Working with RAW video: a topic to share techniques - Page 3 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 62 Old 12-04-2013, 04:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
brunerww's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

This forum used to discuss the picture quality produced by various video capable cameras. If it is anything like discussions over post processing with photos, RAW is what it says. It is the RAW data produced by the camera and recorded digitally. It should look ugly until adjusted in post processing. It can't look good until made to do so. The third element is the viewing device. The fourth element is viewers' preferences.

It seems to me that in a sense we move from "engineering science" to "artistic creation". With all four factors, it seems exponential.

When viewing a clip, you can't say the camera got it "wrong" or "right" with RAW. You can's say the camera got it too blue or too red because that is all created by the person doing the grading in post processing.

I follow a beginners Lightroom forum. A common question is "why are my RAWs so flat, dull, off color, etc compared to the .jpgs?". The answer is always that it is up to the person using LIghtroom to make it better than the .jpg.

So far, I've watch all the RAW threads get argumentative in various degrees. Comments shift back and forth between camera science and feeling about how it looks.

It seems to me, that once one shifts to RAW video, the qualitative judgement questions change. In other words, when you look at a clip, any clip, produced from RAW you have to think that the producer of that clip wants it to look that way. Or at least he/she liked the way it looked on his/her viewing device.

In one place I read where certain movies and TV shows intentionally create a consistent "trademark" color cast. The "color grader" is expected to make it off color for the sake of "art".

The whole subject of video creation got more interesting!

Bill

Bill, I had to quote this whole post because I agree with it 110%. The blend of science and art is why I am interested in motion pictures. Yes, specs are important, and this is a camcorder forum, but RAW video tips the scale back in the direction of art - and, for me at least, that is a good thing.

Bill
brunerww is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 62 Old 12-04-2013, 09:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 3,356
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 231 Post(s)
Liked: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

Bill, I had to quote this whole post because I agree with it 110%. The blend of science and art is why I am interested in motion pictures. Yes, specs are important, and this is a camcorder forum, but RAW video tips the scale back in the direction of art - and, for me at least, that is a good thing.

Bill
I like the art part too. A lot. In fewer words, this forum seems to work best when discussing equipment and not artistic interpretation!
bsprague is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Camcorders

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off