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 :)

The true definition of Video vs. Raw

Michael Totten

Michael Totten

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
604
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I got to thinking a bit about the term "video" and what it means today vs. what it was 15 years ago.
AFAIK neither Red nor Alexa (two modern state of the art cameras) are technically speaking "video cameras".

Raw isn't "video".

It doesn't become video until the data is processed /colored and compressed to a video codec.

I think the majority of motion picture professionals would agree films/celluloids days are numbered & it'd be nice to talk about the technology that will replace film (and the artists & technicians who work with it) as accurately as possible.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the thing that will replace film should be referred to as video. Video seems like a gross oversimplification not to mention a historically loaded term that in my opinion is a disservice to those of us who shoot digitally (because there's often such a negative cache associated with the term).


Raw data is one of the things that makes it possible to capture images with such high fidelity and range... raw makes these images so malleable not unlike a film negative.

So why call cameras like Red & Alexa video cameras when video can't do what cameras like these can ? Raw capture is bypassing one of the main characteristics that defines video, that is in camera processing of the gamma, color temperature, ISO & gain.

Please tell me if I'm thinking about this in an overly pedantic manner.

There doesn't seem to be a universally accepted and acknowledged term for cameras like red and alexa. Or a succinct explanation of the huge differences between traditional video cameras and "digital movie cameras" or "digital cinema cameras" (as wikipedia puts it)... But then again, wikipedia also refers to Red as a video camera. ?


I'm curious what others think?
 
RED is a Digital Cinema Camera. Referring to it as video is erroneous and probably just a mistake or someone who was less-than-knowledgeable who edited the article.

In all honesty, you could call something like the RED One a "video camera" as insofar as it captures electronically "images that move" but that's about as far as it goes. Video has a past that makes it unsuitable as the word of choice for film replacement, hence Digital Cinema Camera.
 
Simplest explanation of the difference:

Red records the raw data for each photosite on the sensor to a file that requires demosaic processing and encoding to an RGB or YCbCr format in post to produce an image made up of defined color pixels. The only things that directly affect the raw data recorded are light, aperture, frame rate, and shutter speed. All other information that defines the image is recorded in a separate meta data file and subject to change in camera or in post.

A video camera processes the sensor data in camera and records a predefined RGB or YCbCr format with most information that defines how the image looks as an unalterable part of the image file. Some characteristics that are baked into a video file and not easily modified are White balance, gamma curves, ISO speed or gain settings.

Raw recordings afford a lot more range for refined creative manipulation in post than most encoded video formats. Another advantage to raw is that as the processing software improves or as delivery formats change, older recordings can be reprocessed to take maximum advantage of the improvements. With video it will never be significantly better than how it came out of the camera to begin with.
 
According to Wikipedia Video means:

"the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."

Red and Alexa and all digital motion cameras fall into that definition.

I do agree that I don't like to call Red a video camera. I also don't like it when people call Red an HD camera.


Dusty
 
When you shoot a Nikon in RAW mode does it become something other than a "still" camera?
 
It seems to me that these are distinctions that are still being developed and defined. I imagine that the general public would consider any camera that captures motion electronically, and specifically NOT with film, to be a "video" camera by default. I am not sure, by historic standards, that such an understanding would be considered wrong. It is a rather fine line between what the EX-1 captures vs. the RED ONE except the latter is RAW. Does RAW mean "not video?" I don't think so; perhaps others do. In fact, isn't the motion capture of a 7D considered video? Is an F35 vastly different than an Alexa? Where is the line - or is there even a clear one?

All that said, there probably is a benefit in creating a distinction between the various flavors of electronic capture. Personally, I prefer to refer to myself as a digital cinematographer rather than a videographer for the reason that it sounds more professional. And, I think RED chose to call their cameras "Digital Cinema" cameras, rather than "video" cameras for the same reason. How it will all shake out? Hard to say. Harder question is, who will decide? What great industry authority will decree it to be so? In this particular case, I'd be cautious about teaching a class of students the supposed distinctions between video and digital cinema, lest they think it is some scientific fact with a clear dividing line. :confused1:

EDIT: A lot of people posted a lot of good thoughts while I was responding to the OP. I agree with much of the discussion about the distinctions. But, I don't see how it is, as yet, clear industry practice to make these distinctions.
 
Trouble with just calling it a RAW camera is that still cameras can be RAW too. It also doesn't take into account cameras that record LOG RGB/444/422 instead of RAW, or what happens if the EPIC allows recording 1080P LOG RGB, etc. (or any camera that can switch between RAW, LOG, and Rec.709.)

I tend to use "digital cinema" camera or "digital movie" or "digital motion picture" camera, etc. instead of "video", but I don't necessarily have a negative attitude towards the word "video" that I think it's degrading to apply it to a digital cinema camera. I sometimes use the phrase "classic video" to describe traditional interlaced-scan video camera and images.
 
Dunno - to me this separation has always sounded artifical. We don't separate digital still cameras by RAW capability... they're all just digital still cameras. Thus to me, following the same logic, Red is a video camera: a very, very good video camera that shoots RAW at high resolutuion and works great for cine style applications, but a video camera nevertheless.

And there's nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with video either.

So, instead of coming up with new category, i'd rather like to see cameras like this boost up the appreciation for video, which for some reason has a (largely unwarranted) bad rep. But that's just me.
 
Dustin Cross said:
According to Wikipedia Video means:

"the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion."

Red and Alexa and all digital motion cameras fall into that definition.

I do agree that I don't like to call Red a video camera. I also don't like it when people call Red an HD camera.


Dusty
Click to expand...

"PROCESSING" is where I scratch my head.
Video is processed in camera and therefore locking you into a "look" and allowing less headroom.

RAW doesn't do that.
 
Video is such a loaded term, and a very broad term in it's original meaning of motion image capture not photochemically, but electronically.

We at RED prefer the term for our cameras to be "Digital Cinema Camera" as it more accurately and more narrowly defines their application and design.

Personally speaking, the difference between a video camera and a Digital Cinema Camera is in the aesthetic domain of the images created. That's a tricky thing to get across and in terms of hardware and image processing comes from a multitude of design factors and there's not one feature or thing that leads to a cinematic aesthetic through digital means.

Graeme
 
Michael Totten said:
"PROCESSING" is where I scratch my head.
Video is processed in camera and therefore locking you into a "look" and allowing less headroom.

RAW doesn't do that.
Click to expand...

Well, "processing" is a pretty generic descriptor. Hard to argue that there isn't some processing that goes on in a RED camera. Otherwise, why did Jim bother with all those boards? :smiley:

EDIT: BTW, to me, I think David Mullen may have identified the biggest clear distinction between "video" and "digital cinema" - at least the point of departure - and that is INTERLACING. To me, interlaced means video, for sure. Once you get into progressive frames, things start to move toward digital cinema. (But still, the clear distinction is a hard one to make.)
 
TL;DR: Audience matters. Some people don't know or want to know anything more than the most basic distinctions. Others are interested in learning the fine details. Those two individuals would likely define "video" rather differently.

--

Let me take a somewhat odd analogy here - study of historic arms and armor, and more specifically, swords. And even more specifically, European swords. To most folks, a sword is a sword is a sword. Large metal construction, sharpened on one or two edges with a point. Well done.

But some time ago a man named Ewart Oakeshott found that even though swords were generally the same, there were actually wide variances in their construction, appearance, and use - once one started to look at the details. He then travelled Europe's museums and private collections and catalogued dozens of extent pieces, noting all the fine dimensions and making sketches of their physical characteristics. He also studied period iconography depicting the use of the weapons. This resulted in a typology which allowed anyone to easily point out a specific type of weapon based upon a variety of characteristics and call is a name - "This is an Oakehsott Type XVIIIB" for instance.

I feel like the same thing is happening here. There are many who really don't know (or care to know) the details. If it has film, it's a film camera. If it doesn't, it's a video camera. Simple.

Of course, there are then those who look at the codec and intended application - a broadcast camera that shoots a standardized image vs. a digital cinema camera that shoots progressive frames with a myriad of aspect ratios, shutter speeds, etc.

And then you can get to really detailed aspects of things. For instance, there are a number of people who insist on shooting "True RAW" - a totally untouched sensor read that isn't compressed or processed. Well, that's different from REDCODE, certainly, which is compressed. And REDCODE is different from the JP2K from which it was derived.

Taking the common definition, "video" isn't just one type of camera - it's a spectrum that has changed over time with many variances between types of cameras at any given point (CMOS v. CCD, AVCHD v. HDCAM v. PRORES, Tape v. File, etc.)
 
Still cameras record both raw and JPEGs for the most part. The difference between raw and jpeg images from a still camera is similar to the difference between raw and encoded video in a digital motion camera.

At least for the highest quality video codecs, I think it is as much about a different work flow on set and in post than major differences in what the finished images can look like, other than current encoded video acquisition being pretty well limited to HD resolutions.

Aesthetic distinctions are often as unique to particular cameras and processes as the look of different film stocks would be.

Graeme, I love Red's aesthetic choices by the way.:smilewinkgrin:
 
Michael Olsen said:
Taking the common definition, "video" isn't just one type of camera - it's a spectrum that has changed over time with many variances between types of cameras at any given point (CMOS v. CCD, AVCHD v. HDCAM v. PRORES, Tape v. File, etc.)
Click to expand...

...and that's just after the digital revolution. For a long, long time video cameras used to have tubes as sensors and record an analog signal to analog tape. Heck, it used to be black and white.

There have been much bigger leaps in the past than the current one, all fitting under the video umbrella. Thus, i can see digital cinema as a subcategory of video cameras - and as such, it's a perfectly valid term.

Another way to put it, in the aesthetic realm, i'm rather confident that one could intercut i.e. XDCam EX footage with Red or Alexa footage pretty much seamlessly in many cases, to the point that the difference would be unnoticeable to an average viewer in a regular, average cinema, if all of these were properly shot to match. Not the same with 1960's black and white tube video camera...

Thus implying that i.e. XDCam EX is more in the category of 1960's tube cameras than in the category of Red and the like is counterintuitive to me.
 
Eki Halkka said:
...and that's just after the digital revolution. For a long, long time video cameras used to have tubes as sensors and record an analog signal to analog tape. Heck, it used to be black and white.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point - even if we limit ourselves to discussing a single period of time, the products on the market are diverse - and the products actually in use even more so!
 
light collectors

light collectors

When I talk to people about the Red, I use the analogy that film is an analogue light collector, where the Red is a digital light collector. In either case there is substantially more information in the film or RAW file then is perceivable to the naked eye. Video is not film, nor is it RAW.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Well, "processing" is a pretty generic descriptor. Hard to argue that there isn't some processing that goes on in a RED camera. Otherwise, why did Jim bother with all those boards? :smiley:

EDIT: BTW, to me, I think David Mullen may have identified the biggest clear distinction between "video" and "digital cinema" - at least the point of departure - and that is INTERLACING. To me, interlaced means video, for sure. Once you get into progressive frames, things start to move toward digital cinema. (But still, the clear distinction is a hard one to make.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I see your point.... On the other hand "video" seems like a pretty generic descriptor for what state of the art digital cinema cameras are doing today.

It seems a bit like referring to an F22 Raptor Fighter Jet as "transportation" :laugh:
 
This is an interesting discussion. I generally look at what a camera's intended medium and delivery method would be. So if the camera's most general medium is for television or broadcast, it's fair to call it a video camera.

But, if the intended media is broader and more flexible then, "digital cinema camera" (and like flavors) is probably more appropriate.

Of course there's a grey area here given you can shoot with a video camera for theatrical and so forth. Intending to "broadcast" on the web is yet another grey area. Regardless, it's a great time to be shooting with the landscape of tools at our disposal.

Perhaps we can be inspired by the large format realm with the terms, "film back", "digital back" or "video back". "Video back" might be related to the RED's ProRes module.

Then again, I feel "video" is becoming an antiquated term for many cameras these days....
 
Maybe we should be forward looking and invent a really cool term... like "MOVIE camera!!" :001_tongue:
 
I believe the answer lies in here. Red and Alexa are not video cameras. New standard. Film. Video. Now Motion Digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top