Looking for Canon 1Dx mkIII raw video files

Point well taken ...

I have not even explored the HEVC H.265 codec ... old hardware without any ability to accelerate decode ... but the smaller file sizes may be of benefit.

However ... do I lose CLog-2 and have to live with a bit less DR of CLog?

For all my corporate work I control lighting so the loss is nothing of concern ... all the RAW is for those personal explorations of the limits of
color, light and creating a coherent look that approaches what I can do with stills ... mainly landscapes.

The HDMI PR 422 HQ obviates the strain of decoding H.265 ... but I have not compared the two workflows ... another avenue to explore ...
great to have infinite diversions during lockdown.
 
I don't know if the data and effort for RAW is always worth it.

But in the C300III thread they were posting camera tests wherein I thought the RAW footage had appreciably richer color than the 10-bit 422. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I thought it looked better
 
As far as working with H265 - I much enjoy the proxy/optimised workflow in FCPX. It's incredibly easy to transcode your footage and switch between the original footage and optimised (prores) and proxy (prores proxy) transcodes. It's silly easy. So I don't worry about my capture codec anymore.

But most of the editing I do is basic shot selection and ordering. The color correction I do can be performed looking at a still frame. If I were doing multilayer and effects-heavy work, it would be much more important for me to have smooth full-quality playback during editing
 
I think you would lose C-Log2/3, but it would also be worth exploring how much DR you'd actually lose.

If it's half a stop and lighting is mostly controlled, it would be clear to me and I would personally use external recording and/or test out the H.265 (which is a PITA too, quite frankly).

With that said, I do think the C200's CRL is awesome. I don't mean the look, but the actual handling of the files. The DCI 4K causes no trouble in my older and slower computer when I work in the "better performance" setting in FCP X.

But if I had the choice of regular high-quality 10-bit 422 ProRes, I'm positive I would choose it over any RAW format.
 
The PR 422 HQ that I can encode with the PIX-E5/LR is wonderful ... and when I am doing the podcasts and services it
is hard to beat.

If you nail WB, exposure and limit DR Raw has only one advantage ... a more robust color space. While most may not notice ... we
tend to be our own worst critics ...

I guess the bottom line is that if you drop north of $10K on a camera and system you expect to be afforded all that they advertise.

Loved BRAW ... great files but stills were non-existent on the P6K ... and all the stories of non-support for cameras that were last gen ... even
if they were 18 months old ... not an ethic that inspires confidence nor affinity. We do seem to live in a throw away society ... hate to support that
myopic view of reality.

Forgive the run-on ... Cava and Pims ... and I tend to wax ... perhaps less than eloquent but obviously a bit obsessive.
 
Playing back 'optimized media' (which are the original files converted to ProRes) requires transcoding and it's painfully slow for 4K/60p H.265.

I try to find formats that are manageable with 'better performance' so I can get to work right away.

But if I must transcode then I'll choose 'proxy media'. And then switch back and export the HQ when it's time to review.
 
It might be painfully slow but it happens in the background. I think the usefulness of the workflow depends on how tight your turnaround is. But the ease is there
 
It happens in the background (if you allow it), but what's the point?

It pauses when you playback anything in your timeline and also completely shuts down your computer's performance as all of its resources are tied up.

If you're diddling around making a few cuts here and there, it's all good.

But it's no way to work if you're a professional editor.
 
Usually I load in footage the night before and let it do its transcoding to both optimized and proxy. But again so many variables. Do you need to get started then, do you have a mountain of footage or just an interview...

A faster computer will cost you but so will recording everything in ProRes via more cards and a recorder (except if you have a pocket). So many variables
 
The total cost for a recorder and SSDs is far less than any decent computer, but the compromise is having something hanging off your camera.

Personally, I hope this ProRes RAW recording (via HDMI) takes off for more cameras so we can see what more advanced sensors from different companies can do with it.
 
We're talking marginal cost increase. A good comparison might be adding an eGPU to your set-up (do you think that would help you crunch through H265 in realtime?)

Or if you end up buying a $3000 computer instead of a $2000 one. Marginal increase, not total cost.
 
A Ninja V and a high-performance 1TB SSD is less than $600.

That's a good start for most people, especially if you transfer in the field to existing hard drives which most professionals do.

I'm not sure what you really mean or are saying, but sometimes it's like you just want to say the opposite of what someone else is saying, lol.
 
I suppose on one level I am trying to justify or reconsider my choices in an affordable MBP with a transcode from compressed workflow. (Although hey it works for me so who cares)

But on a larger more important level, the OCD in me is genuinely curious about the performance and value comparison of faster computer for either faster transcoding or native playback VS the cost and effort of a ProRes capture from camera.

Also, I rarely dump footage in the middle of a shoot but it varies by the type of shoot.

A blackmagic egpu (radeon pro 580) costs $700, about the same as the external recording setup you mentioned. I genuinely wonder if it would enable native playback of H265 or at least a fast enough transcode to be useful
 
My thoughts ... I have a Radeon VII ... had to drop all my Nvidia cards as Apple stopped allowing updates to the OS ... bodes poorly for
all those who are on the Intel processor queue ... when their new silicon is put in play.

Sorry ... lost the train of thought ... but the Radeon VII is taxed with the H265 ... I assume that the egpu will similarly struggle ... and ProRes is so efficient ...
the other advantage of the external recorder is unlimited viewing angle and with the newer Atomos ... a wonderful 3000 CD/m2 and a 1,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio ... not the NV but the Shogun 7... so you can view it in almost any situation. Support for GenLock Timecode and CineDNG.

Greater diversity than a egpu that adds a bit of speed but no diversity to capture process or viewing.
 
Oh yeah you're already cooking with gas with that GPU. Won't see an improvement I imagine. How are your transcode times?

I dont like external recorder for running and gunning. An extra complication, power drain, point of failure, more media.

One of the things I love about the Panny cameras (gh5 and my dearly departed S1) is how easy they are to shoot with - long battery life, high quality compressed codecs to cheap media, reliable and functional. They get out of my way and let me focus on what I'm shooting and not how I'm shooting it.

Plus less hard drive space used for 2 archival copies of H264 vs ProRes. I only need to transcode part of the footage if I know what I'm going to discard. Sending it through the cloud takes less space. All the advantages of compression.

But I haven't had to deliver an overnight edit in years, so letting my computer transcode for a few hours isn't an issue.

I think I'd like BRAW or REDCODE for the power and compression + internal recording. Prores raw supposedly has fast playback but I dont think the RAW options are as powerful and nobody besides the mavo edge can record it internally.

But from the sounds of your setup, I imagine recording ProRes raw externally would be great (but the 1dxmk3 doesn't offer it does it). So ProRes it is?
 
The Radeon VII is a compromise ... gave up a bunch of much more powerful Nvidia GPUs as Apple applied the screws to Nvidia and all of us
with legacy hardware ... nothing new there.

I agree about the added complexity of the external recorder ... I use mine to get around the stupid 29.59 limit on recording ... Imagine spending
>$10K for a camera and lens to be told you have a limit on recording ....

No ProRes raw ... which is really not a raw codec ... BRAW or RED in my estimation are superior .... I thought I could obviate the need for external device and still have a decent internal RAW ... good 12 bit file with malleable files and color ... if only.

Yes ProRes 10 bit 422 up to HQ out of the HDMI .... great compatibility on the Mac side as long as you can deal with external device and storage.

BTW just reached out to my dealer ... hope he can spur a better response from Canon support than I have been afforded.
 
Last edited:
docmoore said:
No ProRes raw ... which is really not a raw codec ...
Click to expand...

If ProRes RAW can recover major amounts of information in the normally white over-exposed blob areas of our frames that appear from difficult lighting conditions, I don't care what they call it or what it technically is.

The only reason most of us use any kind of RAW format is because we would like to push and pull more information out of an image. Because RAW doesn't automatically guarantee amazing quality by itself. It needs help from a great high-resolution sensor.

For example, if you take a look at the original Pocket's CinemaDNG RAW, it looks like Super 16mm film. It's barely usable for most by today's standards because it simply looks old. And that's because it's coming from a 1080p sensor. So RAW doesn't automatically = high-quality (or HQ for the times).

Now bump it up to a BMCC (slightly more resolution) and the quality was so much nicer.

RED has always received criticism for their high-resolution hardware but their images are so nice because of the increase in resolution and the RAW working together. Maybe they were overzealous at times a little earlier than everyone else, but it's not like ARRI provided us 2K images from a 2K sensor (although they only needed 3.4K-ish and the rest of their magic).

So if ProRes RAW (and remember this is Apple developing it and not someone else who may run out of money trying) can turn it into a format that allows us to recover more information from these newer higher resolution cameras, I think that is really exciting even if we have to do it externally.

Because then you'd have RAW's flexibility and ProRes' incredible performance...what's better than that?

But it has to work.

I'll be patiently waiting for ZCAM's and Sigma's update to check this out myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top