C200: It appears the new FCP X 10.4 Update will NOT support Cinema RAW Light integration?

puredrifting said:
Yeah, I know. But it's feeling like this might take longer than past format support updates but maybe I am wrong? The real hope is that FCP X and Premiere will "unlock" all of the RAW functionality since in it's current form, CRL is really just like shooting Prores 4:4:4:4 XQ with variable gamma. But after shooting the past few weeks with a RED Weapon 6K and playing with the footage in various apps, CRL support still has a way to go. It kind of feels like "Half RAW" to me.
Click to expand...
So, what you're saying is that "Half Raw" is half-baked?

OK, seriously, I wouldn't expect the software problems to be solved prior to the winter'2018 updates to the "other" codec.
 
NorBro said:
I hear you, but that will never work for me.

5 years of Blackmagic and RED...it's all right there in front of you. Just really need it that way.



View attachment 127483
Click to expand...

In still photography days as well as in filming, I had never changed ISO in post. I know what I am doing, so I don't care about changing ISO in post. I think along with the variables in the first column, colour temperature and tint should be also available for change in the raw plugin. I prefer the precise colour temperature K numbers than the colour wheel. Rest all can be done in FCPX. Hopefully, Canon can do that before December.
 
I don't think anyone ever changes ISO...you'd change your exposure first.

Color temperature and tint is available. It's just grayed out in that screenshot because it's selected as "As Shot" to lock it in if you'd like. You can unlock it and dial in anything you'd like to the decimal.

But again...the rest being available in FCP X is not good enough as being all right in front of you where you're able to alter and mix and match in seconds for different looks.

You Canon guys can't accept this to be okay...Canon needs to do it right!
 
Hey, NorBro… I think what you're saying is pretty interesting.

NorBro said:
But again...the rest being available in FCP X is not good enough as being all right in front of you where you're able to alter and mix and match in seconds for different looks.
Click to expand...

So, how would you compare working with a ProRes vs a raw file? Do you approach those to file types differently? Do you apply a different mindset when handling those respective files?

It really does sound that you miss something when you don't get access to what I might call 'primary grading controls' in the raw settings. How come? Just trying to understand what the root of the problem is... With a ProRes I guess you'd just start your grading process a little differently, but not really miss anything?

We don't have to go off on a huge tangent, but I'm curious about your process.
 
That's a great question...

I've been burning in LUTs into ProRes footage for the past 2-3 years...either a LOG or REC709 one (depends on which camera I am using) that I bought from one of these companies that sell them or one I created.

I don't remember the last time I graded a ProRes file...

Whenever I do personally have to work on something where others are making the creative decisions, it's CinemaDNG or REDCODE; nothing else.

---

If the above wasn't the case, I would have nothing to complain about, haha...but maybe you understand my thought-process a bit better.
 
Also...I understand good colorists/graders can do anything and everything in any software even with limited tools, but the RAW tab/settings that are directly linked to the RAW data is just the way I enjoy to edit. All of that could work just as well as anything else in other places in the software, but for me I know that all of those settings are directly working with that RAW metadata and it's just very straightforward and convenient.

I mean it's not like I thought of this...this has been a standard for quite some time...there has to be a reason Resolve and the other NLEs handle RAW data this way for Blackmagic and RED, you know?

Otherwise they could say the same thing...just use the other tools, tabs, and sections in our software, it's the same thing...
 
AndreeOnline said:
Canon, trust me—you don't need another tier in your Cinema EOS lineup.

Learn to let go and be pleasantly aggressive, already. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Actually, with C700 not selling, they could use something in the $17,500-$20,000 range.

So, drop in C700 sensor into it, enable the internal Canon Raw, DPAF and bunch of some other stuff ... and voila!

PS. "Some other stuff" is the key.
 
"...drop in C700 sensor into it, enable the internal Canon Raw, DPAF and bunch of some other stuff"

Hey, that sounds like a C200! ;-)
 
DLD said:
Actually, with C700 not selling, they could use something in the $17,500-$20,000 range.
Click to expand...

lol, it's 2018...no one is buying a camera with their own money for more than $10K anymore.

And if you're spending more, we know what you're buying or renting.
 
fhammond said:
"...drop in C700 sensor into it, enable the internal Canon Raw, DPAF and bunch of some other stuff"

Hey, that sounds like a C200! ;-)
Click to expand...
4.6K vs 4K + Real Canon Raw + some other fancy stuff.

NorBro said:
lol, it's 2018...no one is buying a camera with their own money for more than $10K anymore.

And if you're spending more, we know what you're buying or renting.
Click to expand...
Eric just dropped $40K on Amira!

(but, I'll make you a deal)
 
fhammond said:
"...drop in C700 sensor into it, enable the internal Canon Raw, DPAF and bunch of some other stuff"

Hey, that sounds like a C200! ;-)
Click to expand...

One must assume a C300 Mk III is coming. The C700 seems great, but it landed in the same intertidal zone as the Varicam 35. The people with the money to get/use it are all more comfortable with Arri and RED.

I do feel that the C300 III will have to be more like the Varicam LT, with maybe a newer lower slung body, though people love the original design so it's a tough call. But, they do need something in that range with RAW Light, Dual CFast 2 slots, 4k 60p, ect. They need to move away from overly expensive ways of getting forms of RAW out of their cameras on the high end, too. CODEX is great, but such a huge cost and lowers adoption rates.
 
Hypothetically speaking, they can do a higher bit rate of Raw "Medium", say at more than 512 GB/hr, for a higher priced model.

Of course, hypothetically speaking, they could have allowed several forms of Raw on C200, as well as an internal 10-bit codec and an external 4K 10-bit via the HDMI or 6G SDI. Alas ....

PS. C300 MKIII would be the name if MKII is off the market. If it's not, C400 seems reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top