C200: Raw workflow comment and a question about Canon Raw Development

F

fhammond

Well-known member
Since getting the C200, I've been wondering about the options in the Custom Picture/HDR menu:

C8uyzpb.jpg


Specifically, I've been wondering if any of those settings have an effect on raw recording. I did some testing today and I'm 99% certain that the answer is "no". If you're shooting in raw, none of those settings have an effect on the final image. I tried a few different combinations of the settings on this screen then transcoded the raw files to ProRes in Canon Raw Development (CRD) using the Cinema Gamut/Canon Log 3 combination. Looking at the transcoded files in both Resolve and Premiere, all of them looked exactly the same. The makes sense - raw means the camera settings should matter - but it was good to confirm it.

Ok, on a related note, I'm confused about this screen in CRD:

MtySMwj.png


Can someone explain to me what the settings in the red section mean? I've only used the first row of the Color Space and Gamma columns. What are the other rows for? I'm confused...
 
Raw, by definition, is just raw data off the sensor. Raw Light, I assume, tosses a few things out along the signal path (but not in a random order) but that's basically it. It's an unprocessed footage.
 
Right, I know that. That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking about why there are multiple rows in the CRD app.
 
I got an answer directly from Canon: everything other than the first row in the "Color Space/Gamma Settings" section is irrelevant to the C200. The first row applies to the C200 and C700. They *only* record raw using Raw Gamut. The C300 Mark II raw can be captured in Cinema Gamut or BT.2020, and the C500 raw can be Cinema Gamut, BT.2020, or DCI.

So, mystery solved! If you're using a C200 (or C700) you can ignore all the settings in the red box in this updated screen shot.

wMeKbAt.png
 
Thanks man, I was wondering the same thing. After years of dealing with Panasonic's convoluted software utilities for P2, and now Canon CRD, I have say, the Japanese are terrible at interface and software design. They always have weirdly designed, non-intuitive labeling, controls and layouts. I wish they would just farm this stuff out to Apple or Adobe to make it actually well designed.
 
puredrifting said:
Thanks man, I was wondering the same thing. After years of dealing with Panasonic's convoluted software utilities for P2, and now Canon CRD, I have say, the Japanese are terrible at interface and software design. They always have weirdly designed, non-intuitive labeling, controls and layouts. I wish they would just farm this stuff out to Apple or Adobe to make it actually well designed.
Click to expand...

Well the good news is near as I can tell there no disadvantage to using Resolve over Canon's software. Just like on he stills side where I've always used Lightroom or Photoshop over DPP.
 
Hi Guys,

Hoping to purchase the C200 over the coming few months and in prep I've been playing around with some footage and the cinema raw development software. I'm on a PC and the only codec option for output file is DPX, no prores or anything else are we limited on PC in what we can process Raw lite into?

Thanks

John.
 
Steelej said:
Hi Guys,

Hoping to purchase the C200 over the coming few months and in prep I've been playing around with some footage and the cinema raw development software. I'm on a PC and the only codec option for output file is DPX, no prores or anything else are we limited on PC in what we can process Raw lite into?

Thanks

John.
Click to expand...

Correct. There's no ProRes on Windows and DPX requires ten times more disk space. It's too bad as you can buy a sub-$1000 PC that'll transcode CRM files faster than a $6000 Mac Pro, mostly due to the speed of the GPU.
 
Fahnon said:
Well the good news is near as I can tell there no disadvantage to using Resolve over Canon's software. Just like on he stills side where I've always used Lightroom or Photoshop over DPP.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. If you use Canon Raw Develoment to output a raw file to ProRes, put it in Resolve, put the raw file in Resolve and compare them, they look different. This is true regardless of what options you're using in CRD to export the file. It's hard to know exactly what Resolve is doing with the raw file; Resolve doesn't give you any of the raw processing options that it would with a Red or Sony raw file. Perhaps this will change after Resolve 14 is released.

My workflow right now is to convert the raw to ProRes in CRD - with CRD reading the raw directly from the CFast card - and to only keep the ProRes file. The ProRes file is actually a little larger than the raw file but this workflow means I don't have to keep two files around and I can use whatever NLE I like.
 
My workflow right now is to not shoot RAW, for client projects. As my own two documentaries progress though, we may shoot at least portions of them in RAW but have to figure out shooting ratios, ability to download footage while on the road, etc.
 
You could always kick it old school by taking an external recorder like a 7Q, Playback your 4K RAW internally on the C200, and capture a 2K 10bit 4:2:2 signal from the SDI port. Then you can have Pro Res or DNxHD without needing to use a computer to offload and transcode the footage. This would obviously not work for jobs where you have to hand off the footage right away. But I thought it might be an interesting option.
 
fhammond said:
Correct. There's no ProRes on Windows and DPX requires ten times more disk space. It's too bad as you can buy a sub-$1000 PC that'll transcode CRM files faster than a $6000 Mac Pro, mostly due to the speed of the GPU.
Click to expand...

That's a bummer and kinda limiting for PC users being able to use Raw if you don't use resolve. Hopefully it'll have Edius support soon enough.

John.
 
fhammond said:
Correct. There's no ProRes on Windows and DPX requires ten times more disk space. It's too bad as you can buy a sub-$1000 PC that'll transcode CRM files faster than a $6000 Mac Pro, mostly due to the speed of the GPU.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason not to use something like DNXHR? It's worked well as an intermediate for me in the past.
 
So far, I'm transcoding from the Cfast to my SSD in prores, and it's taken my 9 hours for 15-16 minutes of footage. Obviously I have to upgrade my computer (2010 macpro) but I'm struggling with going with a higher end macpro or just go the Hpz840 route.
 
Ruggerpro said:
So far, I'm transcoding from the Cfast to my SSD in prores, and it's taken my 9 hours for 15-16 minutes of footage. Obviously I have to upgrade my computer (2010 macpro) but I'm struggling with going with a higher end macpro or just go the Hpz840 route.
Click to expand...

If there's any way you can wait to buy a new computer - shoot mp4 perhaps? - it might be a good idea. The current Mac Pro isn't very fast for the price. The iMac Pro coming in December would probably be a better option. Or just build a cheap gaming PC and use that until a better Mac is available. Here's the exact build of the one my son (who's 12!) put together:

http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-build-guide-budget-gaming-pc/

It is actually faster to transcode Canon Raw Light footage than my Mac Pro. You'd need more storage but it would still be a much cheaper option than a current Mac Pro. A current iMac would also probably be a good choice, since they have good GPU performance, which is what CRD cares about.
 
Thanks for the recommendation. I can wait.. but I'm shooting a commercial and a short film in the next couple of weeks, and weddings start back up for me in September. To me, the "raw" looks a bit more cinematic, almost like Black Magic footage, so I'd love to shoot raw. For weddings, it won't be doable probably for a few years, but I'd still shoot the formals part raw so I can extract photos for promo use. If everything transcoded and I was able to work more quickly/efficiently, it'd make working with this a total joy. I also haven't messed around with the proxy option yet so I might try that first too.
 
Just for clarity, raw images don't have a gamut. That's because raw images don't have colors. Raw images are just sensor values, and they need to be transformed somehow into color values. (and there are lots of different ways of doing it)

"Raw gamut" is an oxymoron. Canon has done something screwy here to call it that. Either it's not quite raw, or just mislabeled.
 
balazer said:
... "Raw gamut" is an oxymoron. Canon has done something screwy here to call it that. Either it's not quite raw, or just mislabeled...
Click to expand...
Early images suggest something like that. I'd be beneficial for a Canon person to chime in on this.
 
balazer said:
Just for clarity, raw images don't have a gamut. That's because raw images don't have colors. Raw images are just sensor values, and they need to be transformed somehow into color values. (and there are lots of different ways of doing it)

"Raw gamut" is an oxymoron. Canon has done something screwy here to call it that. Either it's not quite raw, or just mislabeled.
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with you on this. The C200 in raw does have a gamut: it's the entire range of colors that the sensor can capture. I think the difference is that it's not a gamut you can chose (beyond, that is, choosing to shoot in raw) and it's not a standard gamut that other devices share.

Canon makes it more confusing because the export dialog box uses the label "RAW Gamut" which, with the capitalization of "gamut" implies that RAW Gamut is a thing like BT.2020 or BT709 - a real standard used by other devices. But in the case, I think it's just shorthand for "The total range of colors that the C200 can capture when shooting in raw" - that'd be kinda wordy for a dialog box!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top