My point is that while one could make the argument that saving the decision until post kept all my options open, the truth is that we spent time & money in post only to ultimately pick an approach I probably could have done in-camera easily with a diffusion filter. Not saying that's proof of anything one way or the other, just that you may find it better to do some things in-camera after all. It just struck me after awhile in the D.I. session that I had considered using a filter and didn't, but maybe I should have.
Again, in terms of the WB issue, what matters is results, real-world results. If I have an easier time getting the green cast out of fluorescents with Red footage compared to ARRI, then I'm going to say that Red's approach is better. But if I don't have a problem either way, then I'm going to question whether it makes much of a difference in any practical sense. Until I shoot some tests, I don't have an opinion one way or the other. But I do have experience color-correcting Genesis footage, which bakes in color temp settings into PanaLog and I can't say I found working with Red RAW footage in the past "superior" in that aspect -- in fact, my past experiences color-correcting Red footage in a D.I. setting has been more frustrating than with other types of footage, not easier and more flexible. On paper, RAW sounds great, but all I care about is how well it works in practice. And in practice, recent advances with Red have truly taken advantage of what "RAW" has to offer finally and now, I think it's a great thing. But I can't responsibly pass judgement on how ARRI is doing things just based on theory or specs on paper.
Honestly, all of this posturing is just a bit silly to me without any real world examples that clearly demonstrate why ARRI's approach to RAW is more limiting when color-correcting an image. I feel that until then, a lot of people are making too much out of this white balance issue. The way it's been vilified here makes you think that you can't do anything in post with an ARRIRAW image before it completely falls apart into a mass of useless chroma noise!
It's no different than people vilifying Red for using compression for their RAW output and spreading fear & doubt about it.
All that matters is results. Does Redcode compression WORK? Does it work well? Does ARRI's method of RAW recording WORK? Does it work well? I see this as two sides of the same coin. Red asks us to look at the results and believe that it works, not listen to fear & doubt about compression, Bayer patterns, whatever... So if I'm supposed to have an open mind about how Red does things, should I then turn around and have a closed mind about how ARRI wants to do things? No, I have to approach them with the same attitude, which is SHOW ME RESULTS.