Note: no need for log profiles in the camera - you can apply a log profile in post.Ĭlick to expand.What's going on is very old news. And, of course, with the expanded color space of RAW and all of the dynamic range of the sensor available you can also produce HDR videos. The rest is just playing with the look (get exposure and WB right). Color management: tell DaVinci it is a dng RAW file (with its expanded color gamut and linear gamma) and that you want it transformed and viewed in REC709. Much easier to work with than HEVC (H265) files and heavily-compressed H264 files. So, I took out the BMPCC recently to shoot true RAW to try to understand what the problem is that has led to proprietary processed flavors of "RAW" requiring bulky cameras or external recorders that are replacing true RAW.
Slimraw company plus#
But now, DaVinci Resolve has evolved to be much more efficient and with better color management (and I know much more), plus computers are faster. It was difficult to get the colors right, and it was slow in post, but not impossible even on a laptop. I used it as my travel camera six years ago, shooting RAW in China, Florida and NYC. What is going on?Īs a consequence, the original BMPCC is one of the few affordable cameras left that shoot in true RAW. And, they removed the ability to shoot in true RAW when BRAW became available. The cameras are big and bulky (and ugly). Now they shoot in BRAW, but you need the large CFast cards to do that. The 4K and 6K successors also shot in true RAW. The original BMPCC was a tiny camera that shot true RAW, and as it was only HD, you could use sd cards, even fast I's. This means in principle the camera can be small and obviates the need for the added bulk of an external recorder. Recent cameras permit storing video via a usb-c port onto those small external and relatively cheap ssd's (Samsung T5, SanDisk Extreme). How big? Well, less than 1/2 hour of 4K 12bit true RAW takes up one terrabyte of space! You need something bigger and faster - CFAst or SSDs. You cannot shoot 4K 12bit true RAW on any sd card that is available (including II). So, what's the problem in shooting real RAW (RAW cng)? just big files and massive bitrates - a challenge for storage only.
But they are not RAW, and they have artifacts and less latitude than true RAW. The advantages of these pseudo RAWs are that the files are smaller than true RAW cng and they are better than other codecs, even regular ProRes.
Slimraw company software#
And doing this processing with software can be much more effective (better) than baking this stuff in in the camera. The idea is that you the "author' can decide how much sharpening or noise reduction you want and you can color and shape the look (eg, contrast, saturation) too, taking advantage of 12 or 14 bits. All of the information (and noise) the sensor provides is captured. This not true for these video "RAWs".Īs far as I know, Cinema RAW or RAW cng is a true RAW, with no additional processing as above (no sharpening, noise reduction, compression). We have all shot RAW stills, and know that one great feature was that you could ignore white balance while shooting.
The result is the clips have halos, smearing and compression artifacts, just like those codecs we are all used to using, and baked-in color. The above "RAW"s process the information from the sensor - this includes noise reduction and sharpening (edge enhancement) and also, if applied, compression.
0 kommentar(er)
