets it."

This is Reduser.net. It's for Red Users. We like the camera and want to talk about how to use it and get the best out of it. If you want to make up arguments based on what you see in a JPEG compression, please take it elsewhere. There's lots of good stuff at Reduser.net, but it's being buried by people who claim they don't want to use Red. Unbelievers go away. We're not threatened by you, but we want to start planning our movies and sharing knowledge.

[Brook Willard]

Guys, don't make me lock this thread.

[Steve Connor]

If there are "problems" with the footage then why were there no comments about these "problems" from everyone who saw the footage in 4K at NAB.

Every moment the RED team spend explaining themselves here is less time for them to spend on working on the camera. They were brave enough to release the footage, just take it at face value until the camera is released.

[Steven M. Bailey]

I've been following Red for over a year and have not really posted untill today. Most of the time I figure listen enough and you'll learn something. I appreciate the fact that many of you are so passionate about your work, and about the oppertunity that Red has set within our grasp, that your passion spills over into the posts. I find as a newbie, that I learn the most from the posts of the harshest critical eyes and tongues. For that I am greatfull...But... I also see the need to encourage these guy's to find their way to the finish line and keep them motivated into other 4k projects. So......
cool -sweet- awsome-yippeee-booray- boorah-smoken-"dine-o-mite"-and hot damn
The Frame's look totally awesome.
(You know for and alpha test and all that)

[gurney]

"With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo... the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser."

"I guess it's the REDCODE since the jpg's are pretty big. I guess that was unavoidable with such compression rate."

"those artifacts weren't visible at the screenings, and its not really visible in the other stills. Jim, might I suggest a replacement or re-jpeg of that particular still, you just KNOW the detractors are gonna call it out as a redcode faliure."

"there is something wierd going on in these images. before I get flamed, I dont think it's Redcode, but equally it's not JPG compression either.... something else is arwy JPG problms shows us as distinctive blocking, not as this posterisation/distortion."

"Some of them look like paintings (e.g. 'watercolor' photoshop filter or something)."

"The more I look at that image, the more I think it was uprezzed to 4K using S-spline interpolation from a lower resolution JPEG-encoded image."

"The strangeness in these images is not to do with jpg compression, it looks like something totally different."

"I'm seeing stuff in them that I've never seen before, so it's probably best filed under "alpha camera, alpha images"."

"We're not saying they are from Mysterium or from Redcode, but the point is a 6.5MB jpeg would not produce artifacts of any kind at 100%, it should be clean."

"I agree, I'm seeing some wierdness in some of those images that to my eye, look as if they've been run through a subtle median filter or something and the loss of detail is unpleasant. Regardless of whether it's from the alpha cam, jpeg compression or whatever, I would heartily recommend pulling those images until you guys can figure out what they are. Any professional that comes and looks at them at full size is going to scrutinize and get a very wrong impression. I can already see forum trouble brewing."

"I'd agree with a few other people on the advice of pulling the stills until everythings flushed out."

"I absolutely agree with that. Please take the JPGs offline until we know what exactly happened (e.g. we applied the posterizing filter because it makes the images look better on the Sony 4K projector or something)."

"I think it is very unwise to post pics as promotional stills that have gone through unknown routes and contain artifacts that even Graeme admits he hasn't seen before. I'd rather wait and still my curiosity for PJ's movie than see Red's imago go down the drain for some ill-denoised pics."

"The wide plane shot is completly screwed up and should be removed AT ONCE."

"yeah... I would have to agree with Emmanuel ! :-/"

"I think you might have a much larger problem if new people check the site and the first thing they see on the first pic are the artifacts. Remember - many people are not familiar with compression artifacts and haven't seen milkgirls 4k framegrabs. People often jump to conclusions and the blame will go down either on Mysterium or Redcode."

"Those Jpegs look horrrrrrible. I'm going to assume that's because of the Jpeg compression and isn't reflective of RED or else all of the comments from NAB would have been. "Worst HD camera ever.""

"I agree with smokestack, there is wonkiness going on but it's not the JPEG compression."

"I'm fine looking at pre-production footage, but I also want to make it perfectly 100% clear, that is not acceptable 4k compression for vfx, even if it looks great projected at 24fps."

[vidalsosa]

...You CAN make critical observations here in a POSITIVE way. Those who do gain more respect.

Well put, Brainstorm. David Mullen isn't exactly a "fanboy", but boy does he pull a following on this forum! That's what CONSTRUCTIVE criticism leads to... respect.

[vidalsosa]

"With reference to the distant trees and hills on this photo... the fine details seem somehow posterized on my browser."

"I guess it's the REDCODE since the jpg's are pretty big. I guess that was unavoidable with such compression rate."

"those artifacts weren't visible at the screenings, and its not really visible in the other stills. Jim, might I suggest a replacement or re-jpeg of that particular still, you just KNOW the detractors are gonna call it out as a redcode faliure."

"there is something wierd going on in these images. before I get flamed, I dont think it's Redcode, but equally it's not JPG compression either.... something else is arwy JPG problms shows us as distinctive blocking, not as this posterisation/distortion."

"Some of them look like paintings (e.g. 'watercolor' photoshop filter or something)."

"The more I look at that image, the more I think it was uprezzed to 4K using S-spline interpolation from a lower resolution JPEG-encoded image."

"The strangeness in these images is not to do with jpg compression, it looks like something totally different."

"I'm seeing stuff in them that I've never seen before, so it's probably best filed under "alpha camera, alpha images"."

"We're not saying they are from Mysterium or from Redcode, but the point is a 6.5MB jpeg would not produce artifacts of any kind at 100%, it should be clean."

"I agree, I'm seeing some wierdness in some of those images that to my eye, look as if they've been run through a subtle median filter or something and the loss of detail is unpleasant. Regardless of whether it's from the alpha cam, jpeg compression or whatever, I would heartily recommend pulling those images until you guys can figure out what they are. Any professional that comes and looks at them at full size is going to scrutinize and get a very wrong impression. I can already see forum trouble brewing."

"I'd agree with a few other people on the advice of pulling the stills until everythings flushed out."

"I absolutely agree with that. Please take the JPGs offline until we know what exactly happened (e.g. we applied the posterizing filter because it makes the images look better on the Sony 4K projector or something)."

"I think it is very unwise to post pics as promotional stills that have gone through unknown routes and contain artifacts that even Graeme admits he hasn't seen before. I'd rather wait and still my curiosity for PJ's movie than see Red's imago go down the drain for some ill-denoised pics."

"The wide plane shot is completly screwed up and should be removed AT ONCE."

"yeah... I would have to agree with Emmanuel ! :-/"

"I think you might have a much larger problem if new people check the site and the first thing they see on the first pic are the artifacts. Remember - many people are not familiar with compression artifacts and haven't seen milkgirls 4k framegrabs. People often jump to conclusions and the blame will go down either on Mysterium or Redcode."

"Those Jpegs look horrrrrrible. I'm going to assume that's because of the Jpeg compression and isn't reflective of RED or else all of the comments from NAB would have been. "Worst HD camera ever.""

"I agree with smokestack, there is wonkiness going on but it's not the JPEG compression."

"I'm fine looking at pre-production footage, but I also want to make it perfectly 100% clear, that is not acceptable 4k compression for vfx, even if it looks great projected at 24fps."

Since you claim to be so well informed and "professional" in your views and opinions, tell me one thing an average member can gain from any of your posts on this forum. You joined the forum today and all of a sudden making enemies? Does this speak well of your intentions? C'mon Mr "OMFG", quit being scared of the unknown. Red means no harm to her compettition. I repeat, no harm.

[Poi Boy]

Gurney, If you want to take a critical look you really should be looking at these things in PS not in your brouser.
Aloha
-A

[gurney]

I did, thanks. I was going to try exporting some clean stills with JPEG2000 at high compression to see what kind of artifacts resulted, but I don't see JPEG2000 amongst Photoshop CS2's output options.

[Poi Boy]

Sorry, your post said brouser.
-A

[Ace]

Jpeg artifacting is not what is seen in the biplane shot. Its something completely different. We dont know what it is because it is absent from all other shots.

[gurney]

Jpeg artifacting is not what is seen in the biplane shot. Its something completely different. We dont know what it is because it is absent from all other shots.

It's less obvious in the others, but still present. Check out the crossbar support under the gun in the sample image someone else posted further up in the thread. That's mud, but man it looks weird.

[ChristopherKenworthy]

I find as a newbie, that I learn the most from the posts of the harshest critical eyes and tongues. For that I am greatfull...

I have to agree. I love having these sharp, expert eyes around. It will help to push the project to perfection. I'm less enthusiastic about people just bagging the images as an apparent hobby.

This thread is about the PJ clips and grabs, so of course we should discuss them. But as we're meant to be Red Users, let's be polite and constructive.

Personally, I have no fear. The images make me very excited.

[Steven M. Bailey]

Distortion due to engine exaust being compressed and lifted over wing?
( I mean hey while everone's guessing) Maybe heat off the vegitation in the distance? Maybe a cloaked spaceship? Too many variables! fingerprint on the lenz? Post had dirty monitor?

[Simon Blackledge]

I posted another thread about this. Rather than looking at the plane I was intrested in the grass. Detailed area. I've seen than look before. It's not Jpeg blocks. I get it if I over process clips in say Furnace using slomo plugin. Or if I over go it in NeatImage noise reduction in PS.

Looking at what Jim and his team have done upto now, having set out and achieved it. I trust them. So let's look at them for what they are. Alpha versions. Wouldn't expect an Alpha of FinalCut7 to be stable would we? and this is pretty impressive for alpha!...

S

[Moir]

Not going to comment on the Red stills, but Brook I am 100% certain there is atmospheric distortion in the SLR stills you posted. I shoot with long teles a lot and it doesn't have to be hot to see this. I've experienced it in Antarctica. Any long shot over open ground (grass fields, concrete aprons, water, ice) will almost inevitably suffer.

Maybe blownapart is right that this effect is in play in the Red shot.

[Dave Cooper]

Does anyone have the plane JPG still? It seems to have be taken down from RED.com.

[Simon Dean]

Wow, I miss one evening and such a lot of posts! (And some heated ones too).

So, the stills aren't perfect. IMHO what this really shows is...very little. There is 1 problem with them, again IMHO, workflow - the pipeline from the cameraman (i.e. before image even gets to sensor) to us viewing these images is actually a bit of a mystery.

The one way that it helps is that it shows that if we are to get the best image from these cameras then we need to get the workflow right - and how long exactly have we had to try different workflows? Hmmm, oh this is the FIRST proper test of pre-production cameras - and personally I think it has nothing to do with the camera.

Maybe it's heat haze, maybe it's the lens, there's clearly some jpeg-like compression artifacts and some wavelet compression artifacts. Maybe it's a dodgy routine for taking 12bit to 8bit, maybe someone pushed the wrong button when they exported the jpeg. So?

In short, it's the best, highest resolution footage/stills I've seen from a pre-production camera filmed by a team who'd never used the camera before in an incredibly short time...when's the last time we saw that from Sony or anyone else for that matter?

Trust the Red team to deliver, because they will.

[Alexander Nikishin]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/198_1177405191.jpg

You figured out what Peter was testing Red for as well eh? :biggrin:

[Hrvoje Simic]

everyone needs to take a breath and remind themselves that this is prototype footage.. there is things that will not be 100%, it was the purpose of the test shoot to find those things so we can fix them.

Its a tough decision to open this test footage up to you guys, and if it keeps getting critiqued for what its supposed to be, that decision is gonna start going the other way.

I only recently read your warning about the compression artifacts prior to your image posting, so I apologize for my hastines and possibly uneccessary comment. My comment was stricly related to newcomer's possible first impressions and I was under the impression that I made that pretty apparent.


....People often jump to conclusions and the blame will go down either on Mysterium or Redcode.

I'm sure the real deal is phenomenal, though.

[david farland]

We were pretty much using nothing for monitoring except a second Apple monitor. The final cut was mastered to 4K DPX files on a Quantel Pablo at Park Road Post, for various reasons we mastered in rec709 colour space.

Ok, On set we (Deanan) copied each magazine onto a large esata/firewire800 harddrive (Actually several copies were made). After the last day of shoot Deanan handed me a 750 gig hard drive that contained all 8 hours of rushes shot, plus the reference quicktime wrappers for the media which turned the 4k Redcode files into 1k Proxies. I attached the drive to our Mac Pro via eSata, and the quicktimes were imported (very quickly) into an FCP project.

There were several teething problems which I'll skip over as it was all part of the teething process and will all be rectified by the time the camera is shipping. But something I should mention is that at the time the redcode codec could not be rendered in, this will be fixed, but it meant that we had to either cut in a sequence set to the redcode codec and never do anything that that would require rendering, or else cut in another codec and have to render every bit of footage. So we cut in redcode, then when the cut was locked we changed the sequence settings to MJPEG-A and rendered the cut so that we could do some resizing etc in FCP.

Going back a bit, as soon as the footage was loaded in we copied the drive of footage onto another empty drive so that we had two copies and my assistant editor could sync the production sound to the rushes on another machine (a macbook pro). We were under a great deal of time pressure so we started cutting before the sound was synced to the picture, and we just grabbed sound as we needed it. Then when the cut was locked we went through and added in the sync production sound.

Making a long story slightly shorter, we eventually finished the offline cut and created a quicktime of the sequence for our Sound Editors, and for Weta Digital. We held a handover meeting to explain which shots were to be VFX and how PJ wanted the audio to sound etc.

All the quicktimes we were cutting with had the original Magazine and file name as part of their clip names, so we were able to refer back from the timeline (or EDL) to which parts of the original redcode files we required for the online.

The Online process basically involved manually going into redcine and extracting in a useable 4k format all the shots that we had used in the offline. This task was bravely tackled by Weta Digital and their editorial and I/O teams. This part will be much easier in future once REDcine Pull List is working. Anyway, once the frames for the 11 minute final cut were extracted at full quality they were sent to Park Road Post to be conformed in their Pablo system. Weta also kept hold of the shots that required vfx and got to work on those.

The Colour Grading was done on the Pablo at Park Road Post whilst the sound editors were track laying, recording ADR and doing the mix, and also whilst Weta was doing the VFX.

The VFX were dropped straight in the cut in the Pablo when they were done and once it was all finished the 4K data was rendered out and copied to a 750GB hard drive (actually this was done twice so we had two copies). I carried one copy and Richie Bluck the other, Chris Ward the Sound Editor carried the final sound mix and we all traveled to Las Vegas where we handed the drives to Jarred in his hotel room on the Friday afternoon before NAB. They then had to copy all the frames on to the 4K playback server and build the cinema (!) and we finally got to test the picture and sound and saw that it was all working on Sunday (!!).

I hope this helps.

cheers

-Jabez

Okay,

Somebody explain with the same precision and professionalism they used when commenting on the shots downloaded, what the hell happened above and then....tell me how these images were processed in post on the Pablo at Park Road?

Next please tell me what source files were eventually used to create the downloaded images?

And then tell me what s/w was used to actually transcode & compress (with the settings) for the eventual images you downloaded from Red.com?

And finally tell me all about the browser/viewer/calibrated monitor settings you were using for your scientific dissertation?

I'm sure armed with that information, you can tell me where and how the image was knocked off it's natural pixel grid and distortions appeared!

Because you sound like you know exactly what effects are likely to occur during all these transformations.

And please tell me you weren't looking through 5 ~ 6 layers where you didn't know all these things, but could comment with remedies which may correct it and defended your comments as being healthy public scrutiny no matter how ill informed you were!

Because, if that was actually the case, you wasted my time!

There is a reason people show a little modesty & humbleness (except me!) on this forum.

It's because we don't know everything.

Cheers,

ps: thanks flameop

[Simon Blackledge]

? are you asking or telling David.

[P Andersson]

I did, thanks. I was going to try exporting some clean stills with JPEG2000 at high compression to see what kind of artifacts resulted, but I don't see JPEG2000 amongst Photoshop CS2's output options.

here is a free plugin
http://fnordware.com/j2k/

here is more information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000

was thinking the same test would be worth a try, this is done with the fnord plugin

from none to very high compression

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/251_1177422924.jpg

[Brook Willard]

Does anyone have the plane JPG still? It seems to have be taken down from RED.com.

The image has been removed from the website by the guys at RED. As a result, I request that nobody redistribute that image.

As for those of you still discussing personal issues with other members in this thread, you need to stop. Don't make me go on an editing rampage, we know how those go over... :tongue:

[Hrvoje Simic]

Don't make me go on an editing rampage, we know how those go over... :tongue:

yes we do...:matrix: heh heh

[Axel Mertes]

It is a delicate balance between sharing early footage and not. That's why other companies do not. We have chosen to, but it is a bit frustrating to read some of the posts that make assumptions not based in fact. Then we are spending our time on the defense and trying to explain every situation. Right now, we need to let people know that we are well on the way. We are not finished yet. To engage in details at this point is time spent that we just don't have with our limited team. If you are encouraged by the footage posted, great. If there are things you don't like... we are probably working on them or have already worked on them. If you really want answers to every detail and don't feel you are getting them right now, sorry. Wait until you are happy before you buy, or just don't buy. Pretty simple.

Jim

Hi Jim,

as you know my collegues and I have been working on our own cam (one of them formerly making the Drake) for a while - so we can totally understand the problem this forum and its members, and RED and you, are faced with: Judging on something "not yet ready".

Everyone should simply bear in mind that this footage is shared mostly for those NOT having attended NAB and wanting to know WHAT has been shown there. Its like "work in progress".

To me its just a honorable decision to share those images to give all interested people an idea of what can "at least" be done with RED ONE when it will start shipping, and what Peter Jackson was not afraid off to share here as well (because otherwise there would have been no such useless discussions anyway).

I myself would wish to see the following, to get a better feeling of what is there to come:

a) A certain amount of sample images in graded 16 bit TIFF plus the exact same frames directly decoded from REDCODE as 16 bit TIFF.

The reason is that I'd like to push the material in grading to its limits to see how much is really output by REDCODE and what this particular artist intepreted from it (without any criticism involved).

I'd like to remind everyone that there was similar discussions when Jim first time showed the milk girls image in a forum (why the heck are they called milk girls - to me they look like being petrol station or garage service girls...???) as simply the gamma curves / slopes had been bad on that first image and it started burning out. Later the much better and now often cited actual images had been uploaded - for everybodies convenience. So please, fellows, don't start commenting to much on the images, just be happy to SEE FOOTAGE that is anyway better than competetively priced HD hardware.


b) A single shot, preferably a high action airplane gunfight shot (wasn't that what that movie contained as well) in full graded TIFF resolution and/or direct REDCODE output resolution to see how camera and codec performed on this, as well as what the artist made from it (which is always a matter of personal taste).


c) Clearly the entire movie, say in HD 1080p resolution, as whatever is decided codec. Not to judge on artefacts. Just to be pleased, to having had the chance what all NAB attendands had to talk about. My private waiting line is much longer than those fellows had to stay during NAB... Especially 'cause the www.red.com server is unreachable during US daylight hours from germany, seems to have been completely blocked / filled with users. What a pitty.

Heads up everywhere!

Axel

[Shawn Bannon]

As for those of you still discussing personal issues with other members in this thread, you need to stop. Don't make me go on an editing rampage, we know how those go over... :tongue:

Honestly, is there anyway to do this? Its almost impossible to navigate to the constructive discussions on this site now.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Perhaps we need an extremely moderated sub-topic called "knowledge". If it's not asking a question or providing an answer it gets deleted. I would be happy to assist in moderating said sub-topic. We would definitely need to double the number of moderators or more with in.

No personal discussions, no emotional "yeah! Awesome" or "RED sucks". It has to be posted in a. "I don't like ... because." format.

[Steve Connor]

Have another sub forum called "opinions" as well - that'll be busy!

[Jay A. Kelley]

Jim, Jarred, et al,

From reading this thread I am afraid that posting early work to the general public may not be a hot idea. Bottom line, you have some competitors out there and they need every bullet you can give them. Not to mention some of our wonderful, less than enthusastic "Angels" from C.com who, it would seem, are moonlighting over here a little more now (I do NOT include Mr. Mullen or the constructive members in this).

You are one month or less from releaseing the first batch of cameras. We've all seen enough to know that RED exists. We know it works, but I think at this point, sharing anything but a finished or mostly finished product will now work against you.

As a customer I find myself wanting to see stuff, but I also find myself frustrated and angry with the way it's coming out. This is not a complaint, but more a issue of self-discovery on my part. I think I would prefer to simply wait for three or four weeks and read the manual on RED. Then I'll watch Gibby's test footage and get various reports from people who have the time to obsess with this stuff for me.

You're busy, you have production, packaging, marketing, etc, and most important a customer service infastructure to have in place within 3 to 4 months. We are speaking of the camera's picture, and, while very important, it's only 45% of the project.

My advice: Go work.. Chat with us and make us laugh (You can be funny when you want to be!). And we'll see it when it's ready and RED will be judged on what it IS rather than what it WILL be.. We're close enough to the end to wait until it's done.

People will always complain, but it's not worth all this at this point.

I say lock it down.. We're almost there. We are all asking questions that already have answers.. This helps no one.

Jay

This is not a "Bitching" post.. I am really trying to help here. :sorcerer:

[Simon Blackledge]

It's like having the client in the room when your not finished on a shot.. your so giddy it's looking good you want them to see it.. on the other hand they point out some little things your not finished on.

I'd rather we don't take up any more of the teams time and they can concentrate on getting the cameras out :)

s

[Jay A. Kelley]

It's like having the client in the room when your not finished on a shot.. your so giddy it's looking good you want them to see it.. on the other hand they point out some little things your not finished on.

I'd rather we don't take up any more of the teams time and they can concentrate on getting the cameras out :)

s

Exactly. A lot of us mean well, but if the negative, stupid posts of those that do not know how to write really does upset the RED team, better to just hold off and wait until completion before showing anything else.

Jay

[Sean]

Jim, Jarred, et al,

From reading this thread I am afraid that posting early work to the general public may not be a hot idea. Bottom line, you have some competitors out there and they need every bullet you can give them. Not to mention some of our wonderful, less than enthusastic "Angels" from C.com who, it would seem, are moonlighting over here a little more now (I do NOT include Mr. Mullen or the constructive members in this).



It's a dilemma, but don't forget that in only 8 to 10 weeks there will be considerably more Red stuff posted everywhere on the Internet, and it will be unmoderated stuff--meaning it won't be as well shot as Mr. Jackson's short film. I don't really think there's anything we can do about the debate, pro and con. These technical and subjective debates/discussions will rage until someone makes a beautiful movie that makes money or blows critics away and the public will have no clue it was shot on a $20K digital camera. Then, finally, the debate will end (...actually it won't, but it will subside).

So I think it's in Red's interest to post as much carefully controlled footage and stills as possible, keeping in mind NOTHING is perfect, before the flood of crap hits the Internet. Because you can just imagine how people will dissect the Red Camera when badly compressed, badly composed, badly produced Red footage gets out there. As with anything in life, good quality creative and technical products will be the exception rather than the rule.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

I know it would happen, this silly discussion about artefacts in a jpeg-Picture... PJ Film at NAB looked absolutely perfect to me, I was a lucky man this days, and I have the greatest trust, that REDone will help me to create pictures I've ever dreamed of. It is REDiculous to discuss about still images, about compressed still images, to enlarge them and and... Who ever spent this much time to look at a still frame of a single NTSC, a HD? It is truely horror. But when they move, they seems to be great. But I've seen several 4K stills of RED in the early days, even this one looks far more better. Or a 35mm? I shot today a 35 commercial, I will be on telecine tomorrow and I know, when I stopp and just look over one picture I will see noice or grain or here something strange, there something irregular. Film, this are moving picture and RED will have some of the best moving pictures I'm shure. Jim loves his project, he would never build a camera which is not perfect, for this, he is to proud and to clever and to much involved in creating the best 4K camera on the world. So, give him some more space to do that.

If everything works fine, I'll get my camera arround June. And what, if he don't work the way, I'm imaging? Then I have to say: Ok, I did an investment in the future and in the future there are always some unexpected things, let's deal with them. Let's give RED and his team a try and a chance. They will do there best, I'm absolutely shure.

[Sproketz]

Jim and his team were kind enough to post some images for you guys in a format that could be easily distributed on the web.

It is not a delivery format.

There is little to no usefull information there about compression artifacts of Redcode.

It's been posted for your enjoyment.

In this case, truly, idle hands are the devil's playthings.

[Kenn Christenson]

Jim and his team were kind enough to post some images for you guys in a format that could be easily distributed on the web.

It is not a delivery format.

There is little to no usefull information there about compression artifacts of Redcode.

It's been posted for your enjoyment.

In this case, truly, idle hands are the devil's playthings.

One might add idle minds, as well.

[Sproketz]

One might add idle minds, as well.

Some people here need to check with your local pharmacist.

Pfizer has a new medication for "Dog Chasing It's Tail" syndrom.

[Simon Blackledge]

Lets get this clear.. as I feel I started it somewhat on another thread. :-/

I asked about what I was looking at. The pipeline.. if they wanted to share.. which they did.

(Jpg is not a delivery format.. well maybe not for some.)

Ok, so, whatever I was asking about was for sure there before they sent it into jpg world. I also have enough experience to kinda work out what probably happend.

And after spotting it I would still use the footage and hand it to a client, because it does look impressive.

Jim sounds like a perfectionist, so he'll understand. What rocks the boat is the idiots joining in moaning, while not understanding the questions that were asked. I never suggested a problem directly with the camera.... I just asked what some things were and where they may have come from.

Give a monkey a Hasselblad a maybe one day he'll get a good shot....

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It's like having the client in the room when your not finished on a shot.. your so giddy it's looking good you want them to see it.. on the other hand they point out some little things your not finished on.


Isn't that the point of a flame op? ;)

[Nathan Troutman]

I walked out today to a beautiful day here in NYC. I stopped and looked at the sky and then I stopped and just looked. I stopped and took the time to really look at my all too familiar surroundings. Then I realized it. I don't see any grain in real life. Believe it or not there isn't any grain in anything you look at in real life.

Then I came home and checked out the full 4k frame grabs from PJ's film. Hmm, just pure detail. The shots look to me like real life has been created in front of your eyes - with a Pixar animated film like clarity and I say this as a huge compliment. For the first time it looks like life can be viewed without all the imperfections and can be seen for what it really is.

This just in - the "film look" - whatever that is - can be done in post. Grain will be imprinted on RED footage after it's been finished when it is printed to film - if you have too. When did "film" all look the same? Does Braveheart look like Traffic? Does 300 look like Saving Private Ryan? I saw 300 in IMAX. I thought it was shot digitally when I saw it and I was looking at the shots and thinking - why did they add so much grain to this? Only to realize that it was actually shot on film. I guess that's my answer. What exactly would "film" look like in the last ten years without the digital post produciton process it goes through. Look at 300 - talk about color correction! Is that "film"? How can it be when it looks nothing like the Shawshank Redemption. Surely that movie is film.

Then I read this whole thread. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from looking at a portion of a frame (a frame meant to be seen with 23 other frames each second no less), enlarging an already giant 4k image to 200% - 300% and then seeing things. I'm not flaming anyone. I'm sure there are conclusions to be made but as someone who's technical knowledge doesn't extend into this stratosphere I'm better to bring it all back to earth. Basic laws of compression: Start with more resolution / Compression works better with more time - rather than on the fly. This is why RED will work(as my mind understands it). It's a smarter concept right from the start and it's a concept combined with a serious sensor. Even if you can "see" imperfections in the 4K shot, are you going to be able to see it when that frame has been interpolated down to 2K - which is the real top deliverable format? What makes RED so smart is how they worked everything. By moving the real compression to post production you have the ability to take the digital negative and then render it in a super Hi-Res 4:4:4 color space at full resolution and because it is in post as things get better so can this part of the process until you reach 12 Bit 4K 4:4:4. Trying to do this in camera on the fly is impossible. Red thinks outside the box.

This also just in - no matter how much money or how great the people are involved there is no such thing as perfection in film. In the beginning of 300 there's a shot by a campfire as one of the Spartan's is telling the story. The shot was brutally boosted in post. Looking at it on IMAX you can see all the digital noise. It reminded me of pitch black VX-2000 shots with +12 gain and even more boosting of levels in post. I just re-watched Aliens 3 a few nights ago. In the first twenty minutes there's at least five shots where the focus is just flat out completely off. I'm talking about being on a static close-up in a locked shot and the back of the actor's head is in focus rather than their eyes. Y'know what, I never gave a shit when I watched these when I just watched movies. With a good story things become more equal.

Nobody should allow themselves to be scared away from RED or intimidated by the challenge it will provide you. Of course you don't know enough - take up the challenge because RED also provides opportunity. Somebody will always know more than you - forever. Don't think that you're not professional enough either. If you have the creative vision for a project, RED is opportunity - an opportunity to be taken seriously and to stand equally. Tell your story and if this mysterious and impossible feat of creation works your film will rise above the mistakes you will surely make. Why does RED have a following: because RED allows outsiders to start the creative race equal with the closed and gated small world that has always been Hollywood - a few who control everything. FOR THE FIRST TIME. Sony, Arri, Panavision - all of these other companies have been complicit in this closed empire and they all made - and are making - TONS OF MONEY because they have the control. If you want to write a book you sit down and do it. If you want to paint you buy the supplies and paint. Film has been a closed game. If you want to get in you have to play the game and play by their rules. Not any more.

What happens if movie goers actually like RED footage better than film! Wouldn't that just blow the floodgates open. I'm imagining myself (having shot several years of RED footage, features, etc.) getting a phone call from Paramount, "Hey can you show us how to use these?" Kind of like how Coppola, Lucas, and Speilberg got their opportunities - the studios had to look outside the loop.

I have no doubt I will see a revolutionary RED shot movie that will have acting and a story and finally an image as well. That movie will shake Hollywood - and shake all the control out of those ivory towers. No other art form is so controlled and limited as film. It has always been for the few. Thank God that is about to change. Don't hesitate. Ray Charles could've decided playing the piano blind was too much to expect of himself. Thank God he took up the challenge. Finally in film a real film-making tool is available to all hopefully film makers. No need to play the game. Pick it up and see if you can play.

I feel much better now:blush:

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Good, very good Nathan, it's just that, before I start to criticize what is good, I have to shure to be better. Is any body out there who could construct a camera for 17500 Dollar in 16 month with this stunning pictures? I could not.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I also agree it's a bit stupid to look at a 200-300 % blowup of a picture and moan about what's wrong with it.
Don't want to attack anyone, that's just my opinion, your audience will also never do that, and the general footage looks great.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Your audience doesn't have to key the stuff. Your audience doesn't want to massage and manipulate the color in post. I would rather see grain and noise than an enhanced unnatural VHS tape look. I'm starting to hear exactly what I didn't want to hear: acceptance. I don't think RED accepts that level of compression for their product and neither will I. They've said it themselves it's not reflective of the final product and it will improve. In fact they have the proof to back up that claim. They've delivered in the past without these artifacts.

All of the arguments I'm hearing could also be made for 4:2:2 color. But RED isn't a 4:2:2 camera. It's a 4k 4:4:4 camera which records to a nearly visually lossless codec. That's what's promised, that's what we've seen previously, that's what we're going to hold them to and that's what they fully intend to deliver.

I hope the red team doesn't take this as naysaying. I think I'm just repeating what their position is. I don't think Jim is willing to make sacrifices go on C.com and start a topic like "Well, you know we didn't actually deliver on our promises, but it looks really good in motion and I don't think your audience will notice." He'd get eaten alive and rightfully so, hell I would join in.

There are problems, these were alpha cameras. Actions are being taken by RED to correct future tests and we should expect the sharp artifact free images we've come to know and love.

[Poi Boy]

right on Nathan, I couldn't agree more.

As a side observation; the grain in 300 comes up alot, on a practical basis and I suspect perhaps the main reason it was done, was to blend all the layers together.

Aloha
-A

[John Allardice]

right on Nathan, I couldn't agree more.

As a side observation; the grain in 300 comes up alot, on a practical basis and I suspect perhaps the main reason it was done, was to blend all the layers together.

Aloha
-A

I very much doubt it. I dont see the VFX sup saying to the director. "Well we're gonna be piling on the grain here cause we cant make the comps work without it."
I suspect it was an artistic decision first...But I'm sure that somewhere along the way a couple of the compsitors must have thought. "Thank fuck we've got all this grain."

[Poi Boy]

I think it was more than an artistic decision.
-A

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Whatever the reasoning I for one loved it.

[Poi Boy]

me to.
-A

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Your audience doesn't have to key the stuff. Your audience doesn't want to massage and manipulate the color in post. I would rather see grain and noise than an enhanced unnatural VHS tape look. I'm starting to hear exactly what I didn't want to hear: acceptance. I don't think RED accepts that level of compression for their product and neither will I. They've said it themselves it's not reflective of the final product and it will improve. In fact they have the proof to back up that claim. They've delivered in the past without these artifacts.

All of the arguments I'm hearing could also be made for 4:2:2 color. But RED isn't a 4:2:2 camera. It's a 4k 4:4:4 camera which records to a nearly visually lossless codec. That's what's promised, that's what we've seen previously, that's what we're going to hold them to and that's what they fully intend to deliver.

I hope the red team doesn't take this as naysaying. I think I'm just repeating what their position is. I don't think Jim is willing to make sacrifices go on C.com and start a topic like "Well, you know we didn't actually deliver on our promises, but it looks really good in motion and I don't think your audience will notice." He'd get eaten alive and rightfully so, hell I would join in.

There are problems, these were alpha cameras. Actions are being taken by RED to correct future tests and we should expect the sharp artifact free images we've come to know and love.

Yes, you've got me there: I look at the camera from a director's stand of view, not a postproduction artist.
But isn't it a bit pointless to keep talking about these compression problems if the RED team already have said that it will not appear in the shipping camera's? I don't mind someone bringing it up, but it seems people sometimes keep going on about it.

But, indeed, I can imagine if you look to it from the standpoint of someone who has to put VFX on it, you *should* look for these things.

[Emanuel A.]

Jim, Jarred, et al,

From reading this thread I am afraid that posting early work to the general public may not be a hot idea. Bottom line, you have some competitors out there and they need every bullet you can give them.Jay, with the due consideration that I have regarding you on your old member status of this community and as reservation holder of 2 units and other lenses accessories etc, I fully disagree.

The RED's development is ending. It's better now than later. I mean: To have the necessary feedback in order to improve the device and other stuff related.

All the constructive inputs ARE QUITE useful. Who would go buy, already did it! The others will wait but for the RED ONE deliver. And then, the work is done.

It's now when it's possible to improve. Not after the "departure of the train"...

In the name of, or on and in behalf of all the purchasers (U2 for sure!),

Emanuel
RED ONE #111 #647 serial numbers

;-)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But isn't it a bit pointless to keep talking about these compression problems if the RED team already have said that it will not appear in the shipping camera's? I don't mind someone bringing it up, but it seems people sometimes keep going on about it.


In a vacuum speculation runs rampant. Most of the chatter was initially about what was causing it. Then a little bit of clarification was issued that they were addressing it. Which then raised the question: Is it REDCode or is it Post over manipulation. We never did really get an answer to that except that it would look *better*. However better could mean a thousand different things.

Considering the RED team doesn't really seem to have any resident vfx artists we sort of have to look out for our interests on our own. And like you said, as a director if it looks fine on screen that's all that matters. Normally when I direct I also have to do a ton of VFX myself so that's not entirely true on most of my projects but I am a strong proponent of the "good enough" doctrine.

Once people get their hands on some quality RAW footage indicative of the delivered red camera they'll relax.

[Jay A. Kelley]

Jay, with the due consideration that I have regarding you on your old member status of this community and as reservation holder of 2 units and other lenses accessories etc, I fully disagree.

The RED's development is ending. It's better now than later. I mean: To have the necessary feedback in order to improve the device and other stuff related.

All the constructive inputs ARE QUITE useful. Who would go buy, already did it! The others will wait but for the RED ONE deliver. And then, the work is done.

It's now when it's possible to improve. Not after the "departure of the train"...

In the name of, or on and in behalf of all the purchasers (U2 for sure!),

Emanuel
RED ONE #111 #647 serial numbers

;-)

You're not allowed to disagree with me.. Didn't anyone tell you?
:biggrin:

To be honest I think the decision has already been made.

Jay