C200: New Davinci Resolve 14 Beta 8

It's definitely different. Previous to this version, a raw C200 clip in Resolve would look different from both a Canon Log 3 and a Canon Log 2 clip transcoded in Canon Raw Development into ProRes. Now a raw clip in Resolve matches the appearance of a ProRes clip transcoded using the Canon Log 2 option in CRD. Personally, I wish it matched the Canon Log 3 option, as that's what I plan on using more often.

Resolve still has no options to actually modify the raw file itself; the Camera Raw options are all greyed out.
 
fhammond said:
It's definitely different. Previous to this version, a raw C200 clip in Resolve would look different from both a Canon Log 3 and a Canon Log 2 clip transcoded in Canon Raw Development into ProRes. Now a raw clip in Resolve matches the appearance of a ProRes clip transcoded using the Canon Log 2 option in CRD. Personally, I wish it matched the Canon Log 3 option, as that's what I plan on using more often.

Resolve still has no options to actually modify the raw file itself; the Camera Raw options are all greyed out.
Click to expand...

Thanks fhammond. Good to know that you really don't have to go to CRD as I'd prefer to just use Resolve as I have been for other RAW shooting cameras for years. I also wish they would enable the RAW tab just to keep my workflow the same, but according to BMD it's not needed:

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=61984#p352314
"We do support reading C200 files and will review after v14 release the need for those raw controls. To date it looks like the full range of data is available to the Resolve image processor so all the grading can be complete in the standard grading tools."
 
Last edited:
Fahnon said:
Thanks fhammond. Good to know that you really don't have to go to CRD as I'd prefer to just use Resolve as I have been for other RAW shooting cameras for years. I also wish they would enable the RAW tab just to keep my workflow the same, but according to BMD it's not needed:

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=61984#p352314
"We do support reading C200 files and will review after v14 release the need for those raw controls. To date it looks like the full range of data is available to the Resolve image processor so all the grading can be complete in the standard grading tools."
Click to expand...

Can you clarify, when ingesting and manipulating the CRM data in this new Resolve, are you manipulating the actual RAW data with Resolve's tools or is Resolve internally converting the CRM data to Prores or .DPX or something else? In simpler terms, is Resolve manipulating the RAW data so no loss of quality or bit-depth or is Resolve internally turning the RAW data into some other "baked in" format before the programs data manipulation takes place?
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
Can you clarify, when ingesting and manipulating the CRM data in this new Resolve, are you manipulating the actual RAW data with Resolve's tools or is Resolve internally converting the CRM data to Prores or .DPX or something else? In simpler terms, is Resolve manipulating the RAW data so no loss of quality or bit-depth or is Reolve internally turning the RAW data into some other "baked in" format before the programs data manipulation takes place?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that you are manipulating the RAW file directly. In resolve you have to manually enable proxy creation, so unless they are doing something behind the scenes it's just the RAW file. Having said that, the info in that link is all they've said on the subject (that I could find).
 
We need clarification on this and looking at that forum, it looks like everyone else is as confused as we are. If we are actually editing the RAW footage, then why is the Raw tab greyed out?
 
Crevice said:
We need clarification on this and looking at that forum, it looks like everyone else is as confused as we are. If we are actually editing the RAW footage, then why is the Raw tab greyed out?
Click to expand...

I think there's a difference between being able to play back raw and to layer changes on top of it (like a LUT) versus being able to actually modify the characteristics of the raw itself.
 
We are living in a brave new world with all of this RAW workflow and especially with Cinema RAW Light, a new format that most of us barely understand. I don't think Canon has introduced a White Paper on Cinema RAW Light specifically, have they yet?
 
fhammond said:
Personally, I wish it matched the Canon Log 3 option, as that's what I plan on using more often.
Click to expand...

Just a heads up, Canon Log 2 has come a long way since its release. It is pretty darn awesome now. The noise isn't nearly as bad as it once was in the blacks and the dynamic range in the highlights (and blacks) is markedly better. I recently shot with Canon Log 2, Cinema Gamut, and Production Matrix, and it matched very well with the Arri A cam. Just food for thought!
 
mizzar said:
Just a heads up, Canon Log 2 has come a long way since its release. It is pretty darn awesome now. The noise isn't nearly as bad as it once was in the blacks and the dynamic range in the highlights (and blacks) is markedly better. I recently shot with Canon Log 2, Cinema Gamut, and Production Matrix, and it matched very well with the Arri A cam. Just food for thought!
Click to expand...

Thanks! That's good to know. I now recall reading that Log 2 was improved at the same time Lg 3 was introduced so I'll give it another go.
 
So far, my tests are showing me that if you are in a light starved situation, you don't want to shoot Log in general. I shot some footage in my office lit mainly with a computer screen with just some ambient from the window, but it was early evening, very typical setup if you were shooting a day in the life of a writer for instance and couldn't actually light the scene. I was getting a kiss of 70 IRE on the face of my subject, bit on their shirt and arms but the rest of the scene was pretty dimly lit. A lot of noise in the blacks regardless of C-Log 2 or 3 in comparison to WDR.
 
puredrifting said:
So far, my tests are showing me that if you are in a light starved situation, you don't want to shoot Log in general. I shot some footage in my office lit mainly with a computer screen with just some ambient from the window, but it was early evening, very typical setup if you were shooting a day in the life of a writer for instance and couldn't actually light the scene. I was getting a kiss of 70 IRE on the face of my subject, bit on their shirt and arms but the rest of the scene was pretty dimly lit. A lot of noise in the blacks regardless of C-Log 2 or 3 in comparison to WDR.
Click to expand...

Your still talking about RAW recording or MP4?
IRRC WDR was introduced to better squeeze in information into the heavily compressed C100 codec, cleaning up the signal with NR .
 
Spartacus said:
Your still talking about RAW recording or MP4?
IRRC WDR was introduced to better squeeze in information into the heavily compressed C100 codec, cleaning up the signal with NR .
Click to expand...

RAW. I only have a little experience shooting RAW, a bit of RED and a bit of Alexa. I have read from several sources that if your scene is underlit, RAW will have a tendency to be noisy, which so far, my tests bear out. Both would need a pass in Neat Video, which I love but it has ridiculous render times. Of course, the real solution is, light your scenes, but in documentary, following a subject around Verite' style, can be challenging to do.
 
puredrifting said:
RAW. I only have a little experience shooting RAW, a bit of RED and a bit of Alexa. I have read from several sources that if your scene is underlit, RAW will have a tendency to be noisy, which so far, my tests bear out. Both would need a pass in Neat Video, which I love but it has ridiculous render times. Of course, the real solution is, light your scenes, but in documentary, following a subject around Verite' style, can be challenging to do.
Click to expand...

It's funny, but my experience says that, just like stills cameras, it depends on the camera; even from the same manufacturer. For example I've owned the original BMCC and an Ursa Mini 4.6k. On the BMCC I could push underexposed images at least 2 stops before the noise would get to be too much for me, and even then it was monochromatic film-like noise that wasn't ugly to me. I tried the same on the Ursa and got barely a stop before I saw fpn and ugly colored noise.

I think RAW has a rep for being noisy more because you don't get any in-camera noise reduction with RAW, so you see the image before it's cleaned up. A little Neat Video or Resolve NR evens things out IMO.
 
Fahnon said:
It's funny, but my experience says that, just like stills cameras, it depends on the camera; even from the same manufacturer. For example I've owned the original BMCC and an Ursa Mini 4.6k. On the BMCC I could push underexposed images at least 2 stops before the noise would get to be too much for me, and even then it was monochromatic film-like noise that wasn't ugly to me. I tried the same on the Ursa and got barely a stop before I saw fpn and ugly colored noise.

I think RAW has a rep for being noisy more because you don't get any in-camera noise reduction with RAW, so you see the image before it's cleaned up. A little Neat Video or Resolve NR evens things out IMO.
Click to expand...

Bingo. This is exactly right. There is no noise reduction and unlike photos, videos are much more noisey and even more so when shooting in Log. You can't judge the footage without putting some noise reduction on it, its a step that must happen. I would much rather the camera have noise and NO noise reduction, than less noise and in camera noise reduction.
 
Has anyone noticed that the latest beta (v8) of Resolve crashes regularly when playing C200 raw files? It definitely is for me whereas the previous beta was fairly stable.
 
fhammond said:
Has anyone noticed that the latest beta (v8) of Resolve crashes regularly when playing C200 raw files? It definitely is for me whereas the previous beta was fairly stable.
Click to expand...

Damn, I was hoping they fixed this, hence the update notes. I thought the whole point of the fix was to make it so that this did not happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top