PDA

View Full Version : Essential differences in Redcode 36, 42 & 225



Joe D'Arcym
11-14-2008, 07:15 PM
Can anyone elaborate on the essential differences in Redcode 36, Redcode 42 and Redcode 225

J Davis
11-14-2008, 07:22 PM
I too would like to know ..

I posted this question in Obsolescence Obsolete thread but it got closed before I got a reply. I think its a valid question.

By what degree is REDCODE 42 better than REDCODE 36?
And will the Red One always be stuck on REDCODE 36 with the sensor it has?

As of today Wikipedia are reporting
"Scarlet Brains will record a data-rate of 42 MB/sec (compared to RED ONE's 36)"
and
"Epic Brains will record a data-rate of 225 MB/sec."

I don't know how accurate this is but here is the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_Digital_Camera_Company

David Wyatt
11-15-2008, 06:46 AM
It just means less compression is being used (a good thing), so the difference between Redcode 42 and Redcode 36 should be a similar improvement to Redcode 36 over Redcode 28 (i.e. hard to spot any difference on a small screen but pretty important on the big screen when you're blowing up any potential flaws).

Red One can also record Redcode 28 (to achieve higher frame rates or if you want lower storage etc), so I'm sure Epic will be able to do lower compression rates than just Redcode 225 (especially to get higher frame rates). I'm not sure about Scarlet because some of the features seem to be limited in terms of frame rates (except for the 2/3" models - I'd imagine these ones may be able to drop down to lower compression rates like Redcode 36 or 28).

Redcode 225 should be fairly awesome (and require a lot of storage, although no where near as scary as Redcode 500 on a 28K sensor with the 617 Epic!!!)

J Davis
11-15-2008, 08:38 AM
Thanks Dave,
So is wikipedia accurate in reporting that REDCODE 42 means 42 megabits per second?
I looked around on red.com for confirmation and couldn't find it.
J

Stuart English
11-15-2008, 09:08 AM
So is wikipedia accurate in reporting that REDCODE 42 means 42 megabits per second?

If it says that, no.

REDCODE is expressed in megaBYTES per second, not megabits per second.

J Davis
11-15-2008, 09:17 AM
Oops my bad, typo, megabytes was what I meant.
J

David Birdy
11-15-2008, 10:03 AM
I'm happy to see this new improved codec is getting some attention.

This is big!

Not only from a quality standpoint but also the fact that Red Digital Cinema CAN and will upgrade the codec over time.
We hope to see this codec upgraded threw out the years as a natural progression and refresh of hardware and software in Digital Cinema.

The good thing about 225 is it is full or resolution, but you must process, read, write and store this data. If we could write & store on 225, then process / edit with 42, link the media for trans-coding we would have a High-res / low-workflow with out two separate ingest sessions.

All hail the New Codec..42 & 225!!


Dave

REDneck
12-09-2008, 05:33 PM
well, it's pretty clear that Redcode 225 won't be recording on CF cards. The sizes just aren't there. I'm thinking SSD -- probably the new superfast ones that Samsung has been talking about. A 256 GB SSD would hold 18 minutes of Redcode 225 -- not bad at all!

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-09-2008, 05:47 PM
I'm happy to see this new improved codec is getting some attention.

This is big!

Not only from a quality standpoint but also the fact that Red Digital Cinema CAN and will upgrade the codec over time.
We hope to see this codec upgraded threw out the years as a natural progression and refresh of hardware and software in Digital Cinema.

The good thing about 225 is it is full or resolution, but you must process, read, write and store this data. If we could write & store on 225, then process / edit with 42, link the media for trans-coding we would have a High-res / low-workflow with out two separate ingest sessions.

All hail the New Codec..42 & 225!!


Dave


Isn't it that no matter what the codec mode is [36, 42 or 225] the size of the output would be the same [just better with the *higher* source]?

Same with uncompressed raw?

Jannard
12-09-2008, 06:34 PM
well, it's pretty clear that Redcode 225 won't be recording on CF cards. The sizes just aren't there. I'm thinking SSD -- probably the new superfast ones that Samsung has been talking about. A 256 GB SSD would hold 18 minutes of Redcode 225 -- not bad at all!

Don't guess... CF cards are making huge improvements in speed. We have CF cards in development that keep up with our progress.

Jim

David Birdy
12-09-2008, 07:25 PM
Isn't it that no matter what the codec mode is [36, 42 or 225] the size of the output would be the same [just better with the *higher* source]?

Same with uncompressed raw?

Lossless compression yields variable files sizes, due to it's ability to compress data in a efficient manner 42 would be larger than 36 and 225 would be larger than 36 but it is not a direct multiple.

This is some of the magic the RED boys have tapped into by using the "Lossless compression" Codec....It's just Brilliant!

Dave

Pierce Cook
12-09-2008, 09:14 PM
Has there been any hubbub about 32GB cards on the horizon from RED, and will R1 be compatible with newer CF cards without a new module?

Epic (first two) and Epic-X with their 225 and 250, respectively... a lot of storage needed... good thing general storage comes down in price by the day :)

Zaphod
12-10-2008, 02:21 AM
Not even Red claims that Redcode is lossless.

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-10-2008, 04:09 AM
Lossless compression yields variable files sizes, due to it's ability to compress data in a efficient manner 42 would be larger than 36 and 225 would be larger than 36 but it is not a direct multiple.

This is some of the magic the RED boys have tapped into by using the "Lossless compression" Codec....It's just Brilliant!

Dave


No, I understand that, but I meant something else...

RedCode is *visually* lossless, not *mathematically* [completely] lossless, meaning that some info is thrown away, but the difference is negligible.

In my understanding, the *processed* [RGB] output of a RAW frame would always be the same size, regardless of whether our source is Completely-Uncompressed RAW or one of the flavors of the current RedCode RAW [29, 36, 42].

A 4K 16bit TIFF will always be ~ 50 MB, but will be of better quality if our source is better [meaning: better\less compressed RedCode or completely-uncompressed RAW].

Uhh... :wacko:

Lawrence Bansbach
12-10-2008, 08:53 AM
The original Scarlet announcement said that Scarlet would support Redcode up to 100 MBps. Does that refer to the data rate at 24 fps or the rate needed for 120 fps? Is the 100-MBps Redcode support still planned for the 2/3-inch Scarlets, or has it been scrapped?

Radoslav Karapetkov
12-10-2008, 09:11 AM
If the 42 MB/sec. RedCode refers to the 120fps mode, then this means that at 24fps we have a 8,5 RedCode, which is a step back.

I clearly remember a discussion where 100 MB/sec. was linked to the 120fps mode, thus giving us 20 MB/sec. for 24fps.

The memory remains. ;)

EDIT: Oh, wait, I found the thread: :devil:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13042&highlight=uncompressed

---

But if the 42 MB/sec. refers to 24fps. then we'll have 210 MB/sec. for the 120fps mode.

... which is schweet. :biggrin:


***

Another possibility is that they've greatly improved the efficiency of the RedCode codec, and thus 42 MB/sec. @ 120fps is actually fine.

But who knows. :sarcasm:

---

Uncompressed 3K RAW at 24fps is ~ 210 MB/sec.

Uncompressed 3K RAW at 120fps is ~ 1050 MB/sec.


:construction:



P.S. I love my calculator... it's smarter than me

Jeremy Neish
12-10-2008, 10:12 AM
You know what I think would make this so much simpler? I think they should change what's being measured. Why do it in data rate (data per second) when there can be such variation in the number of frames in a given second? Sure Redcode 250 sounds like a lot, but because it's only needed at higher frame rates it doesn't really tell us much about the actual quality per frame.

I say RED redo the scheme and base it on data per FRAME not per second, let's call it REDCode Rate. So using that methodology:
RedCode 36, 4k @ 24fps actually equals at RedCode Rate of 1.5, and
RedCode 250, 4k @ 125fps = RedCode Rate of 2
You can also take into account resolution:
RedCode 250, 2k @ 250ps = RedCode Rate of 4
(250data rate / 250fps / .25 [25% of Native resolution])

Since this is a rate, higher numbers are better (less compression).

Or alternately we could just accept that it's all about compression ratios and just do it as a ratio of uncompressed RAW. I'm not 100% sure I understand the true datarate of uncompressed RAW so my math below is probably wrong, but here would be my attempt:

An uncompressed 4k RAW frame:
4096 pixels by 2048 pixels = 8,333,312 total RAW pixels * 12 bits/pixel (Mysterium) = 99,999,744 total bits per frame uncompressed / 8 bits per byte = 12.5 MBytes/frame.
Actual RedCode 36, 4k @ 24fps:
36MB/sec / 24fps = 1.5 MBbytes/frame = Compression ratio of 8.3:1
So we could call Redcode 36, 4k@24fps a RedCode Ratio of 8.3

Using the same 4K frame but at Redcode 250 @ 125fps we get:
250MB/sec / 125fps = 2 Mbytes / frame = Compression ratio of 6:1
Lets call that a RedCode Ratio of 6

Or a 2K frame at 250fps at RedCode 250:
2048 by 1024 = 2,097,152 pixels * 12 bits/pixel = 25,165,824 bits/frame / 8bits per byte = 3.1 Mbytes/frame
Redcode 250 @ 250fps and we get:
250MB/sec / 250fps = 1 MByte per frame or a RedCode Ratio of 3.1


Since it's a compression ratio, lower numbers are better (less compression).

What's interesting to me, is when you break it down to a per frame Ratio or Rate, the difference between what we are seeing in a R1 and what we will see in future cameras isn't dramatically different, even though the total amount of data being handled per second in certain circumstances (high frame rates with large frame sizes) can be quite dramatic.