Originally Posted by DeAnna2112
But nothing about the second picture even remotely looks natural or crisp and the colors look artificial.
After looking at those two pictures I did a lot of reading yesterday. What I think I learned was that the second picture was supposed to show how far you could go with the color from a RAW image. It would be sort of like getting a new speaker system and, for a test, you turn the volume to max. Then, the rest of the time you own them, you set the volume at your version of normal.
What I think I read was that the state of the art in full blown blockbuster production is to have a "colorist" get it right after the shoot. Those of us impressed with AVCHD and 1080p cameras, expect to get it right during the shooting of our amateur videos. The Hollywood directors expect the shooter to capture everything RAW and the "colorist" is part of the editing team.
What is hoped for is a camera that captures a depth of exposure and, in this case, I think they are bragging about 13 F stops worth of depth for every shade of color.
None of it made sense until I read what the included Black Magic DaVinci Resolve software is for. Apparently video from the Cinema Camera is presumed to be unwatchable until processed through DaVinci. The specialized console that Black Magic sells to "colorists" for the DaVinci software is $30K! It has more knobs, buttons, dials and displays than an airliner's cockpit.
Am I understanding this? The workflow goes from RAW shooting, to the DaVinci colorist, then to editing in Premier Pro, then adding any After Effects and then to distribution media?