Image Nickpicking

David Battistella · 09-04-2007, 03:57 PM

Like many others I looked forward to seeing the first images from RED's unleashed in the field. I have been very impressed with much of what I have seen. Even the most modest shots under unfavorable conditions are looking very impressive.

One thing I do not quite understand is how much analysis (over over analysis) is going into the still images that are being posted.

The true aesthetic of RED's image quality should be placed on how the moving images look when they are viewed at the resolutions they have been recorded at. We all know that there is a compression algorithm being used to get the 4K down to file sizes reasonable enough to record and fit on a CF card. What has to matter is how the moving high resolution files look and how the compression scheme is working?

Yes we can pull frames to look at dynamic range, etc. and that gives us a good idea of what the imager is capable of, but to start making DSLR analogies is kind fo unfair. RED is a motion picture camera dedicated to producing high quality motion pictures. (I have to confess that some of the tiff stills have been mind blowing though.)

When do we stop and analyze one frame in a film we are watching? I am sure you could pull endless 2K scans from 35mm film to compare and contrast, but to me it's the moving images that matter the most and so far that is what is most impressive.

A few years ago you could not do these data rates to FW drives, let alone a CF. In my analysis, what is amazing is how much information is being preserved and recorded not lost.

I doubt we'll be seeing banding or compression artifacting in the upcoming 4K, 2K and 35mm print screenings of RED shot films coming to a theater near you.

David

Richard Darge · 09-04-2007, 04:00 PM

I echo your words.. Lets focus more on the moving pictures.. Somebody cut together some cool little montage vid for us.. Or send me the video, I'll cut it myself if you're too busy shooting

Gavin Greenwalt · 09-04-2007, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by battistella

[...]
Yes we can pull frames to look at dynamic range, etc. and that gives us a good idea of what the imager is capable of, but to start making DSLR analogies is kind fo unfair. RED is a motion picture camera dedicated to producing high quality motion pictures. (I have to confess that some of the tiff stills have been mind blowing though.)
[...]
David

The marketing has been almost verbatim "DSLR picture quality at motion picture framerates." So I expect the analysis to see how it lives up to those claims.

What's being evaluated right now is whether the RED camera lives up to what it's been marketed as. And the marketing has not been very.. ummm how shall we say... err.... humble.

Some pretty big claims have been made during development about the RED's capabilities. People are looking to see if it lives up to those claims.

Myself I would have been *happy* if the camera was really nothing more than a good 1080p 35mm 4:4:4 camera. But that's not what it was marketed as (not suggesting the RED camera *is* a 1080p camera, I'm just saying I would have been happy with one.)

David Battistella · 09-04-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by im.thatoneguy

The marketing has been almost verbatim "DSLR picture quality at motion picture framerates." So I expect the analysis to see how it lives up to those claims.

What's being evaluated right now is whether the RED camera lives up to what it's been marketed as. And the marketing has not been very.. ummm how shall we say... err.... humble.

Some pretty big claims have been made during development about the RED's capabilities. People are looking to see if it lives up to those claims.

Myself I would have been *happy* if the camera was really nothing more than a good 1080p 35mm 4:4:4 camera. But that's not what it was marketed as (not suggesting the RED camera *is* a 1080p camera, I'm just saying I would have been happy with one.)

Good fair points Gavin.

David

Kyle Mallory · 09-04-2007, 04:14 PM

There are aspects of each (motion/sequence of frames, and individual frames) that are important to analyze. Things like noise in the blacks will be less noticable during playback, whereas rolling shutter, motion blur, etc. will be more apparent in a motion analysis. And while I do want to see more footage than stills, from a technical analysis, I think there is more to analyze when you look at each frame independently. Of course, the analysis should be done on a frame-by-frame basis from motion footage.

That said, in my opinion, the real test of the camera is going to come from the "unpleasant" shooting circumstances from those of us who aren't "pros". A pro can make President Bush look like a hero... A pro can make VHS look good! I don't want to see "properly lit" scenes. I want to see the raw, under/over-exposed, no-histogram footage that someone shot while running down the street along side a car with so much handheld motion you can barely figure out what they were trying to frame... As unpleasant at it sounds, its where the camera starts to break down that I'm interested in...

After I've seen my fair share of that, then I'll start looking for the properly lit, well composed and colorful "money shots".

Jason Francois · 09-04-2007, 04:18 PM

To me the best reason for analysis of still images is to give us enough hope that it will do just fine in motion.

I, for one, can't wait to see more motion footage, but the camera is brand new, not completely enabled and slightly workflow restricted.

I've been this patient, so it's not going to hurt to give people some days to get things together.

j.

Adrian T. · 09-04-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylemallory

I want to see the [...] footage that someone shot while running down the street along side a car with so much handheld motion you can barely figure out what they were trying to frame...

Go watch THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM then. :clown2:

Richard Darge · 09-04-2007, 04:34 PM

Yea seriously, I barfed while watching that flick

As long as the footage is better than the Blair Witch Project, I'm game..

Karl H · 09-04-2007, 05:14 PM

I think its only natural that after 2 years of development we're going to 'over analyse' what is thrown at us. We're all a very excited community and until this week we hadn't seen a single image from a 'production' camera.

Whatever came out of it was bound to be subject to scrutiny. We've all been waiting and waiting for so long that to not analyse the images would have been more worrying in my opinion.

I wouldnt take it to heart too much, its our way of feeling we're learning or doing something while the lucky ones get to go in the field with the real thing. No one has been slanderous, only curious as to why, how, and finding out the limitations of the system... In all honesty that's the only thing we can do right now, analyse and refresh! I guess it makes us feel more involved :-)

I have also learnt a lot too by asking questions and reading other threads about the way the image is captured, constructed and compressed. Never a bad thing.

jbeale · 09-04-2007, 06:07 PM

With photoshop it's so easy to zoom in, apply crazy filters, etc. that everyone has fun with it... The only problem (as you rightly point out) is making any judgment about final projected image quality as a result. Every single time I've seen a new DSLR camera released, this sort of thing (what Michael Reichmann at Luminous-Landscape.com calls "pixel peeping") happens on user forums. Except it's often much worse, with many self styled experts making "interesting" conclusions. Often based on a 400% view of a JPEG someone took in the camera store. :-)

09-04-2007, 03:57 PM	#1
David Battistella REDuser Sponsor Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,704	Image Nickpicking Like many others I looked forward to seeing the first images from RED's unleashed in the field. I have been very impressed with much of what I have seen. Even the most modest shots under unfavorable conditions are looking very impressive. One thing I do not quite understand is how much analysis (over over analysis) is going into the still images that are being posted. The true aesthetic of RED's image quality should be placed on how the moving images look when they are viewed at the resolutions they have been recorded at. We all know that there is a compression algorithm being used to get the 4K down to file sizes reasonable enough to record and fit on a CF card. What has to matter is how the moving high resolution files look and how the compression scheme is working? Yes we can pull frames to look at dynamic range, etc. and that gives us a good idea of what the imager is capable of, but to start making DSLR analogies is kind fo unfair. RED is a motion picture camera dedicated to producing high quality motion pictures. (I have to confess that some of the tiff stills have been mind blowing though.) When do we stop and analyze one frame in a film we are watching? I am sure you could pull endless 2K scans from 35mm film to compare and contrast, but to me it's the moving images that matter the most and so far that is what is most impressive. A few years ago you could not do these data rates to FW drives, let alone a CF. In my analysis, what is amazing is how much information is being preserved and recorded not lost. I doubt we'll be seeing banding or compression artifacting in the upcoming 4K, 2K and 35mm print screenings of RED shot films coming to a theater near you. David __________________ Peace

09-04-2007, 04:00 PM	#2
Richard Darge Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,536	I echo your words.. Lets focus more on the moving pictures.. Somebody cut together some cool little montage vid for us.. Or send me the video, I'll cut it myself if you're too busy shooting __________________ Red 363 'MX Feb 19' Canon PL K-35 Superspeeds cin / edi / dir www.rickdarge.com http://www.theredshooter.com/

09-04-2007, 04:18 PM	#6
Jason Francois Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 547	To me the best reason for analysis of still images is to give us enough hope that it will do just fine in motion. I, for one, can't wait to see more motion footage, but the camera is brand new, not completely enabled and slightly workflow restricted. I've been this patient, so it's not going to hurt to give people some days to get things together. j. __________________ I know how to do it. You just wouldn't know it from the way I do it.

09-04-2007, 04:34 PM	#8
Richard Darge Registered User Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 2,536	Yea seriously, I barfed while watching that flick As long as the footage is better than the Blair Witch Project, I'm game.. __________________ Red 363 'MX Feb 19' Canon PL K-35 Superspeeds cin / edi / dir www.rickdarge.com http://www.theredshooter.com/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-04-2007, 04:14 PM	#5
Kyle Mallory Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 531	There are aspects of each (motion/sequence of frames, and individual frames) that are important to analyze. Things like noise in the blacks will be less noticable during playback, whereas rolling shutter, motion blur, etc. will be more apparent in a motion analysis. And while I do want to see more footage than stills, from a technical analysis, I think there is more to analyze when you look at each frame independently. Of course, the analysis should be done on a frame-by-frame basis from motion footage. That said, in my opinion, the real test of the camera is going to come from the "unpleasant" shooting circumstances from those of us who aren't "pros". A pro can make President Bush look like a hero... A pro can make VHS look good! I don't want to see "properly lit" scenes. I want to see the raw, under/over-exposed, no-histogram footage that someone shot while running down the street along side a car with so much handheld motion you can barely figure out what they were trying to frame... As unpleasant at it sounds, its where the camera starts to break down that I'm interested in... After I've seen my fair share of that, then I'll start looking for the properly lit, well composed and colorful "money shots".

09-04-2007, 05:14 PM	#9
Karl H Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 414	I think its only natural that after 2 years of development we're going to 'over analyse' what is thrown at us. We're all a very excited community and until this week we hadn't seen a single image from a 'production' camera. Whatever came out of it was bound to be subject to scrutiny. We've all been waiting and waiting for so long that to not analyse the images would have been more worrying in my opinion. I wouldnt take it to heart too much, its our way of feeling we're learning or doing something while the lucky ones get to go in the field with the real thing. No one has been slanderous, only curious as to why, how, and finding out the limitations of the system... In all honesty that's the only thing we can do right now, analyse and refresh! I guess it makes us feel more involved :-) I have also learnt a lot too by asking questions and reading other threads about the way the image is captured, constructed and compressed. Never a bad thing.

09-04-2007, 06:07 PM	#10
jbeale Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,625	With photoshop it's so easy to zoom in, apply crazy filters, etc. that everyone has fun with it... The only problem (as you rightly point out) is making any judgment about final projected image quality as a result. Every single time I've seen a new DSLR camera released, this sort of thing (what Michael Reichmann at Luminous-Landscape.com calls "pixel peeping") happens on user forums. Except it's often much worse, with many self styled experts making "interesting" conclusions. Often based on a 400% view of a JPEG someone took in the camera store. :-)