FS7: FS7 II - Does raw really make any difference? (qualitywise)

legrevedotcom

legrevedotcom

Veteran
I'm having a hard time finding any examples of raw from the FS7 making any real difference in opposition to just shooting xavc.
So i'm looking for input from you guys... does the added cost of the XD unit and fx. the Inferno add up to the increased quality?

And if anyone could share a raw FS7 clip I could test grading on, that would be really appreciated!

Cheers
 
no, it does not. I rented the XDCA back for a day for a test as I had the some question as you have. The result with the Odyssey 7Q was disillusioning. No visible difference compared to sLog3 XAVC-I. I cannot speak for the Sony recorder but on my research I found no one using it with a FS7. Sorry that I cannot supply files because I deleted them already. Maybe you go for a rental too?
 
Yeah, could be an idea. Just found something else, that might detract me from Sony raw and just go with xavc... the Omeneo primer. Seems like they did wonders with slog3, and at 55 dollars, it's quite a bit cheaper than forking out for something that doesn't make a lot of difference :S
 
While I agree RAW is - to say the least - nothing special quality wise, one other reason to even consider the XDCA is recording 4K externally with framerates of 50/60fps. The HDMI signal is crippled in this mode, being only 8bit 4:2:0 (sic !!!), so the only way to record full 10bit 4:2:2 is via the SDI RAW output :( Sad, but true!

Piotr
 
legrevedotcom said:
Yeah, could be an idea. Just found something else, that might detract me from Sony raw and just go with xavc... the Omeneo primer. Seems like they did wonders with slog3, and at 55 dollars, it's quite a bit cheaper than forking out for something that doesn't make a lot of difference :S
Click to expand...


The Omeneo primer is just a LUT. And a LUT will never hit all situations. I found just one (!) sample with these LUTs and a FS7 thati's nothing what you would not could in Resolve by yourself even better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQGlIWS0f7E
 
moldcad said:
While I agree RAW is - to say the least - nothing special quality wise, one other reason to even consider the XDCA is recording 4K externally with framerates of 50/60fps. The HDMI signal is crippled in this mode, being only 8bit 4:2:0 (sic !!!), so the only way to record full 10bit 4:2:2 is via the SDI RAW output :( Sad, but true!

Piotr
Click to expand...

Didn't you praise the RAW output (recorded as ProRes to Inferno) for being "night and day" less noisy than internal recording? I understand this is not exactly RAW but in the context of OP question who considers purchase of XDCA and recorder, it is a valid consideration. By the way, you never shared any of your recordings....
 
Yes I did - but only as being better than I've read/heard it would be. I was expecting lots of banding in shadows etc., while in fact I'm getting beautiful picture with my C4K@50p DNxHR Inferno encoding - on par with the non-RAW video recorded via HDMI at 25p (when it's full 10bit 422). However, I never encode to the Inferno's CDNG as - after a couple of tests - I concluded there is no visible or measurable benefit over S-log3 DNxHR (Prores is good too - bad a tad more noisy).

Piotr
 
All sensor output starts with RAW, you can either convert that in camera using dedicated hardware or in post with generic hardware.
RAW is not better quality but it does give you more choices in post.

Compare it to a steak. You either go to the butcher and buy one raw and cook it just the way you like it at home or you go to a restaurant, they get it from the same butcher but they cook it for you.
Which one is better?
 
Cary Knoop said:
All sensor output starts with RAW, you can either convert that in camera using dedicated hardware or in post with generic hardware.
RAW is not better quality but it does give you more choices in post.

Compare it to a steak. You either go to the butcher and buy one raw and cook it just the way you like it at home or you go to a restaurant, they get it from the same butcher but they cook it for you.
Which one is better?
Click to expand...

This is just a theory. In reality the RAW signal coming out of many cameras is not exactly the RAW straight from the sensor, it often needs to be compressed, it's bit depth reduced, gamma applied, etc. Then there's decoding of the RAW which also isn't as straight forward as you'd think. You statement is very simplistic.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I am a simple person.
Click to expand...

From an article titled Commonly Confused Words:

"The adjective simple means plain, easy, ordinary, or uncomplicated. A simple solution to a problem is usually a good solution. ... The adjective simplistic is a pejorative word meaning overly simplified—that is, characterized by extreme and often misleading simplicity."
 
broughtonfilm said:
From an article titled Commonly Confused Words:

"The adjective simple means plain, easy, ordinary, or uncomplicated. A simple solution to a problem is usually a good solution. ... The adjective simplistic is a pejorative word meaning overly simplified—that is, characterized by extreme and often misleading simplicity."
Click to expand...
Thank you, the above comment affirms I am even more simple than I thought I was!
 
broughtonfilm said:
In reality the RAW signal coming out of many cameras is not exactly the RAW straight from the sensor, it often needs to be compressed, it's bit depth reduced, gamma applied, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, by the same token the raw beef you buy from the butcher is not the same as a cow in the field. It must be --- we won't go into it.

it's bit depth reduced
Click to expand...

A photodiode does not have a bit depth. Well, its (no apostrophe) bit depth is the Planck constant. But it's what you and I know as analog. Still on the sensor, its charge is turned into a voltage. And then its voltage is turned into a number, by the analog-to-digital converter. Changing it again before recording it raw would be weird to me --- but I don't make cameras. Why not just set the analog-to-digital converter to the bit depth you mean to lay to the card?

gamma applied
Click to expand...

I'm curious where you heard this, because when they say 12-bit linear or 10-bit log, that is the gamma. Why would they apply a different gamma on top of that?

---

Anyway, I agree with most of what has been said here. Regardless of whether you record raw, the final product will not be raw. You must demosaic, grade, and compress, probably to 8-bit 4:2:0 interframe. The superiority in look to video on Youtube that came from raw or film points to a failure in the grading process, whether in camera or at desk.
 
Raw isn't a magic bullet that you should feel the need to use just because you can. I suspect different cameras handle raw differently, regarding how much processing is done on the signal. I found raw is totally unsuitable for when I'm shooting in low light conditions since the in-camera noise reduction process gets by-passed. Like someone said, it gives you some latitude to adjust the image rather than working with a recording that has "baked in" characteristics, such as white balance settings. For the FS7, I find the in-camera recording options to be of high enough quality. If I had problems matching multiple cameras or couldn't get the "look" I wanted, I'd consider shooting raw.
 
Mark Watson said:
For the FS7, I find the in-camera recording options to be of high enough quality. If I had problems matching multiple cameras or couldn't get the "look" I wanted, I'd consider shooting raw.
Click to expand...

But you are always "shooting raw" - it's only before encoding and storing to the internal or external media when you decide whether to *record* raw or not. And as I stated many times, with FS7's HDMI being only 10bit 420 at 50/60fps (with 4K), the only way to record 10bit 422 is to use the RAW from SDI, and store encoded to external recorder. You can store RAW (which the said external recorder offers - CDNG in the case of Shogun Infeerno), or let Inferno aply an S-log gamma and encode the FS7's RAW signal to Prores, or DNxHR...

So - with 4K@50/60p - you are not only shooting RAW, but also take this RAW signal to the external recorder, and only then have a choice of recording it as RAW (not FS7's RAW, mind you) or compress harder with S-lo2/3 gamma applied.

Piotr
 
Depends on what your needs are.

RAW is better for visual effects (green screen etc), heavy duty color grading or anything that requires the maximum image quality to be extracted from the camera.
You may see a little more dynamic range and sharpness in the RAW files.
Obviously RAW takes up a lot more disk space and needs more computing horsepower.

It just depends on what the needs of the project are.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top