How To Get Raw Video On A Camera That Doesn't Shoot Raw

RAW video is admittedly overrated, simply that doesn't mean information technology isn't a ability tool.

DPreview wrote up a pretty accurate takedown of RAW video that made some excellent points. RAW video today isn't going to give yous the amazing boost in dynamic range compared to Log as it would take, say, 10 years agone. It too has plenty of workflow hurdles to figure out, and information technology tin be a data hog too. Merely while we agree in some means, nosotros also believe RAW video is beneficial for filmmakers. Hither'due south why.

Information technology's worth pointing out that DPreview is by and large a photography-focused site, and then the commodity may be intended for the majority of their readers which tend to lean toward photographers who also shoot video. As No Motion-picture show School is a filmmaker-focused site, to us, RAW video is really pretty darn astonishing, and for the vast bulk of projects, it's a format you lot should be recording whenever possible.

1. RAW video may but offer a flake more than dynamic range, but information technology offers a whole host of color flexibility

One of the things that DPreview accurately points out is that dynamic range, the brightness range you can capture with a camera from darkest shadows to brightest highlights, is only slightly improved by RAW capture. While RAW was a large bargain in 2008 when all other video was linear, its paltry vii stops of breadth pale in comparison when we regularly can get 12-14 stops using Log encoding in cameras today.

However, as nosotros saw in our field test with the open ProRes RAW, information technology offers a ton of flexibility when it comes to color. There's but more color information stored with RAW, and thus, y'all tin push button it further than you can traditional video formats. This means if the white residue isn't perfect, or if y'all want to exercise a heavy color wait, you tin do more than of that correction in mail service, with less noise and artifacting compared to a normal Rec.709 shoot or with sure Log formats.

If you're shooting an indie feature and some shots are dark or have weird white balance considering of the local street lights, you'll be glad you captured RAW. Just if you lot happen to have exposed perfectly with accurate tint and white rest and are doing a very "low-cal" grade, RAW may not offer much do good other than the ability to get dorsum and heavily class the footage afterward on.

two. Postal service workflows are mainly worked out, with i major exception

The post workflows are much more robust for RAW than they were a decade ago, and while they aren't consistent betwixt RAW formats, they practise work. Concluding Cut Pro fabricated the bold conclusion of non having a split "RAW" tab, and instead, y'all have all your normal color controls, but with RAW shots they have more ability. On the other hand, programs like DaVinci Resolve keep RAW controls split up so you can punch adjustments in before applying downstream effects. They're two different models, but both work.

The one major remaining hurdle is that Blackmagic RAW doesn't work in FCP X, and ProRes RAW doesn't work in DaVinci Resolve. Every bit these 2 formats grow in popularity, it's become a major frustration among creators. While at that place are keen cameras like the Nikon Z7 II and Z6 II that support ProRes RAW and BRAW and the Sigma fp that supports three RAW formats (ProRes RAW, BRAW, DNG), that's rare. Most mirrorless cameras support ProRes RAW or accept their own RAW format, like Canon and the Blackmagic cameras supporting BRAW.

Maybe in the hereafter, we'll see both not-linear editors support each other's RAW format. For now, you tin find back up for both with AVID or Premiere Pro.

three. Big files are rarely a concern

For amend or for worse, RAW video comes with "bigger" file sizes. This doesn't necessarily mean that the RAW file itself is bigger, since often information technology's non. REDCODE RAW compression is so good, you'll often have a smaller file size from your .R3D file than you will with a ProRes 4444 when shooting 4K. Both ProRes RAW and the less compressed ProRes RAW HQ take manageable file sizes also.

For perspective, 12-bit RAW is the same file size every bit 10-fleck 4:2:2 ProRes. Then your production workflow might save some money when it comes to storage. When it comes to mail, it's a little different.

When it comes to the edit, you will need more storage, since you lot'll want to shop both the RAW and transcoded video files somewhere. Likewise, when we propose "bigger" we're referring to the processing power needed to edit the file. And yes, even in 2021 with many companies advertising that their software works in "RAW" natively, nosotros recommend making transcoded dailies to edit from and only reconnecting back to your RAW for the final colour grade. It still makes sense, and you are always glad you did.

While "bigger" files may seem like a trouble, as filmmakers, they've ever been our handbag. Whether it was buying 35mm film back in the 24-hour interval, or early hard disk drive drives, or recent SSDs, filmmakers have e'er had larger file sizes to store. There are affordable ways to exercise this (nosotros still like an OWC drive dock with bare SATA drives), just it'due south but part of being a filmmaker. Sculptors gotta buy marble, painters paint, and filmmakers gotta buy hard drives.

Ii major caveats remain

Just considering you can worry almost things like ISO or white balance in post, you should absolutely try to go them right on set wherever possible.

I take a practiced friend who was the C camera on a major task in a sports stadium. Unfortunately, in that location were no walkies, so his white balance settings didn't lucifer the A and B camera. This was easily fixable in the color grade since they shot RAW. His operating was amazing, cute footage, but the client hated it because "it didn't friction match" also every bit A and B because the white residual wasn't perfect. That client never hired him again over something that would've taken xx minutes to fix when setting up the dailies transcode, or if they had walkies from the outset.

Even when shooting RAW, information technology'south important to stay on top of your carte du jour settings, considering the way your dailies expect volition affect how clients perceive the footage and your work.

RAW benefits aren't usually worth it on tight turnaround jobs. If yous're shooting something Sabbatum that needs to be live on a billboard in Times Square Monday morning (this happened to me), the time spent processing RAW footage is likely not worth it, especially since the final display or project may non exist the highest resolution or highest-fidelity color screen. If that's the case information technology's better to focus on working with a format that tin motion through mail service with ease, like ProRes 4444.

Those thoughts aside, RAW is pretty useful for filmmakers, and in 2021, it's and so accessible from so many cameras that it's absolutely something most filmmakers should be ready for.