C300: 4K ProRes RAW for the C300 II vs. 2K 12-bit RGB 444 & 4K 10-bit 422

[jcs]

If one is using a big battery (V-Mount etc.) and not using the standard C300 II clamshell/display, an external recorder isn't really much more complexity or weight. The 7" Atomos Shogun Inferno is a bit larger of course, which can be helpful for studio/cinema shots (vs. run & gun).

I know scaling 2K 12-bit RGB 444 to 4K with a little sharpening looks excellent on YouTube 4K (vs. 10-bit 422), so that looks like the best bang-for-diskspace option. I would expect 4K ProRes RAW to provide better highlight recovery, WB tuning, and ultimate real detail at the expense of much larger files (and the possible need to do noise reduction, which perhaps is reduced a bit due to RAW compression).

File sizes can be reduced at the expense of time by using Resolve to perform initial development: set exposure, highlight recovery, RAW sharpening, WB etc. Then the clips can be batch rendered to ProRes, DNxHR, XFAVC etc. after which the RAW files can be deleted. Not really a fan of external recorders or RAW, however for those wishing to squeeze every last drop out of the C300 II with ProRes-sized files (or smaller), ProRes RAW could be useful.

The question is, how well does 4K 12-bit ProRes RAW work on the C300 II vs. 2K 12-bit RGB 444 (225Mbps) or 4K 10-bit 422 (440Mbps)?

 

[cpreston]

I did a few tests but nothing is online yet.

The RAW output captured to prores RAW has more detail and handles heavy grades and keying noticeably better than the internal 422. The extra detail is probably more a result of the lack of noise reduction in the RAW output and there is an noticeably increase in aliasing and noise in the ProRes RAW. This is also noticeable in the regular ProRes that the Atomos captures so it is not the ProRes RAW itself. The extra detail reminds me of the difference I was seeing in online videos comparing the C200 RAWlite to the regular 4K.

I haven't tested it against the internal 2K 444.

I think that ProRes Raw has made the C300 II RAW output useful. I would use it for any green screen or product shoots in the future where the client is looking for the best quality.

 

[jcs]

Cool, that makes sense cpreston. I would expect ProRes RAW to be similar to RAWLite, giving the C300 II parity with the C200 for RAW support with even smaller file sizes (+ an option to switch between ProRes RAW file sizes / quality). In these tests C200 RAWLite shows more detail vs. C300 II internal XFAVC. Some folks commented the C300 II wasn't set to the same focus point, though I'd still expect deBayer on the computer to provide more detail vs. deBayer in camera.

In terms of color, the C300 II looks more natural for skintones in that test. Comparing ProRes RAW (and/or C300 II Full RAW) would show if the color differences are due to the RAW post pipeline, or is there something different in the hardware/firmware color science between the C300 II / C200 (reported as sharing the same sensor (which implies same color filters)).

Neat Video is amazingly good, however due to PP CC's buggy SDK / API for plugins, especially high performance plugins trying to use both CPU/GPU, Neat Video is still slower than it should be in PP CC, and many times reports "No Frames Provided" by PP CC, and doesn't work and/or is unusably slow to respond. Resolve makes a good RAW pre-processing solution, and perhaps Resolve's paid version's noise reduction is sufficiently good (and fast) for transcoding RAW after basic development into ProRes, DNxHR, XFAVC. Neat Video also has a version for the OFX API and thus also works with Resolve. Curious how fast it is and quality level compared to (paid) Resolve's NR.
Found this tutorial comparing Resolve's vs. Neat Video's NR:

 

[cpreston]

The ProRes Raw that is imported into FCPX has the exact same color profile as the internally recorded footage of the C300 II once the same RAW to Log conversion is selected.

 

[jcs]

The ProRes Raw that is imported into FCPX has the exact same color profile as the internally recorded footage of the C300 II once the same RAW to Log conversion is selected.

If you have a chance to post a short clip or screenshots showing the improvements (detail, highlight recovery, WB tuning) vs. tradeoffs (noise), that would be helpful.