http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/ Engadget Comments for RED blows away small room of videophiles with 4k RED RAY footage at half the bitrate of MiniDV http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 3:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 9:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 5:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/]]>Apr 26th 2009 9:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
When I watched it in 1080p, that grain looks more like digital static than film grain I've ever seen.

On the other hand, an upscaling DVD player helps soften those single points from the SD and gives it a look that more closely matches the intention of the effect than the HD version. There is obviously some loss of detail from a technical point, but on a perceptive level, I'll take upscaled over Blu Ray on '300' or Transformers (not that Transformers was a good movie, natch).

On the other hand, except for a couple of scenes, Iron Man looks much better in HD, as do most films that haven't been put through the DI (digital imaging) ringer. Most modern horror movies go through a lot of post, and have the same problems, especially in certain scenes.]]>Apr 26th 2009 11:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 3:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
This better have an explanation that i can comprehend, because if it doesnt...]]>Apr 25th 2009 4:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
WHOAA!!!! slow it down there, Captain Obvious.]]>Apr 25th 2009 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
FAIL.

If the demo is set up correctly (i.e same cables *cough* monster cable scam *cough*) then ANYONE will IMMEDIATELY notice the difference between DVD and BD. Hell, some can even see the difference between 720p and 1080p]]>Apr 25th 2009 4:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 5:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
I can tell the difference. But if the display isn't setup correctly, no they won't be able to see a difference.
I use to be someone that said HD was bull. I would walk into a Best Buy or Circuit City and think; yeah, looks a bit cleaner but so what.
Until I saw a Phillips 60" HD display that was showing actual HD footage. My jaw dropped, I became weak in the knees, and I sat in the chair, in the showroom for the next 20 minutes marveling at the picture (and wishing I had a better paying job (or larger credit line on my card)) so I could take it home and drool without other customers staring at me.

But the long and short of it. A really good upscaling DVD player will do the trick. But I can see a difference between DVD and BD (or even HD-DVD, rip).]]>Apr 25th 2009 5:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
DVD look really bad on my Dell 30inch 2560x1600 resolution. 720p is the sweet spot.

If you cant tell the difference between dvd and HD, your tv is crap. Time to update.]]>Apr 25th 2009 9:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
Their only complaint is that the HDTV box takes longer to get a signal that the fuzzy analog reception. Of course these people don't exactly read technology blogs, so they wont be represented here.]]>Apr 25th 2009 9:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
Wow. Total false information. Incredible.

You probably don't realize this, but this claim has never been substantiated by any sort of study or survey. And that is regardless of the claims about needing a properly calbirated or sized display.

Your claim has never -- as in EVER, under ANY circumstances -- been substantiated. It's an internet-ism along the lines of "Larry Wachowski is getting a sex change."

-Pie]]>Apr 26th 2009 1:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
]]>Apr 25th 2009 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
I've always liked overall how Red has been progressing - doing what a lot of other long established companies have said was impossible. More power to them.]]>Apr 26th 2009 1:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 1:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 7:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 29th 2009 5:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 3:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
Their gear is top notch.]]>Apr 25th 2009 4:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
I just can not believe that they've outdone everyone that handily and 'with zero compression artifacts'.]]>Apr 25th 2009 4:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
I would like to see a real world performance test though, not something that is staged like someone mentioned earlier "the monster cable setup".]]>Apr 25th 2009 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
But if folks are working out automated schemes to figure that out on the fly for ordinary film footage, then BAM. I hope this takes off if only to free up bandwidth.]]>Apr 25th 2009 8:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
h.264 doesn't, however, have an in-loop dering filter. If it did, there would be no compression artifacts at all. Overcompressed video would just lack detail. That's not necessarily a good thing either, but it's less noticeable than artifacting.

Wavelet-based codecs (at least for still images) don't produce either blocking or ringing artifacts. They don't produce any compression artifacts. The less data you provide to encode an image, the less detail you get. This is again one of the big advantages; perceptually, it looks a lot better than it actually is.

When your video is 4k, you've got a LOT of detail that you can throw away before anybody notices, and if there are no compression artifacts, it will look quite good.

One of the reasons why wavelet-based video codecs haven't gained much popularity is because they only help so much. Sure, you can get better efficiency on keyframes (I-frames), which store the image, but they're what, 1% of the total number of frames? Less? Then you've got P and B frames, which have a relatively small number of macroblocks.

I'm not that familiar with all this stuff, but I believe that most video compression techniques from MPEG-1 through h.264 use more or less than same method of compressing images, the discrete cosine transform (as JPEG does). All the huge gains that the various codecs have made between those two have to do with other things.

There's at least one wavelet-based codec you can try out right now, BBC's opensource Dirac. Unfortunately reports say that the efficiency of it is somewhere around MPEG-2; nowhere near as good as more recent codecs.]]>Apr 26th 2009 4:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/It's not video, that's the key.]]>May 4th 2009 3:47AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 5:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/

(But seriously that's never going to happen)]]>Apr 25th 2009 10:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 12:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/May 4th 2009 3:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
One thing you're right though, it IS rocket science. The math is nasty even though principles are not. But the funny thing is, it is trivially easy to decompose something using wavelets - you only need multiplication and addition. Computationally simple.

I created a simple program as a term project for a graduate subect to decompose a grayscale image into wavelets. That was a decade ago. I never understood why this approach never gained more popularity in images and video, at least not more rapidly. Perhaps because the math is nasty or because comittees move slowly.]]>Apr 25th 2009 6:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 2:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
The Wavelet Transform is just another way to encode a function using a small number of coefficients. Just like the discrete cosine transform used in JPEG images (the noticeable artifacts are due to the use of 8x8 blocks). Wavelet transforms tend to be better at approximating peaks and discontinuities in functions (ie- contrasting colors, edges, etc) than traditional Fast Fourier-based methods. But they are computationally more expensive to encode/decode.
]]>Apr 27th 2009 11:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 26th 2009 5:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/You make a good point- SD is much more forgiving to skin blemishes etc - Supposedly the whole makeup process for TV has needed to be stepped up a notch for the HD transition of late - Doesn't bode well for porn :P]]>Apr 25th 2009 6:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
you'd be surprised, many porn actresses look incredible in hd;) stoya?;)

as for sd tv needing a step up, well they had a low standard before, they could get away with building really dodgy sets because the lack of detail would cover the cr@ppiness. ]]>Apr 25th 2009 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
thanks.]]>Apr 27th 2009 11:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 6:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
the problem is that if onlive were to go widespread the internet backbones couldn't handle the bandwidth demand which was was pretty high with only a couple hundred users online most internet in the US is still over shared connections it assumes that people aren't pulling their full bandwidth all the time (and lets admit it gamers play for hours on end ... thats a LOT of bandwidth)]]>Apr 25th 2009 7:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/Apr 25th 2009 4:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage/
But I am a little confused by the math in the article. Somebody should check this:
1.3GB/s ~ 10,700 Mb/s
10,700Mb/s / 700:1 ≠ 10Mb/s

So, if the first numbers are correct its more like 1100:1 compression. Right?]]>Apr 25th 2009 4:22PM