icarusfilm
Veteran
Now that we are almost in October and everyone has been shooting their 4K Pocket for a month now- how is it? Any quirks, problems shutdowns? How are the clients liking it?
GH5 Game Over, Panasonic
- Thread starter Jim Simon
- Start date
joe12south
Veteran
RAW is as close to a pure sensor read-out as possible for the purpose of yielding as much flexibility in post as possible. As such, it is antithetical to the whole idea of RAW to interpolate a lower resolution in camera. Are there ANY cameras that record RAW interpolated to lower resolutions? Not that I'm aware of.
joe12south
Veteran
They said they'd ship in September, and they shipped in September.
Cameras are definitely in the wild and clips from non-sponsored shooters are starting to trickle out. Some significantly more appealing to me than the official stuff. I think I much prefer the cam with "softer" lenses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAvj3TySiwM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAvj3TySiwM
Thomas Smet
Veteran
If you are shooting a documentary why would you need raw? Not even every movie in Hollywood is using raw. ProRes log is a very robust format and performance wise will kill BRAW. BRAW is impressive but 4k 10bit ProRes will always perform better on an edit system vs BRAW with 95% of the same visual quality. Take a BRAW clip and convert to ProRes422 HQ in Resolve and you will see just how little is lost between the two.
I agree with the idea ; but the advertising for BRAW is clearly (at least how I understood it) : offer RAW for the people who usually don't need it : low budget indie films and/or documentary shooters.
They are not releasing this raw like ArriRAW or RedRAW, they want it to be thought differently, not like the RAW that is used for high budget features.
Why would I need RAW ? for exemple, when shooting fast and making WB mistakes : having the ability to correct it in post looks nice.
Why would I need 12 bits 4:4:4 ? well, I'd love to have it, if it doesn't sucks all my hard drives. Because I shoot documentary doesn't mean I wouldnt want the best quality possible
But you also have the choice to not shoot braw, so I assume that there will be times when it will make sense to you, and times it will not.
If you had massive storage in your edit suite, would it still be a problem for you? Not trying to shift blame, but storage prices drop often. If having the benefit of braw is of any importance, I think I would find a way to build my storage to fit my needs and allow the "better" quality. FreeNAS servers can be built fairly cheaply to the point where 40 or 80 terabytes of storage are not that expensive (compared to a few years ago).
Point of example:
You could build a 40TB server for about $2000 to $2500 using Western Digital RED NAS drives.
You could build an 80TB version for about $3000 to $3500. A bit more for 10gb ethernet connections, but not a lot more.
If you had massive storage in your edit suite, would it still be a problem for you? Not trying to shift blame, but storage prices drop often. If having the benefit of braw is of any importance, I think I would find a way to build my storage to fit my needs and allow the "better" quality. FreeNAS servers can be built fairly cheaply to the point where 40 or 80 terabytes of storage are not that expensive (compared to a few years ago).
Point of example:
You could build a 40TB server for about $2000 to $2500 using Western Digital RED NAS drives.
You could build an 80TB version for about $3000 to $3500. A bit more for 10gb ethernet connections, but not a lot more.
Dan Keeble
Well-known member
Some chap from EOSHD.com, regarding the image quality : "...I have shot with most DSLR's out there from Sony Aseries, Panasonic GH series, Fuji X-T2 and have never seen any Hybrid cameras produce the images the Pocket4K does.......and this is just shooting ProResLT to an SD card..."
icarusfilm
Veteran
If you can't make an image work in 4k 10 bit log in post the same shot in raw isn't going to change that the truth is that 4k 10 bit 422 with anywhere from 10-13 stops of DR is pretty incredible for all imaginable documentary needs if the film has problems its not the camera really, it really never is
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Exactly, well said.
When would you need a camera that does more then that? Like other then for VFX where higher resolution and 444 is needed.
As someone pointed out here in some thread (perhaps this one), we are discussing technologies, not skills. People have been making an image work for at least 17,000 years (Lascaux). So that's not the point. The point of these cameras and the associated hardware/software is to give us new tools to work in new ways for better or worse as deemed by the user.
You don't have to use BRAW, but it's there if you want to. That's cool as is every new technology coming along. Hey, the 4kP is just coming out and Panasonic deftly announces a new Vistavision camera. Now I don't need either of these cameras to make an image work, but that doesn't stop me from buying them.
You don't have to use BRAW, but it's there if you want to. That's cool as is every new technology coming along. Hey, the 4kP is just coming out and Panasonic deftly announces a new Vistavision camera. Now I don't need either of these cameras to make an image work, but that doesn't stop me from buying them.
who says the film (which one btw ?) has problems ?
who says I can't make an image work ?
so basically just because you're satisfied with a codec you don't have the right to ask for anything thats better ?
You completely change my sayings, and I wouldn't understand why you'd want to make my look like I'm not using my tools right, just because I'm considering using another workflow.
I'm a professionnal DP, check my website if you want to, but I can manage my cameras, thank you.
I was just saying that if I this new BRAW can make raw affordable for other people than high end features, as it usually is, then why not claims the right to use it ?
I never, but like NEVER said that I was unsatisfied with the codecs I'm currently shooting with and that RAW would solve my problems.
I was saying that I'm shooting 4:2:2 10 bits right now (HD btw, 4K422-10bits is too heavy for my work), and if, for approximatively the same size (as advertised) I can get 4,6K 4:4:4 12 bits RAW, well, I can't think of a reason I wouldn't use it.
Last edited:
joe12south
Veteran
I've compared BRAW and ProRes playback in Resolve with a few cc nodes on a new-ish MBPr and the performance difference is *very* small. Not at all like the difference between ProRes and h264 or h265. It's gonna be tough to choose between them.
joe12south
Veteran
1. That's only true-ish if all other things are equal. Highly compressed low-bandwith h264 is most definitely not equal to the higher bit rate versions of BRAW or ProRes.
2. You recover highlights and lift shadows on a difficult exposure with a 10bit 422 log file and I'll do the same with a 14bit log raw file. Let's see who get better results. (A very common scenario shooting docs.)
icarusfilm
Veteran
You misunderstand me I wasn’t referring you you. What I meant was in my own experience when I am looking at a shot in post that I shot that had to be shot the way it was shot and can’t be made to look good in post with 4K log I
It usually wouldn’t look much better if it was raw. Meaning that the advantage of raw is obviously there but not as big as people want to believe. And just from my experience when something in my film isn’t working it’s never anything where a different camera would have made a difference. I wasn’t referring to your work (I don’t know it)
Off course I would like to have raw as an option which I would use if I also did the post.
It usually wouldn’t look much better if it was raw. Meaning that the advantage of raw is obviously there but not as big as people want to believe. And just from my experience when something in my film isn’t working it’s never anything where a different camera would have made a difference. I wasn’t referring to your work (I don’t know it)
Off course I would like to have raw as an option which I would use if I also did the post.
got you.
to join joe12south in his testing, I made a few clips at home with ursa mini pro to compare HD 422HQ Prores Files and BRAW 12:1 4,6K files, and to be honnest, except for resolution and sharpness, which is clearly better in 4,6K files, I played a little with both files with several nodes, tried to push them in both luminance and saturation to see if I could defeat the Prores, but I didn't see much of a difference :/
in conclusion, if files are similar in quality, but I get more resolution + the ability to change settings in post for approximatively the same file size, I'd choose RAW ; but not because 4:4:4 12 Bits files (in that BRAW) are radically looking better.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I also compared playback on my 2012 iMac and the difference was night and day. BRAW wouldn’t playback at all without choking. ProRes plays back perfectly. So while a new machine May handle both there is definitely a lot more going on under the hood to handle BRAW. I understand to some people if a single stream can playback perfectly that is good enough but what happens once the project gets more complex? Multi-cam? There is a significant resource use wh n using BRAW and to a lot of people the decision needs to be made if the negligible visual difference is really worth it. ProRes Raw on the other hand actually plays back on my same 2012 iMac perfectly fine. Not sure if the codec from Apple is designed better or if that has more to do with how much better FCPX is at playback.
I also compared the visual quality and other than the fact that I can only render UHD from the free version of Resolve it was almost impossible to see a difference between the two. I think this is another fact that people need to realistically weigh whin. Choosing the format to shoot with on the Pocket 4k. If I get a Pocket which I’m kind of leaning towards and buy a $500 DSLR just for stills I will very likely only ever use ProRes.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Except for the performance factor. Playing a single clip is different than handling multiple streams or effects heavy projects. For me it’s also about not wanting to use Resolve over FCPX but that’s a personal choice. Hopefully that will change.
I agree if all was equal why not use the higher quality format. But there are also different values to be measured in quality. Yes it’s higher res and 4:4:4 and 12bit but when a file is similar size and push’s those specs that means each frame is compressed more. The 12:1 BRAW is throwing something away and just how much is lost still needs to be seen. So if you go up to 8:1 or 5:1 to actually increase the visual compression quality you are suddenly no longer dealing with smaller files.