C200: C200 Raw Export Workflow Question

[morgan_moore]

I believe the native gamut and gamma of .crm files is Canon proprietary. What you get with Canon's raw development software is Canon's transforms between native .crm and the various Canon Logs and so on. That might be good, since support for Canon Log (and 2 and 3) is wide spread.

But in terms of adjusting the image, including exposure, contrast, white balance, primary and secondary correction and so on... there is no benefit in using the raw tab compared to the normal tools. Is it an expectation that it would be?

There is nothing inherently good about 'raw' as long as the alternative is highest quality debayer and the channels aren't clipped.

I can't imagine a single reason to go into the raw tab of a C200 file, unless I wanted to put it explicitly in a certain Canon Log-mode.

DaVinci Resolve has 'Auto Color', a WB picker and Temp and Tint scrubbers. Apart from that you have wheels for Lift, Gamma, Gain and Offset (Exposure) or you can switch to the Log controls for overlap free adjustments of shadows, mids and highs.

This was the point I was trying to make - the non raw controls offer 90% if what one would want to do to an image and the resolve "engine" is agnostic as to where you make adjustments.

 

[cpc]

You get more intuitive adjustments when the image is linear (which is where it lives during the raw processing stage). If you use offset for exposure in a log image, it is only truly equivalent to linear exposure adjustments in the straight part of the curve, but not at and below the toe. If you use gain for exposure adjustment you still need the image to be linear (or power gamma), so this is 2 unnecessary additional conversion nodes (from and to whatever tonal curve you are working with) and the reference values are not as intuitive as EV adjustments with a raw exposure control. Same goes for WB; you surely can get there (or close) with wheels, but that's just not as natural as dialing in an illuminant. You can also control sharpness during the debayer process and, with Resolve debayer in particular, for lossy raw (or at least for BM lossy raw, could be different for Canon's raw light) the image looks better when dialed down to 0 from the default sharpness setting.
Frankly, the lack of proper raw support in post pretty much negates some of the benefits of shooting raw. I mean, it is 2018 (almost); we shouldn't have to endure ancient post workflows.

 

[IanTheM]

What is the AVID workflow like? I see that they actually have a plugin for Media Composer and such.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Frankly, the lack of proper raw support in post pretty much negates some of the benefits of shooting raw.

I wanted to say that I disagree, but the way you phrase it here… I kind of have to agree.

But I would start over by saying that shooting video in raw, in and of itself, is very uninteresting to me personally. Maybe I'm alone here, but the thing I want is a high bit depth file that isn't clipped. I'm willing to accept intra frame compression, because I think I'm a practical guy more than a purist, if it's more or less visually lossless.

Raw capture to me is more about allowing the cameras to just dump the data on the card, as painfully as possible, in order to allow for higher fps. Raw is about omitting, not adding, a feature—namely proper real time encoding to a more appropriate codec.

I find it very intuitive to see the image adjust before my eyes to any input I make in Resolve. It helps to know that the response of the Lift, Gamma and Gain controls are targeted to Rec 709 but it doesn't really matter since you can just turn the knobs until you're happy. And as said previously, WB is easy to adjust with the dedicated controls: temperature and tint.

Resolve also provides a very handy Color Transform OFX effect that can shift data between a number of gamuts and gammas + provide luminance and saturation mapping.