Looking for Canon 1Dx mkIII raw video files

This is a pretty repetitive post, since I've written this before but:

For video work, I consider there to be no meaningful IQ difference between a raw format and let's say ProRes 422HQ. And there is no data to be recovered from raw compared to that ProRes.

Depending on NLE and how the raw data is presented after import, it might appear that tweaking some settings can "recover" data that wasn't there. But, obviously, it data is pulled back into view (via the NLEs transform and display options), it WAS there.

In a ProRes on the other hand, that data that you might need to manually reel in when shooting raw, has already been pulled in and encoded via the log curve setting. So with ProRes it's already baked in.

Video formats that describe 16bit encoding are always(?) referencing the linear data. A 16bit linear signal (half of the data just being the last stop) is not preferable over a 12bit log encoded signal (correct stop distribution).

White balancing can be done on a ProRes clip just as well as on a raw clip. I'm guessing most quality NLEs and grading tools offer simple, along-axis temp and tint controls. And I have no doubt that purists and people with afflictions will find work arounds for any issues, real or imagined connected to those sliders, that I won't go into here.

So far it reads as if I'm saying: forget raw—just shoot ProRes. But I'm not. (B)raw is still preferable. Modern, compressed raw formats offer a number of advantages:

  • compression flexibility (then again, ProRes has its flavors too)
  • global workflow settings via NLE, that applies to all clips
  • ability to reinterpret the captured data
  • in some cases, the abiltiy to trim clips while maintaining raw status
  • smaller file sizes (Bayer vs RGB) with maintained image fidelity

ProRes is a high quality, ready to go, file format that is flexible in post. I wouldn't think twice about using it in terms of 'quality concerns' compared to raw.

On my P6K I prefer .braw because of the flexibility mentioned above, but also because with ProRes I'm "limited" to 4K DCI or UHD. This "limitation" can also be used as an advantage for someone looking for speedy workflows: internal over sampling from 6K to 4K, smaller image frame easier on computer, LUTs can optionally be baked in to lock "tinkerers" out...
 
NorBro said:
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).
Click to expand...

COSMOS was shot on the original BMPCC. It got distribution and I think the trailer looks nice. "Barely usable?" Seems not.

https://nofilmschool.com/no-budget-film-cosmos
 
Also - does anyone else feel like these 1dxmk3 issues bode ill for R5 RAW? I imagine it will function similarly
 
ahalpert said:
COSMOS was shot on the original BMPCC. It got distribution and I think the trailer looks nice. "Barely usable?" Seems not.

https://nofilmschool.com/no-budget-film-cosmos
Click to expand...

Is that going to turn into your new The Possession Of Hannah Grace example every time someone mentions RAW, lol.

99% of that trailer is close-ups, so they could have cut in a Canon DSLR from 2010 without most people noticing (especially with the creative lighting), but I'm sure it looks great as my post was just an exaggeration to make a point. I love the BMPCC, but Abe...

"The Blair Witch Project made hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you need RAW? Seems not."
 
OK I was reacting to the "barely usable" which I thought was harsh and inaccurate.

I would personally be interested in snagging an Alexa classic off Ebay if 4K weren't more valuable and increasingly in-demand.

Cosmos, hannah grace, Blair witch all prove the point that concept, story and execution are more important than camera choice, if distributing your work matters more than pleasing pixel-peepers. Cosmos was recently distributed, so it is currently relevant

I'm not trying to say that higher resolution (to a point) and encoding don't matter. But you can't say that everything shot with a certain camera is unacceptable or that everything shot with another camera will look good
 
People on the forum know how I speak about cameras. It's sometimes harsh and maybe not best for a new reader (although I choose my words wisely about certain cameras), but at the same time not everyone is always going to see all of my other posts either.

I just wanted to make an aggressive point about RAW because people see RAW on paper and think it's all equal or superior to other formats (like you, lol).

It doesn't matter what it's called; it just needs to work right and be worth it.
 
I don't think RAW is all equal...?

In terms of image quality:

RAW versus processed codec - RAW is preferable

Among RAW formats, perhaps the order from best to worst without regard for size and processing might be: cinemaDNG, REDCODE, BRAW, CRL, ProRes RAW...?

But if your argument is simply that you'd prefer processed 4K over RAW HD from an HD sensor, then fine. There are so many variables to image quality that I'd have to compare outputs and make a subjective evaluation (assuming that an HD deliverable is even permitted)
 
Your snark is unappreciated. If you disagree, then make your case

The dominance of Alexa over RED indicates a widespread preference for features besides higher resolution and RAW recording
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I'm just tired of having the same conversations with you over and over again.

IMO, you just don't get it. Consistently living by paper specs.
 
ahalpert said:
Among RAW formats, perhaps the order from best to worst without regard for size and processing might be: cinemaDNG, REDCODE, BRAW, CRL, ProRes RAW...?
Click to expand...

I would say that 'regard for size and processing' (along with other features) is what actually should be determining the order of the list?

In my mental view of the world, those who adore the uncompressed—or close to it—formats are on the same astral plane as the guys and gals buying hifi wires for $3850 per foot. Whatever scratches your itch, I guess. Or, if you know you're never going to need more than 2 feet of wire...
 
AndreeOnline said:
I would say that 'regard for size and processing' (along with other features) is what actually should be determining the order of the list?
Click to expand...

Right but that same determination leads me to work in H264 codecs often.

In making this theoretical comparison, are we interested in determining absolute image quality, lowest size and greatest ease-of-use among acceptable image qualities, or some sort of best-value quality/size blended evaluation (which is what usually occurs in practice)

My list was in response to NorBro saying that I thought all RAW formats are equal
 
NorBro said:
IMO, you just don't get it. Consistently living by paper specs.
Click to expand...

I like pretty images. Or ugly images, if that's what's called for. Specs are meaningful, but only part of the puzzle. Subjective evaluation of the output is paramount

Not sure how we arrived at this point. I was just saying that the OG Pocket was usable enough to get a feature distributed this year. They probably didn't need to shoot RAW to achieve that. They probably could have shot it on a 5Dmk3 (though it would have looked worse)

Soderbergh has made movies on iPhones. You can say that another camera shoots "better" footage but not that the worse camera is unusable
 
I think I formed my opinion about your camera thoughts when you once said this after I tongue-in-cheek mentioned the a7SIII would be a best-seller:

NorBro said:
That would mean 4K/60p and 10-bit and that would mean it will be the best-selling camera of all time...not counting the Pockets.
Click to expand...

ahalpert said:
A7SIII would be best-selling camera of all time without internal RAW? I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...

We haven't seen one frame of R5 footage (or even any mirrorless RAW from Sony) and for months you've mentioned more than a handful of times how RAW is a top spec of the R5.

Like we have absolutely zero idea of what Canon is doing with this RAW. And how it will look. [Or if it will even work correctly!]

Also, a few times now you mentioned RAW looking better to you than 10-bit in some instances - I believe most recently in the C300 Mark III thread - but then followed up in the same sentence(s) saying that maybe you were just "deluding" yourself.

When are you deluding yourself and when are you not?

I think it's the consistent internal conflict you appear to have when discussing cameras that drives me a little nuts...lol. (I'm mostly joking.)

___

And I shouldn't have used the world unusable as I see now how literally it could be taken, but of course the camera is usable. Like out of all the options out there that people use, you really believe I would think the BMPCC is unusable? It's great.

And getting distribution is amazing. Truly a wonderful accomplishment. But when has the camera ever mattered? It's the final product.

[Side note: I can only imagine how much work they did in post. Probably a lot. And it's also up-scaled to 4K (at least the trailer is) and most likely sharpened (either additionally or through the up-scaling process).]
 
Couple of thoughts ... not so much about the most recent conversations ...

The 1DX III has two robust codecs ... and a 8bit 4:2:0 which may be the easiest to work with .... the H.265 will be great for those with recent computers that can hardware accelerate the decode ... the RAW actually plays very well in DR when there are no errors.

I pulled a 40 second clip this morning ... and found two corrupt frames as NorBro suggested ... clipped those out and was able to render the file in Resolve. It was not able to be converted in Canon Raw Development .... the frames were not contiguous in the timeline.

For the present I will shoot the H.265 as a 4K proxy for files that I cannot repair. If they render well I may move to all-I H.265 for most stuff in the future.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2020-06-28.jpg
    Screen Shot 2020-06-28.jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 0
NorBro said:
I think I formed my opinion about your camera thoughts when you once said this after I tongue-in-cheek mentioned the a7SIII would be a best-seller:
Click to expand...
When we discuss which camera will be "best-selling" we are making a prediction of what other people will buy. I think the A7SIII will suffer in reputation against the R5 without RAW, even if the RAW is crap and even if the buyers would never use it anyway. Of course, I've been wrong in predicting camera popularity before. I never thought Sony would dominate the market with its crappy color, body and menu design, low bitrate and bit-depth, slow rolling shutter... but I have adjusted my camera popularity prediction algorithm.

Would I buy an A7SIII without RAW? Quite possibly. But it's nice to have a top-notch codec at your disposal. The projects that I shoot which value IQ the most are also the ones that roll the least footage (shorts/webisodes, MVs, commercials). Those are the moments I wish I had a blackmagic

And if you look at photographers - they all shoot RAW always. Maybe sometimes they shoot JPEGs simultaneously for quick delivery. But size constraints are the only reason video people aren't shooting cinemaDNG.

As for "deluding" myself - I always leave open the possibility that my knowledge and assumptions may be incorrect or that I may have bias I'm unaware of. Like when people taste wine and think that the expensive bottle tastes better only after they learn its price. (That being said, when I polled the crowd to ask why ML RAW footage looks so good, I expected universal agreement. I consistently like the way that looks and I'm sure I do. Andree thinks it's because I'm familiar with and like canon colors. I'm not so sure.)
 
But you don't know what the creators are providing us.

You take RAW at face value.

It can be just as equal as ProRes 444XQ in every single way, shape or form - but as far as you/we know, a company could just make up a name for it.

"This is my camera. It shoots CAR. Cinema ahalpert RAW. Up to 4K/60p."

Why are you so trusting?

Like, when it's good, it's good. It's amazing. Truly a benefit to it. But it has to work correctly and there has to be a difference for it to matter.

As far as photography, video looks NOTHING like high-quality pictures. Go on Flickr and browse millions of photos. You CANNOT compare one still frame to thousands of motion frames.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top