RAW vs. other recording formats

Yeah, I said the same thing in another thread...old timers in positions not fixing anything because nothing is broken (and I don't see anything wrong with that because if it's working, it's working).
 
Run&Gun said:
The thing is, a lot of the decisions being made aren't based off of what is possible today, but what was a decade or so ago when "posts" workflow was established. And a lot of these shows, the post team is set in their ways and those cats call the shots and run the show. It's based on what makes their lives easier. Side note: it's always irritated me how the people that sit in the climate controlled building in their comfy chairs with the luxury of getting an extra few moments to think about and check things, get to make all the decisions about how stuff is done in the field, regardless of how much harder it makes things, that are often in uncontrolled(less controlled) environments/situations.
Click to expand...

On the flipside, if those clowns can't figure out how to handle a new workflow, then I guess the show will benefit from sticking with the old one

Also on the flipside, the producers at my bread and butter client consider it very taboo for an editor to criticize the work of a cameraman or blame them for trouble with the edit, for the reasons you mentioned (shooting is an uncontrolled environment where you're pressed for time)
 
Run&Gun said:
The thing is, a lot of the decisions being made aren't based off of what is possible today, but what was a decade or so ago when "posts" workflow was established. And a lot of these shows, the post team is set in their ways and those cats call the shots and run the show. It's based on what makes their lives easier. .
Click to expand...

This is exactly the reason Sony abandoned S-LOG2 and forced S-LOG3.cine on us all. The folks who were used do dealing with Arri footage in post could not adapt to S-LOG2, so we got a clone of Arri LogC (Cineon) from Sony called S-LOG3.cine.
 
Opening up this thread again to ask the experts.

Have there been any DSLRs that could record 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 (or better) video internally? Mirrorless cameras don't count. External recorders don't count. I'm just interested if there were ever any DSLRs that could do 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 video, and if so, which ones? I think the answer is no, but I have very little knowledge of the use of DSLRs for video.
 
Last edited:
It's the only one; by the time companies started thinking about 10-bit, DSLRs were long gone. When the 1DX III was announced in 2020 people were confused, but it was a last timely hurrah for Canon to get some more nickels and dimes before the R5 and the rest of the pack arrived a few months later.
 
Doug Jensen said:
On a related note, I think it is too bad Sony never released a full-featured RAW recorder to compete with those from Atomos and Convergent. I own ad R7 and and an R5, but they aren't the same thing. It seems odd they'd build many cameras with RAW output -- but not give customers a Sony-built solution to record it.
Click to expand...

Probably because that would put them in hot water with RED. They seem to have worked it out, because Venice 2 now does internal raw, or actually X-OCN.

Not many remember that Sony have two raw flavors. Sony RAW, which is a 16 bit linear 3:1 that was on cameras like the F55, and then when they got sued by RED for that, counter sued and then settled and now they have X-OCN which is allegedly 16 bit and maybe wavelet and maybe even basically is recode (by the data rate it matches) with a Sony header.

Buried in this you get a reference to F55 RAW vs X-OCN. No one shot the original Sony RAW format...the files were huge for when they introduced it.
https://pro.sony/s3/cms-static-conte...7495144176.pdf

External recorders suck. Anything more than 12 bit log, be it raw or not is great. large movies with have the budget for hard drives and the workflow. A lot of TV shows don't because they shoot more many more mins of screen time per day and many more cameras and speed is a factor because raw often is slower to transcode and you're shooting in Atlanta but post is in la so transcodes have to go though the internet so really good 12 bit log like prores 444 is plenty good enough.
 
Doug Bee said:
Probably because that would put them in hot water with RED. They seem to have worked it out, because Venice 2 now does internal raw, or actually X-OCN.

Not many remember that Sony have two raw flavors. Sony RAW, which is a 16 bit linear 3:1 that was on cameras like the F55, and then when they got sued by RED for that, counter sued and then settled and now they have X-OCN which is allegedly 16 bit and maybe wavelet and maybe even basically is recode (by the data rate it matches) with a Sony header.

Buried in this you get a reference to F55 RAW vs X-OCN. No one shot the original Sony RAW format...the files were huge for when they introduced it.
https://pro.sony/s3/cms-static-conte...7495144176.pdf

External recorders suck. Anything more than 12 bit log, be it raw or not is great. large movies with have the budget for hard drives and the workflow. A lot of TV shows don't because they shoot more many more mins of screen time per day and many more cameras and speed is a factor because raw often is slower to transcode and you're shooting in Atlanta but post is in la so transcodes have to go though the internet so really good 12 bit log like prores 444 is plenty good enough.
Click to expand...

FYI, I wouldn't say nobody shot with the original Sony 16-bit RAW format. I shot it myself for several years with my F55 + R5 recorder and I certainly wasn't the only one. I still have the R5 and use it with my FS7 on some shoots where I want maximum quality from that camera. But for my F55, I switched to the R7 a few years ago so I could do 4K RAW @ 120 fps, which also gave me the two flavors of X-OCN. I can't tell any difference between X-OCN and full-blown RAW in post. It is a great codec.

For an operator, the F55 + R7 (or R5) is indistinguishable from an internal recorder. The docking mechanism basically makes the R7 part of the camera with no extra cables for power, video signal, or anything else. For all intents and purposes -- it is exactly the same as having a camera with an internal RAW recorder.

But none of that has anything to with Sony not building a regular external RAW recorder that would compete with Atomos and Blackmagic for use with cameras like the FX6, FS5, and mirrorless models. As far as I understand, the RED patents only affect internal RAW, so there is a different reason Sony hasn't built one.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
As far as I understand, the RED patents only affect internal RAW, so there is a different reason Sony hasn't built one.
Click to expand...

I used to shoot the same combination. I just know that I was the only one doing so when I did and I'm not sure it was ever that successful.

I'm not sure re RED and external recorders. I think it's a part of the story. The R7 isn't part of the camera, it's an "external" recorder no? Like the way DJI record to PRR but the camera isn't where the recorder is located.
 
Doug Bee said:
The R7 isn't part of the camera, it's an "external" recorder no?
Click to expand...

Technically, yes, the R7 is an external RAW recorder. But when it is mounted on a Venice or F55 it essentially becomes part of the camera. They are one unit without any external cables or power, and with two-way communication. You can't even tell where the camera ends and the recorder begins. I do agree with your distaste for other types of external RAW recorders (Atomos, Odyssey, etc.), but the R7, when mounted on a F55 or Venice, is in a totally different class and shouldn't be lumped in with the others.
 
I wrote on another thread but IMO it has relevance here?


Raw. Recording

In stills the jpg is a 'baked' '709' look and to pull back any shadows or highs you need to access the raw file in Literoom Capture One or whatever. No raw? you never pulling that sky back from the cmera jpg.

But in log in 'film' (digital motion capture) you get all the stops rammed into the 709 (or srgb) space by reducing the contrast in a log manner

Delog your shot and those highs and lows might clip.. but the info is there (unseen) to pull and push back in the grade.

Ergo with log you get the main raw thing.. more DR than the 7 stops of 709 (or a jpg) or however many stops it is.

So the basic atribute of raw is moot (not needed) in log capture.
With either raw or log you can get at the full range of the sensor.

Or is it?

Now we need to compare raw with log capture and see if one is better than the other.

Firstly we get that both can record the dynamic range of the chip - so no winner there.

Then we must start to do qualitive analysis.

Look at colour accuracy and tonal flexibilty mainly at the dark and high ends of the capture.

Such a test is beyond C5d or Newsshooter or any youtuber apart from Steve Yeldin

Firstly the basic numbers suggest a 14bit file is going to be more robust, or a 16 bit, but actual log or linear encoding better ? .. well there are arguments that log will win.

Because linear gives double the steps to each recorded stop which get huge fast. Maybe stops three (from black clip) has 64 levels and stop 12 (from black clip) has 64000 levels.. and that is not going to make stop three a high fidelity capture. while stop 12 is having more levels assisnged to it than the chip and a/d ocnverter can deliver - so it is a 'bucket' that is larger than could ever be needed.

I would guess that 12bit raw or 4.4.4 log capture are very similar. Of course a recorder may receive a 10bit signal and record it pointlesly into a 12 or 14 bit box.. but that will just waste datarate - Im talking actual 12-14 bit.

While I have alluded to this in other threads Ive not actually been in a position to try and learn about this for myself through tests.
 
morgan_moore said:
ISo the basic atribute of raw is moot (not needed) in log capture.
With either raw or log you can get at the full range of the sensor.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with that statement and I say almost those exact words in a new master class training video I'm working on that is aimed at still photographers moving to video. They all think they need to be shooting RAW, but In most instances, LOG makes RAW unnecessary for video. I was hoping to get the master class done before NAB, but I'm already on the road now for the next 8 weeks so it will have to wait until June to be finished.

BTW, the main reason I got the R7 for my F55 was for the 4K @ 120 fps. Back then, 120 fps in 4K required RAW on Sony cameras. Thankfully that is not the case any more. And consequentially, I barely use the F55 anymore.
 
Raw means unprocessed in terms of workflow.

If you can set a white balance and ISO then those are the main tenants of a raw workflow. While a high bit depth log image lets you bend the image a lot, I personally like a slider that has a white balance number and iso number on it.

And bits. 12bit log is needed to manipulate without breaking the image.
 
jmone said:
Internal Log was objectively better.
Click to expand...

That does not surprise me, based on my experience with RAW on my old FS5.
Back when I posted some split-screen tests it was clear to me that there was no advantage to be gained with an external RAW recorder vs. internal recording. Even casual testing shows the hassle and expense of working with an Atomos, Odyssey, or BM recorder for RAW just isn't worth it for Sony cameras.

Even with 16-bit RAW from my F55/R7 vs. internal XAVC-I Class 300 (not to mention class 480) there is very little advantage in post. Is RAW or X-OCN better than XAVC-I? Yes, but the difference is extremely hard to quantify if the footage was shot well in the first place.
 
Yeah - The FX6 crops all over the place and (while I've not measured it) they crops seems to vary pending on the mode. eg, I shoot a bit using S&Q at 1 and 5fps and it crops as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top