Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Raw...

Jannard

Jannard

Red Leader
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
8,248
Reaction score
7
Points
0
So with all the new cameras coming out as motion capture alternatives, why is it so important to shoot RAW instead of MJPEG, AVCHD or H.264?

1. RAW files are much more flexible in adjusting exposure and color grading.

2. RAW color science is not "baked in". For example, the new color science being tested now (see thread on RED ONE General) can be used to go back and make old footage better! And if we improve color science again, it will always be useful for all footage shot... not just new footage. Compression standards like AVCHD or H.264 are likely to change going forward. RAW is forever.

RAW is like a digital negative. It gives you a ton more flexibility now and in the future.

Just saying...

Jim
 
And it just makes more sense..
Avchd is horrible, pain to edit and minimal quality. I'm really tired of it.
Holding out for Redcode...
 
From DPReview.com:
Apple has released a Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update for Aperture 2, iPhoto '08 and iPhoto '09. Update 2.6 supports RAW files from the Canon Digital Rebel T1i (EOS 500D in Europe and EOS Kiss Digital X3 in Japan), Nikon D5000 and Olympus E-30 digital SLRs.
Click to expand...
If all RAW files were created equal no additional support updates would ever be required for any application to support NEW versions of RAW.
 
Sander de Regt said:
From DPReview.com:

If all RAW files were created equal no additional support updates would ever be required for any application to support NEW versions of RAW.
Click to expand...


I thought these updates were so various apps would be compatible with the cameras, not the RAW files per se, so the apps could talk to newly released cameras.
 
RAW is RAW for the same sensor design... but there are many ways to interpret and process the RAW data. You can go back and reprocess old RAW still files a few times with new processing tools... each better than the last from the same RAW file. Now I am reprocessing old r3d files with better results.

Jim
 
It's compatibility with cameras and RAW file formats. Each manufacturer has their own way of storing the RAW image data and providing profiles or instructions on how to process that data. Not all "RAW" is the same, not all sensors acquire information in the same way and not all file formats store that information in the same way.

In the DSLR world, even "RAW" does not imply the same level of control we get with REDCODE RAW. Most all DSLRs still bake-in certain presets or do some level of processing in the way of analog or digital gain within their cameras before writing the "RAW" data to a file.
 
Peter Hodgins said:
if it's RAW why is it called R3D?
Click to expand...

Because we can't call it a .raw file. :-) Each camera company has its own sensor design and RAW file format.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
So with all the new cameras coming out as motion capture alternatives, why is it so important to shoot RAW instead of MJPEG, AVCHD or H.264?

1. RAW files are much more flexible in adjusting exposure and color grading.

2. RAW color science is not "baked in". For example, the new color science being tested now (see thread on RED ONE General) can be used to go back and make old footage better! And if we improve color science again, it will always be useful for all footage shot... not just new footage. Compression standards like AVCHD or H.264 are likely to change going forward. RAW is forever.

RAW is like a digital negative. It gives you a ton more flexibility now and in the future.

Just saying...

Jim
Click to expand...

I have the EOS 5DMKII. It's a great camera. For stills. Being able to shoot RAW stills and change CC after the fact is the real deal for me.

And it's a good camera for video... it's looks darn good considering how Canon gets it to you, BUT yeah, with the H264 you take what Canon gives you. Not much you can do about that.

I want my motion capture files in RAW format too.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
It's compatibility with cameras and RAW file formats. Each manufacturer has their own way of storing the RAW image data and providing profiles or instructions on how to process that data. Not all "RAW" is the same, not all sensors acquire information in the same way and not all file formats store that information in the same way.

In the DSLR world, even "RAW" does not imply the same level of control we get with REDCODE RAW. Most all DSLRs still bake-in certain presets or do some level of processing in the way of analog or digital gain within their cameras before writing the "RAW" data to a file.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff. I thought it was just for the cameras.
 
Sander de Regt said:
From DPReview.com:

If all RAW files were created equal no additional support updates would ever be required for any application to support NEW versions of RAW.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess they aren't all created equal, neither are the various sensors that the cameras use, but I think there is no question that for digital photography and now cinematography some kind of raw is generally better than a processed or "baked" image. Red has a great cocktail of the benefits of raw mixed with the benefits of compression. Can't see how one would take issue with that, the difference is visible.

IBloom
 
There are vast differences in different raw formats because nobody can agree on the "best" way to do things, and what metadata to store, and how that metadata should work to process the image. We add further to RAW by developing a RAW format suitable for motion imagery, with a compression scheme that looks great at the kind of data rates that allow 4k 24fps RAW onto a compact flash card.

Some of the image processing we do is unique - like DRX, which I don't see in other RAW converters and was indeed developed specifically for RED because of problems we saw in partially clipped colors in those other RAW converters.

To get even more complex, different demosaic algorithms are more suitable for video than they are for stills, as some artifacts which some might think acceptable on stills stand out more in motion.

Graeme
 
Sander de Regt said:
Then why are there so many flavors of RAW available?
Click to expand...

There are multiple flavors of RAW, but I think REDCODE RAW is going to be here to stay. Red is the only company that I know of that is improving upon the format and maintaining "backwards compatibility" so to say. When you are going with a proprietary format, you have to look at the quality of service and support.

I don't think I have to comment on how Red is at this. :}
 
Alex Mack said:
And it just makes more sense..
Avchd is horrible, pain to edit and minimal quality. I'm really tired of it.
Holding out for Redcode...
Click to expand...

AVCHD is, to use the parlance of Steve Jobs, a bag of hurt. I've just discovered this as a friend asked for help in capturing and editing footage from his new AVCHD camera. I read grumbling about this online when I was in the market for a camera last year, so I went with the HV30 in spite of my desire for tapeless. Now I'm glad I did, having seen the other side of the tracks. That being said, I am looking forward to being liberated from tapes by Red. Raw will be nice too.
 
Redcode is great. Graeme is a magician.

I love this stuff about improving colour science. It rocks :thumbsup:
 
Jim,

Can you show us one of your reprocessed r3d files, a before and after comparison.Please.

Jag,
Red 666
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top