Ooooo the prettty flowers... [Archive]

Evin Grant

09-03-2007, 05:12 PM

Finally got a 2K H264 I'm happy with, it's just under 400MB so be patient...
Should play on most dual processor machines. It does on my Macbook Pro.
http://www.reduser.net/evin/flowerSS.jpg
This is also a very good example of the quality of the Red 18-50mm and it's breathing. I think it's quite nice myself. Exposed at about f4.5 w/ND 1.2.

http://www.reduser.net/evin/2Kflowers.mov

Seung Han

09-03-2007, 05:14 PM

link is funky... just saying.

Adrian T.

09-03-2007, 05:14 PM

http://www.reduser.net/evin/2kflowers.mov

Bad link. Is it still uploading?

Kholi Hicks

09-03-2007, 05:15 PM

Still uploading at the moment?

Evin Grant

09-03-2007, 05:16 PM

Try it now.

Sam Druckerman

09-03-2007, 05:17 PM

Ahhhhh, Nice!

And me sitting here without a intel chip, dang it.

Maybe a screen grab for the less fortunate?

Hrvoje Simic

09-03-2007, 05:17 PM

maybe tiff ? pls.

Kholi Hicks

09-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Link works now, thanks.

G.A. Kokes

09-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Thanks Evin,

Its nice to see footage with some additional information as you supplied.

G

Kholi Hicks

09-03-2007, 05:37 PM

Quite nice. What I immediately notice is that the saturation and contrast rendered by the lens is pretty freakin' good. It's not oversaturated, the contrast isn't too much or too little... everything's just right.

The gears are new, eh? Looks like when you were trying to zoom, it was giving you a bit of trouble. However, the actual snap zoom deal that happened was pretty clean.

Breathing was existent but minimal, @ 42" I didn't see it and really don't care to comb through the timeline just to pick it out. All around... very nice.

Thanks for taking the time to post up this long clip. And, it played back buttery smooth in Windows XP.

So those who want to playback in windows will know:

Quad Core @ 3.6Ghz
4Gb DDR2-1200
Latest Quicktime install

Júlio Taubkin

09-03-2007, 06:19 PM

Wow, flower rack focuses? Now it's official! We have a new camera!

Brook Willard

09-03-2007, 06:40 PM

Now that's what I'm talkin' about. From the shadows by the car straight through to the sky and the white shirt... and not a grain in sight.

Anders Holck

09-03-2007, 06:59 PM

Holy smokes, thats nice!
Nice natural sharpness (Maybe just a tad too much, really), saturated colors and pleasing skintones.

Very nice.

Only thing "unpleasant" that caught my eye was the slight moiré on the store front in the back. Just above the Time warner sign. My 5D tends to do that at times as well, and as well as here it seems to be a god compromise of moiré VS. softness. Tuning an OLPF must be a difficult art in itself.
But, man, beautiful stuff!

Graeme Nattress

09-03-2007, 07:47 PM

How was the movie made? If it was made as a wrapped quicktime, you may see a little aliassing, but if you make 2k dpx or 4k dpx (or tiff) through the full demosaic to make the movie, you won't see anything like that. We're looking at improving the quicktime to avoid this when transcoding, but to keep the speed for "normal" playback or offline editing.

Graeme

Evin Grant

09-03-2007, 08:20 PM

Quicktime "G" wrapper, exported to H264 Via QT Pro, 1/3 the way toward best setting on the slider automatic data rate. here...
http://www.reduser.net/evin/settings.jpg

Sean

09-03-2007, 08:32 PM

Plays fine on my laptop (Gateway dual core; 2 gigs RAM). Thanks for posting.

jaadgy akanni

09-03-2007, 08:41 PM

I'm just overwhelmed with awe by these images. Thanks Evin. Evin, why are you taking so long to shoot some SLR footage, c'mon man, please!

Gbabymogul

09-03-2007, 08:59 PM

Plays fine on my laptop (Gateway dual core; 2 gigs RAM). Thanks for posting.
You sir, are a braggart !
:)

Emanuel A.

09-03-2007, 09:02 PM

Great job boys. It's getting better each clip. Strong, massive. As my people are used to say (my family is producer of good wine, Oporto wine) but related to a bulky product, the picture of this camera has body.

Brook Willard

09-03-2007, 09:11 PM

That was a fun shot to shoot... the DOF is fantastic. I've spent a lot of time in that parking lot over the last year or so shooting those very same flowers on every conceivable format for tests. It's just so sharp... and this is 1/4 the resolution!

I wonder if QT could handle a 4K h.264 clip. :)

Elizabeth Lowrey

09-03-2007, 09:22 PM

Thanks for the movie, Evin! Great job. Fantastic images.

If people are making stuff that looks this good after only 2 days with the camera, I can't wait to see what will come out in a couple of months.

jbeale

09-03-2007, 09:56 PM

The flowers shot is very crisp, you can freeze frame and see true single-pixel detail on the flower petal texture, and that is after the H.264 compression. Nice job! I'm assuming some sharpening was done here- anyway it's clear the camera has the power to give you the look you want.

Brook Willard

09-03-2007, 09:59 PM

I doubt sharpening was added... I remember playing with the shot on set and it looked plenty sharp w/o anything applied.

Alexander Nikishin

09-03-2007, 10:07 PM

My quicktime doesn't support the file. :help:

Any chance of getting a 1080P quicktime Evin?

Mr. Paul White

09-03-2007, 11:35 PM

Why isn't there brightness at all?

Seems winter footage, not at summer.

Roberto B

09-03-2007, 11:57 PM

Why isn't there brightness at all?

Seems winter footage, not at summer.post of the week.

Evin Grant

09-04-2007, 12:10 AM

Those brightness issues are a quicktime thing. Graeme is working on it.

Justin Kirchhoff

09-04-2007, 08:16 AM

Anyone know why this particular quicktime isn't working for me? All the other 2k h264s worked.

Graeme Nattress

09-04-2007, 08:37 AM

Lovely job! Keep up the good work. And I didn't see any aliassing issues at all.

Graeme

Claus Mueller

09-04-2007, 08:37 AM

Kyle Mallory

09-04-2007, 08:38 AM

Evin,

Would you (can you?) export 12-24 frames of this as a DPX sequence? That would be awesome!

Jaime Vallés

09-04-2007, 08:46 AM

I played around with QuickTime export to Flash video. This is what you get with quality level 1.5 Mbit/s and On2 VP6 (Internet delivery), h.264 will be more efficient:

http://www.hd4.tv/red/2kflowers_1k.html
http://www.hd4.tv/red/crossing_1k.html
Thanks for posting this, Claus. I was having trouble downloading the 2K file.

Evin, the flower shot looks really nice! Good bokeh. The breathing of the RED zoom doesn't bother me at all, and makes me feel better about using SLR lenses in general.

Simon Blackledge

09-04-2007, 08:49 AM

Really really nice!.. :)

Adrian T.

09-04-2007, 09:08 AM

Lovely job! Keep up the good work. And I didn't see any aliassing issues at all.

Graeme

I think Anders was talking about the yellowish moiré you see in the attached picture.
But as you said this might come from the export out of the QuickTime wrapper.

Álex Montoya

09-04-2007, 09:08 AM

WOW. Nice flash

Graeme Nattress

09-04-2007, 09:12 AM

Ok - will look at that later. Now it's off to IBC - see you all there who can make it.

Graeme

Anders Holck

09-04-2007, 09:40 AM

I think Anders was talking about the yellowish moiré you see in the attached picture.
But as you said this might come from the export out of the QuickTime wrapper.

Yes, that was what I was talking about. Again I even see this sometimes on my 5D shots when processing in lightroom or CameraRAW.
So not a critique at all, just an observation from the provided compressed file :-)

Karl H

09-04-2007, 09:44 AM

any mirrors of this? i cant seem to download it

thanks

Ben Feuer

09-04-2007, 09:52 AM

Thanks, Claus! Original seems to be defunct. It was a pretty huge file.

Adrian T.

09-04-2007, 09:58 AM

Yes, that was what I was talking about. Again I even see this sometimes on my 5D shots when processing in lightroom or CameraRAW.
So not a critique at all, just an observation from the provided compressed file :-)

No critique from my side as well. But if it could be resolved... :biggrin:

Rob Lohman

09-04-2007, 10:07 AM

Those brightness issues are a quicktime thing. Graeme is working on it.

Yes, I am looking at it. BUT, it's not a thing that RED can necessarily solve on our own: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93794

Brook Willard

09-04-2007, 10:22 AM

Can't you guys sort of... insist that they do it right? In that cement boots sort of way?

Ajit_AP

09-04-2007, 10:30 AM

I think all of this technical talk is very important, anything to make Red better is good by me.

But I am struck by how pretty this footage is, even it is cheesy flower shot.

Antoine Fabi

09-04-2007, 11:24 AM

Better and better and better Evin !

In just a couple of days, the improvements are huge !

The image looks SOLID.

congrats

Antoine

Alexander Nikishin

09-04-2007, 11:50 AM

Evin, please pop out a 1080P version.

Dave Cooper

09-04-2007, 11:56 AM

Link seems to be down again.

Karl H

09-04-2007, 11:58 AM

I wasnt so convinced about the sharpness of this..... until they sat down on the grass and the focus shifted.

you can see the blades of grass pin sharp, the studs on her belt and the bark on the tree. Very very sharp.

any chance we could get a 4K tiff of this evin? Id love to see what those areas look like at their native resolution.

Regardless of my discussions whether this is or is not worth mastering at 4K, 2K appears to have a real sweetness about it. I'm a happy bunny with that...

I seriously hope that Red can somehow get the 2K scaled 100 fps RAW working as I suspect windowed 2K will not look as tack sharp as this stuff does. it looks so sharp because it's oversampled.

very impressed

Simon Blackledge

09-04-2007, 12:11 PM

Yes, I am looking at it. BUT, it's not a thing that RED can necessarily solve on our own: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93794

Oh sod Apple... how about RedTime ? :)

Justin Anderson

09-04-2007, 12:20 PM

Link seems to be down again.

Eff my crickity wank college dorm internet. After 5 hours of downloading it decided to crap out at 96%.:ranting2: :ranting2:

Floris Liesker

09-04-2007, 12:33 PM

PappasArts

09-04-2007, 12:49 PM

Evin, what time of day was this filmed at?

Pappas

Brook Willard

09-04-2007, 12:59 PM

I shot that around 5:00-5:15.

Adam Jeal

09-04-2007, 01:05 PM

Hi Evin,

The link wont work. Is it possible to re-post it somewhere?

Many thanks,

adam

PappasArts

09-04-2007, 01:10 PM

Thanks Brook!

Proteus

09-04-2007, 01:25 PM

Eff my crickity wank college dorm internet. After 5 hours of downloading it decided to crap out at 96%.:ranting2: :ranting2:

That's because you didn't use a download manager! :sarcasm:
Downloading huge files with a browser's (always) pathetic downloader is too risky.
For example, with Safari's downloader (Mac browser) I had a speed of about 300kb/sec and when I cancelled and went on my pc with the "internet download manager" I downloaded the 400MB file in 4 minutes or so with about 1.7MB/sec -the max of my connection.
Also a download manager pings frequently to keep connection alive.
For Mac there is "speed download" (although not as good).

Kenn Christenson

09-04-2007, 01:31 PM

Try This Link - http://www.reduser.net/evin/_2Kflowersxx.mov

Evin Grant

09-04-2007, 05:18 PM

Please download from the Mirrors. Unless you wan Reduser to go away again.

Rob Lohman

09-04-2007, 11:44 PM

I think the quicktime-wrapper did the moire. That also explains the overly detailed image (the tree is so extremely sharp) and the fact that I see a little more noise than I'd expected. (back of the car, just above the word Chevrolet)
I'm sure all this will be perfect when exported as DPX or TIFF and then converting it into quicktime.

That could very well be. The current quality of the QuickTime codec is very good, but not extreme high-quality yet.

The reason for this is that it's not doing a full 4K debayer and then downsampling that to whatever resolution you're looking at. That *option* will be added soon.

Currently it's using wavelet lower resolution extracts which could result in some of the things you might've seen.

Jim Arthurs

09-05-2007, 04:46 AM

The reason for this is that it's not doing a full 4K debayer and then downsampling that to whatever resolution you're looking at. That *option* will be added soon.
Currently it's using wavelet lower resolution extracts which could result in some of the things you might've seen.

Holy Cow, Rob, that's a non-trivial bit of info that I've not heard before... that explains so MUCH of what people are seeing... that and the "sharpening" on by default are the two major causes of grief with the current processed output, IMO.

Is this also the current case when extracting 2K image sequences? Are they pulled from the 4K and downsampled or straight (like the QT from the 2K wavelet extraction...

This could be the most important, "Oh, by the way..." of the week... :)

Álex Montoya

09-05-2007, 04:53 AM

Hmmm, yeah. Right now it looks as the 4K DPX (or TIFF) is the only reliable way.

Laco Zamba

09-05-2007, 05:01 AM

Maybe silly question :-) but is it possible to edit in FCP in REDCODE and send it to Color? Don't I need to convert it to ProRes first?

Graeme Nattress

09-05-2007, 06:12 AM

2k export as tiff or dpx is properly downsampled from 4k raw data. You can get a % or so better quality by doing it yourself from 4k image data - see image I posted on the resolution thread.

Graeme

Don King

09-05-2007, 06:25 AM

Is it true that Red Code is NOT visually lossless?

Bing Bailey

09-05-2007, 09:47 AM

everytime a friday comes a RED Angel gets his wings :) LOL

Bing Bailey

09-05-2007, 10:06 AM

everytime a friday comes a RED Angel gets his wings :) LOL

Steve Freebairn

09-05-2007, 11:07 AM

I finally got 2k flowers uploaded to our mirror. www.freehillproductions.com/RED/

Adrian T.

09-05-2007, 12:18 PM

That could very well be. The current quality of the QuickTime codec is very good, but not extreme high-quality yet.

The reason for this is that it's not doing a full 4K debayer and then downsampling that to whatever resolution you're looking at. That *option* will be added soon.

Currently it's using wavelet lower resolution extracts which could result in some of the things you might've seen.

Hmmm, if it needs too much resources to do a high quality decode, then why don't you make two wrapper versions? One for a draft version (like the one we have today, for offlining) and a high quality one (in case one needs the QuickTime for onlining). What do you think?

Rob Lohman

09-05-2007, 05:18 PM

Holy Cow, Rob, that's a non-trivial bit of info that I've not heard before... that explains so MUCH of what people are seeing... that and the "sharpening" on by default are the two major causes of grief with the current processed output, IMO.

Only RED ALERT! has default sharpening, QuickTime codec does not. However, the QT codec does not has the full 4K debayer + downsample.

The included readme file with the software package mentions this fact. But since we'll add a really high-quality version soon it was mostly important to the early adopters.

Rob Lohman

09-05-2007, 05:19 PM

Hmmm, if it needs too much resources to do a high quality decode, then why don't you make two wrapper versions? One for a draft version (like the one we have today, for offlining) and a high quality one (in case one needs the QuickTime for onlining). What do you think?

At the moment we have a high and draft quality codec. Problem is that you need to change codecs and that might require a reboot etc. Future versions will look at the high-quality flag from qt player and quality settings in FCP to see what it needs to do.

There are some more ideas floating in my head how to easily fine tune this and let people set decode modes without requiring codec swaps (which suck).

Anders Holck

09-05-2007, 06:15 PM

At the moment we have a high and draft quality codec. Problem is that you need to change codecs and that might require a reboot etc.
Wouldn't it only require an application relaunch in Mac Os? Still not an elegant solution though.

Future versions will look at the high-quality flag from qt player and quality settings in FCP to see what it needs to do.
Yeah I hoped you'd go this route. That worked pretty good early on with the DV codec. But of course it would tend to favor the slowest decode when scrubbing and trimming in FCP, which again could seem unresponsive to the user depending on performance.

Great stuff. Hopefully Apple will play ball on the gamma issues :-)

Spike Baumann

09-06-2007, 12:46 AM

Now we only need to invent better bandwidth for downloading everyones giant quicktime clips.
Maybe a codec that acts like bittorrent and can grab information from where ever it can.

David Battistella

09-06-2007, 07:27 PM

At the moment we have a high and draft quality codec. Problem is that you need to change codecs and that might require a reboot etc. Future versions will look at the high-quality flag from qt player and quality settings in FCP to see what it needs to do.

There are some more ideas floating in my head how to easily fine tune this and let people set decode modes without requiring codec swaps (which suck).

Rob,

I thought the idea behind the codec was to have the 4K file playing back at selectable proxies. This would mean that the 4K file is playing back at 2K, 1K, etc. from the 4K file and the 2K, 1K proxies work are being decoded from the "master 4K file.

Where is the bottleneck?

David

Rob Lohman

09-09-2007, 06:21 AM

David Battistella

09-09-2007, 06:36 AM

David: that is exactly what is happening and is available today with our system. However, there are also different quality settings (besides resolution) that impact decoding times. We are talking about that setting and how to best control it.

Thanks Rob. I apreciate you taking the time to answer.

David

Christian Berg

09-09-2007, 07:59 AM

David: that is exactly what is happening and is available today with our system. However, there are also different quality settings (besides resolution) that impact decoding times. We are talking about that setting and how to best control it.

Rob, could that be in System Preferences? Just add a menu in witch you can set the decoding parameters for the whole system. Just my thought... out in the blue...