Looking for Canon 1Dx mkIII raw video files

I agree with you, but every RAW video codec I've seen has benefits over ProRes, even though there are different degrees of processing flexibility and compression between RAW codecs. (The exception might be Z Raw from Z-Cam. I'm not sure that came out so great and I think they might be abandoning it.)

I assume the R5 will look like other Canon compressed RAW implementations. But I won't buy it before seeing the footage. (And it might have unacceptable jello effect anyway.)

So yes, when I say I want RAW that's with the assumption that it will be good RAW.

I'm not comparing photo RAW quality to video RAW quality, but photo RAW to JPEG.
 
Only two bad frames ... about 1/3 and 3/5 through the timeline .... but you are right ...

I have just tried RAW at 29.976 and H.265 proxy 4K simultaneously ... offloading the cards and
will see ... hard to imagine no errors at a faster FPS but who knows.
 
You know I never rest until something is solved or fixed.

Top left of your screen:

DaVinci Resolve --> Preferences --> UI Settings --> Change the tab at the top to 'User' --> Uncheck the bottom option "Stops render when..." and save.

(It's on by default.)

This will not fix your corrupted frames (which is most likely Canon's fault), but Resolve will process your footage successfully for further post-production or delivery.

Resolve Tip.jpg
 
Ideal ... but now for a bit more ... confusing information.

I changed the frame rate to 29.97 ... did a proxy record to H265 on card 2 simultaneously.

15 files ... 130Gb in Raw 13 in H265 10bit 4K.

Only 3 failed in CRD ... one in DR Studio ... and again one frame was bad. Clipped that and rendered the file to DPX 16bit without difficulty.

So can you tell me about drop frame and timecode? Have not added that in camera but wonder if this might account for the greater fail rate
at 23.976 than 29.97.
 
Framerates should not matter at all if your media can handle the data. Tested, proven, solid & reliable media.

The RAW is unstable (wouldn't be the first time in the world) and/or your media is bad.

Now there may be a case in which the RAW is more unstable in 24p than 30p, but that is impossible to know right now without additional overall evaluation and feedback prompting the engineers to take a closer internal look.

There is really nothing else...
 
Just tried your suggestion and it renders fine and show the bad frame with Media Offline marker ... which can be cut and the clips joined ... great news and thank you again.

Now I need to figure out 23.976 vs 29.97 ....
 
Now that I have a solution to rendering and cutting the bad frames it is not too onerous ... not ideal but still doable.
 
docmoore said:
Now that I have a solution to rendering and cutting the bad frames it is not too onerous ... not ideal but still doable.
Click to expand...

Unless you lose a frame from a crucial moment?

Although I suppose that a single repeated or gapped frame would be difficult for people to see...
 
I just looked at the H265 Proxy ... 4K 10bit 422 ... edits in real time in Davinci Resolve and honestly it is so close to what I can do with RAW
I will be using it for a majority of my recording ... ALL-I.

I imagine that in situations with severe highlights the Canon Log2 option of the RAW decode will be worth the effort ... but the proxy has no
bad frames and is 1/10 the size.
 
docmoore said:
I just looked at the H265 Proxy ... 4K 10bit 422 ... edits in real time in Davinci Resolve and honestly it is so close to what I can do with RAW
I will be using it for a majority of my recording ... ALL-I.

I imagine that in situations with severe highlights the Canon Log2 option of the RAW decode will be worth the effort ... but the proxy has no
bad frames and is 1/10 the size.
Click to expand...

That is basically the revelation most eventually have (including myself who was all about it at one point in time until I learned).

Thus my own push or desire for the balance of something like ProRes RAW, which may (MAY) provide more flexibility but also has great performance.

Maybe BRAW could work too, but I would need native FCPX support to even entertain the idea.

With RED cameras, it's almost like REDCODE is as normal as 10-bit or H.264 because it's been around for so long and the only main option for the best resolution and framerates the cameras offer until the last couple of years.
 
Well if you go down to REDCODE 12:1 @ 4K 24fps it's only 200Mbps

I thought you liked BRAW - is the NLE all that's holding you back?
 
I like the idea of BRAW for people who want to use it and I want companies to create their own RAW if that's what they want to do without worrying about patents, but when we talked about the Pocket 6K a few months ago I mentioned I mostly shoot in ProRes and that I was more invested in CinemaDNG (around 2014-2015).

In general, cameras weren't that good back then so it was easier to jump on board with all of the hype, but over time recording to PR 422HQ to external recorders really opened up my eyes (even though I have a love-hate relationship with them).
 
And the NLE is indeed all that is holding me back at this point in my life.

No FCP X support = no go no matter how incredible or inexpensive a camera is.

Same for H.265. No go. Not anymore.

___

And having the lower compression ratios of REDCODE is a great option to have for sure.

DSMC2 RAW plays really well in FCP X. It's pretty amazing. But it comes at a price.

P.S. There are a bunch of new R3Ds available on REDuser from the Komodo (still don't work well in FCP X though). :undecided
 
Komodo is basically off my list because I want something that appeals to doc/corporate/event crowd. I'd use it for them for sure, but I doubt they will think it's the right camera choice.

An A7SIII would market brilliantly with my FS7 and replace my S1 on gimbal while adding good AF and no-crop 4k60p. (All of that is an assumption based on rumors. And I'd need to pick up a Sony 24-105 to take advantage of the AF)

The R5 may have a lot of buzz though. It's very high on google trends as far as google searches go. If the RAW is good, it would be nice to have the option available.

I've absolutely observed a qualitative difference between the 8-bit on the C200 and the RAW. No surprises there

I'm going to look more closely at the C300III tests from Slashcam later today to determine if there actually was richer skintone in the RAW or if I was deluding myself.

But now I understand - your philosophy is that RAW is usually overkill vs ProRes
 
But speaking of RED - the food and beverage photographer whose videos I edit is selling his FS700 and just bought a Raven. He is super excited about it and I think it will be great for his work as he is used to more latitude/color info (and usually shoots video alongside his stills). I can see why RED had to kill the Raven. And its price Used is dipping down
 
It's especially overkill when it is a nightmare to work with and has unmanageable file sizes and offers little improvement.

If it performed as well as ProRes and if you'd be able to recover 5 stops of information in your files and the sizes consisted of 10MB per 4K-6K frame, do you think I would be saying the same thing? haha

You know what I am saying?

My main philosophy/argument is that I want to know what kind of RAW it is in terms of how it performs and what it really offers us.

Not read RAW on paper and say, "Wowww, I need that! It shoots RAW!" (And not understanding what the heck I am even saying.)
 
Yes but if YouTube reviewers and past camera sales are any indication - there are people who will say that and buy it

The only times I would use raw are also times I would be ok with large bitrates and PITA workflows

But part of what excites me about Komodo would be having a RAW that was so easy to use and offered such a range of compressions that I could just use it for everything. That would make me happy. Sigh

But your point is well taken that not all RAW is created equal. I've read that ProRes raw is less malleable in post and doesn't permit ISO changes like other formats do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top