Isn't Redcode Just ProRes [Archive]

View Full Version : Isn't Redcode Just ProRes

Zaphod

11-23-2007, 02:24 AM

Brandon Fraley

11-23-2007, 02:36 AM

Redcode is 4k raw (4:4:4)

ProRes is 1080 4:2:2

among many other difference which I'm not smart enough to explain. Regardless, no they are not the same, so if you are able and choose, edit in redcode.

I'm sure someone will pst a better reply when it's not 2:30 in the morning :)

Nick Shaw

11-23-2007, 02:44 AM

ProRes is DCT, not wavelet.

Damien Molineaux

11-23-2007, 02:56 AM

Redcode or rather Red Raw is not 4:4:4, it can't be referred to in terms of x:x:x

It is raw bayer images. The revolution is recording the raw data from the sensor, with a 10:1 compression, with no visual loss.

You can then process the data to the format you like, before or after edit (that is also revolutionary), to Prores or DNxHD if you like, quite a good solution if your output is HD and you want to keep your post-production costs low (no RAID).

Cheers,
Damien

RivaiC

11-23-2007, 03:19 AM

RAW on RED, isn't like RAW like a traditional RAW on high data rates file. The compression is up to 30:1, how's that possible ? Thanks to RED. But RAW can't be understand as in any video format like YUV, or 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, nor RGB. It's RAW, and in RED case, it's RED's RAW which its own proprietary bayer interpolation and debayer thru either REDCine, REDAlert and Scratch at the moment.

AlienFX, i believe 4K is only up to 25fps and 2K to 75fps for now.

Shawn Nelson

11-23-2007, 04:04 AM

Redcode is much more efficient. Redcode 4k RAW is roughly the same filesize as 2k ProRes 422

dvpixl

11-23-2007, 05:07 AM

Can FCP directly import R3D files with REDCODE?

I know we were able to download it, but I dont see the option to choose it on FCP.

Graeme Nattress

11-23-2007, 05:22 AM

No, they're very different.

Graeme

Andrew M.

11-23-2007, 05:33 AM

As far as I know there is REDCode Raw 4:4:4 and RedRaw which doesn't have a colorspace ratio.

REDCODE™ 12 bit RAW 4K, 2K (windowed sensor)
1 – 30 fps 4K
1 – 100 fps 2K

RAW PORT™ Option High speed serial interface
1 – 60 fps 2540p (4K+)

Last time I exchanged messages with Graeme as to the RAW high speed port, the output format planned for this port will be 4096X2048 only, so 4K not 4K+
As to the REDCode RAW is as RAW as any other raw format, just straight dump from the CMOS so no color space or any other space should be associated with it.
It is single channel raw dump.
However raw data could be compressed and in case of Wavelet compression less changes inside the frame more resolution you get. Just by converting linear raw data to the log data you can compress 4 times. However what I like the most about Wavelet compression is the fact that when there is a lot of movement on the screen the resolution of the entire frame drop softly down a bit and when you stop it gets all the way up again.
Human eye has pretty high latency so it is incapable of seeing moving objects very sharp anyway.

Stuart English

11-23-2007, 05:58 AM

the output format planned for this port will be 4096X2048 only, so 4K not 4K+

No, thats not true, it can be up to 2540p and 60fps

Dalibor Fencl

11-23-2007, 07:37 AM

I searched the forum and couldn't turn anything up on this, so sorry if this has been discussed before but...

Isn't Redcode just ProRes?

I don't get what is supposed to be so revolutionary about RedCode?

Why couldn't you just use ProRes or DNxHD or the like?

ProRes is Wavelet based isn't it?

If there were something similar before Redcode, it was Cineform RAW. They both are wavelet 4K, unlike comparably very limited ProRes or DNxHD.

Andrew M.

11-23-2007, 07:42 AM

No, thats not true, it can be up to 2540p and 60fps

That is great news!
Will REDCINE has the option to take RAW-RAW at 2540p and downres it to 4K?
(I am talking about downres not crop)

Rob Lohman

11-23-2007, 12:30 PM

REDCINE already has downres (and crop) options...

Rob Lohman

11-23-2007, 01:23 PM

Isn't Redcode just ProRes?

No it's not. ProRes is made by Apple, REDCODE is made by RED

I don't get what is supposed to be so revolutionary about RedCode?

It's running IN camera, compressing 4K 12-bit RAW image data to about 18x smaller

Why couldn't you just use ProRes or DNxHD or the like?

Because that's not running inside the camera, nor would they be able to store the 4K 12-bit RAW image data in their current implementations

GlennChan

11-23-2007, 07:17 PM

I don't get what is supposed to be so revolutionary about RedCode?
1- Very high quality. It's less damaging to the image than 4:2:2 uncompressed codecs (and other 4:2:2 codecs like Prores and DNxHD). The compression is very benign and pretty much does not impair keying at all and is visually lossless.
2- You have a practical way of shooting 4K without needing an expensive flash media array. You can record 4K onto a normal compact flash card. Compression also tends to make the workflow easier.

This is probably the nicest thing about Redcode RAW.
3- Recording RAW means that any image processing is not baked in. So you can do a high-quality deBayer later on. It's also more efficient compression since you aren't throwing in any extraneous information (e.g. from debayering, from white balance, sharpening, etc. etc.).

You might also be able to make the same argument for similar products like Cineform RAW... but there is no 4K camera that shoots to Cineform RAW as far as I know? (So it'd be an apples to oranges comparison.)

David Newman

11-23-2007, 09:27 PM

You might also be able to make the same argument for similar products like Cineform RAW... but there is no 4K camera that shoots to Cineform RAW as far as I know? (So it'd be an apples to oranges comparison.)

CineForm RAW has and can be used for compression of other 4K cameras, such as Dalsa and Phantom, so the comparisons can be made (just different type of apples as the sensors are different.) For an in-camera direct comparisons SI-2K and Red windowed at 2K are a similar starting point. You will find the compression approach is very different, CineForm RAW in camera is optimized at a variable 7:1 or lower and Redcode optimized (currently) to a constant around 12:1. However once you get uncompressed out of the Red, and CineForm RAW could be used immediately, and the benefits and approaches of each technology would be far more clear; both codecs have their own advantages, but of course I have my favorite. ;)

Corey Culp

11-23-2007, 09:41 PM

No, they're very different.

Graeme

Always a wealth of knowledge. :bleh:

Jannard

11-23-2007, 10:27 PM

...both codecs have their own advantages, but of course I have my favorite. ;)

So do we... :-)

Jim

Deanan

11-23-2007, 11:47 PM

REDcode is also HIGHLY tuned for our sensor & camera system and is contantly being improved.

Andrew M.

11-25-2007, 05:56 AM

REDCINE already has downres (and crop) options...

Will REDCINE take 2540p though for downres?
I see only 2048 (4K) max for now?

Gavin Greenwalt

11-25-2007, 01:34 PM

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4072

As said before:
Redcode is a wavelet codec.
Pro-Res is a DCT based codec.

Rob Lohman

11-25-2007, 04:06 PM

Will REDCINE take 2540p though for downres?
I see only 2048 (4K) max for now?

We don't record 2540p yet.... once that becomes available we'll talk about workflow options

Rocco Schult

11-28-2007, 02:37 AM

CineForm RAW has and can be used for compression of other 4K cameras, such as Dalsa and Phantom... ; both codecs have their own advantages, but of course I have my favorite. ;)

So do we... :-)

just saying ... I'd still like to see RED as acqisition and Cineform as intermediate/production codec...

e.g. instead of having ProRes in the middle where not necessary.

Though I believe it can be a good alternative for TV-HD output if it holds up re scaling etc. - did not test it yet.