toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I’m surprised that, now that it’s open source, no camera manufacturer has adopted Cineform RAW. Wavelet compression, compact files that work nicely with Resolve (et al) — not to mention freedom from worries that Apple will do something stupid with ProRes.
I still think that, for Bayer CFA cameras) any format that’s not RAW is silly. Why de-Bayer, bake in the de-mosiacing, and triple the file size when it reduces flexibility in grading and doesn’t improve image quality!
Most of our scanner users have happily chosen 16-bit Cineform RAW as their capture format.
Sent from iPhone.
On Dec 26, 2020, at 8:35 PM, Rakesh Malik <tamerlin@...> wrote:
I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space, even for workflows requiring raw since even a lossless codec can save a lot of space, and a clip based raw codec can be even more efficient, and a lot faster to transfer.
There are also clients who don't want to deal with raw at all who would be much happier with a codec like ProRes with log encoding. Even that is overkill for a lot of clients, though.
Director of Photography, Colorist
Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively.
Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it. When reasonably compressed Log recording became available to these same devices their popularity skyrocketed. It has happened numerous times.
DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW. DPs shooting for the highest level productions want uncompressed RAW. I understand that. But they comprise an infinitesimal percentage of actual users. Most people want the advantages of capturing all that dynamic range while not having the burden of uncompressed RAW workflow. For a petite and inexpensive camera such as the Sigma FP I would argue that the vast majority of people considering its use, compressed Log video is far more attractive than uncompressed RAW.
[Mitch Gross] I would expect that Log encoding is more useful to a vast number of CMLers and DPs in general than Uncompressed RAW recording.