or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Working with RAW video: a topic to share techniques
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Working with RAW video: a topic to share techniques - Page 2

post #31 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

That one is no good:

1. No sdxc. Required for RAW.

2. No exFat. Required for RAW.

3. At 3.5 minutes per GB, it would take, well you figure it out, to copy a 64GB card (for 18 minutes of video). The Nexto DI is 40 seconds a GB.

frown.gif

Have you tested yours? Are you sure it can record the RAW video files? What about ProRes? Those devices are really stupid. Why they dont just copy everything that is on the card? Why do they need to have file compatibility?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

No, this is what Black Magic lists as compatible and IS (http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/au/support/detail/faqs?sid=27541&pid=34849&os=win):

Mark, at the same link you posted, look at the "Will Pocket Cinema Camera support optical image stabilization?" answer.
Quote:
The Pocket Cinema Camera will support Micro Four Third lenses with built in optical image stabilization that can be enabled via a physical switch. The Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm lens requires optical stabilisation to be enabled via a software command. Unfortunately, this command is not part of the Micro Four Thirds specification and undocumented. The optical stabilization feature on this lens will not work with the Pocket Cinema Camera.

They are usually off by default and require the algorithm to be turned on. In the 2.8 you will have it for sure.
post #32 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

frown.gif

Have you tested yours? Are you sure it can record the RAW video files? What about ProRes? Those devices are really stupid. Why they dont just copy everything that is on the card? Why do they need to have file compatibility?
Mark, at the same link you posted, look at the "Will Pocket Cinema Camera support optical image stabilization?" answer.
They are usually off by default and require the algorithm to be turned on. In the 2.8 you will have it for sure.

You do not understand: the devices will copy anything, BUT: RAW video requires sdxc cards formatted exFat, so that the storage device must be able to read exFat sdxc cards and also the internal drive must be formatted exFat. This is not a "file" compatibility issue. The cheap devices can do none of this.

You are confused by the Panasonic lenses (as I was initially, for good reason). There are TWO Lumix 14-42mm lenses! Both have OIS. The one in the FAQ you quote is not compatible. The 14-42 X Vario lens is allegedly compatible (as in the FAQ I cited). It is a different lens.

The Nexto DI reads exFat sdxc cards and can copy files over 4GB's in size and can have a formatted internal exFat hard disk. All of this is necessary to transfer RAW video files.

And you bet I tested it with the BMPCC RAW files (I value empirical work, based on theory smile.gif). And it will copy Pro Res, or any file you want - it just makes bit-perfect copies of whatever is on the sd card, as long as the card and disk formatting is compatible.
post #33 of 62
Thread Starter 
I understand. I wonder if it can also format the card. But thats not essential, since I can format it on another camera - I always travel with at least 3. Thats a really handy piece of hardware.

And I still believe that the OIS on the 14-42 wont work (both standard and pancake lenses) because they dont have the switch. I have tested the standard. The 14-45 works, and I have already tested it - it has the switch. Its a shame because having the zoom pancake would be awesome.

But anyway, you can always shoot a ProRes test with the 14-42 against the 12-35 to check it out. Im reading everywhere that lenses without the switch wont work.
post #34 of 62
I think you are correct that in fact the X Vario 14-42mm lens OIS is not working, contrary to the BM FAQ.

What I would really like is a fast lens with OIS that works.

I don't think the Nexto DI formats sd cards (it will format its own hard disk), although it will erase sd card files. I think erase, however, is not good enough for RAW shooting.
post #35 of 62
Thread Starter 
Yep. Im beginning to hate the m43 system. The lenses are pretty expensive.

The only prime with OIS is a 45mm f2.8 macro. F2.8 in the BMPCC will give you pretty good low light performance, but they should give us at least f2.0 - and 135mm is not a versatile focal lenght.

And come on, you dont even have a fast-50 with OIS. Thats a shame.

My BMPCC kit is like that at the momment:

- Blackmagic Pocket
- Panasonic 20mm f1.7 as an all around lens (my favourite focal length is 50mm. I hope I can handhold that without shaking too much)
- Panasonic 45-200 (because I use more telephoto than wide angle, specially for portrait shots)
- 64GB 95MB/s for RAW
- 64 GB 80MB/s for ProRes
- Step up ring for a 72mm variable ND
- RainbowImaging adapter for my EF lenses


* I dont know if I will get the 20mm panasonic or the 17mm f1.8 from Olympus. The Olympus looks sexy and its wider. The problem is that the Panasonic is technically superior. I wonder if I will notice the difference. Does anyone has experience with that lens?
Edited by thedest - 12/1/13 at 3:23pm
post #36 of 62
Nice kit! I hope you post some of your (future) clips.

Bill
post #37 of 62
Thread Starter 
I will!

And here is another nice comparison between RAW and h264. Even in a situation with not that much contrast RAW can make a big difference

https://vimeo.com/66459419
post #38 of 62
First clip has approximately the right color, second clip has a magenta cast.

Yet another example of a RAW fail? wink.gif
post #39 of 62
Thread Starter 
I have spent 30 seconds of my life looking at your comment and thinking: "what should I say to a poor guy like him?"

Maybe one word: pity...

EDIT: I removed the last part of my post (wich was offensive) because I think that you dont deserve too much attention. You are just a poor guy who is trying to make a point about something you dont know.
Edited by thedest - 12/2/13 at 6:08am
post #40 of 62
To be honest I think you can say either the RAW shot has magenta cast compared to the H264 shot OR the H264 shot is too cyan compared to the RAW shot. Which one is more accurate? You never know unless you were actually on the scene shooting those yourself. But I think none of this matters as much as with the RAW shot you can do so much more to make it suit your preference, if not somebody else's preference the final graded video is intended, yet the video still doesn't turn into junk. One thing is too obvious, though. The RAW resolution and detail are at least a class above the H264's. No surprise here. The resolution and detail difference between the BMCC's (not the Pocket) RAW and ProRes files for instance is no less obvious to anyone who sees it.
post #41 of 62
Thread Starter 
Exactly. Anyone that has ever taken a RAW picture in their life knows that WB is something irrelevant. Sometimes you open a RAW picture and you think that the WB is perfect. Then you warm it a little bit and BOOM! Suddenly the original looks like a blue ugly thing. Of course that when you compare the same shot with 2 different WBs you will see casts (blue, red, green yellow..). But the WB dont have to be perfect, it just has to be believable. I have yet to see a camera with perfect WB. All panasonics, sonys, canons etc have WBs with casts.

I begin to think that 99% of the users here have never taken a RAW picture in their lives.

To help a little bit, the advantages of the RAW in the example are:

- No blown out highlights compared to the H264, even in a low contrast situation. The highlight rolloff from the H264 makes it look like a cheap camera.
- Much more shadow detail.
- The H264 has muddy shadows - result of low bitrates, too much compression and also because those camera usually crush the shadows to benefit the highlights.
- More resolution - because of the lack of bad compression
- More resolution - because of the 4:4:4 sampling
- Better colors - because of the 4:4:4 sampling
Edited by thedest - 12/2/13 at 9:21am
post #42 of 62
Thread Starter 
BLANK
Edited by thedest - 12/2/13 at 3:05pm
post #43 of 62
Video Test of OIS on the Black Magic Pocket Camera

Shooting with the BMPCC without stability aids and without OIS evidently yields shaky video. How well does working OIS eliminate shake?

This short (RAW) video uses the Lumix 12-35mm, at full extension (100mm equivalent) without, and then with, OIS turned on. Just two scenes.

Select 1080p.
post #44 of 62
Thread Starter 
How is the low light performance @ 2.8 compared to the 20mm f1.7?

Too bad that this lens is so expensive. 1,200 bucks is too much. The focal length, the OIS and the speed are perfect as an all around lens.

Are you using some kind of post stabilization? Because I can clearly see a resolution hit in the stabilized shot. Is that also present in the original video? Its funny because we were discussing this just a few days ago.
post #45 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

How is the low light performance @ 2.8 compared to the 20mm f1.7?

Too bad that this lens is so expensive. 1,200 bucks is too much. The focal length, the OIS and the speed are perfect as an all around lens.

Low-light Tests: Frame grabs using the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 first, then the Lumix 20mm f2.0. RAW converted to jpegs using Lightroom 5.2.

Low-light:


Extremely low-light:
post #46 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by P&Struefan View Post

To be honest I think you can say either the RAW shot has magenta cast compared to the H264 shot OR the H264 shot is too cyan compared to the RAW shot. Which one is more accurate? You never know unless you were actually on the scene shooting those yourself. But I think none of this matters as much as with the RAW shot you can do so much more to make it suit your preference, if not somebody else's preference the final graded video is intended, yet the video still doesn't turn into junk. One thing is too obvious, though. The RAW resolution and detail are at least a class above the H264's. No surprise here. The resolution and detail difference between the BMCC's (not the Pocket) RAW and ProRes files for instance is no less obvious to anyone who sees it.

I am well aware of the advantages of working with uncompressed video rather than compressed video. I just find it amusing when he posts footage with adoration about how wonderful it is, when the color is clearly not done right. When you look at footage as a whole, minor imperfections (such as a loss of resolution) are less important than more obvious imperfections (such as color casts). A viewer is going to notice that, while they might not notice more minor or localized things. He presents himself as an expert on these matters, presumably because he feels that he has "seen the light" and that is enough, but it is not true.

As far as resolution is concerned, while these things might be very important on a computer monitor, where you are very close to the screen, it is much less important on a TV screen. On a TV you are looking at the screen as a whole, while on a monitor you are looking at a portion of the display. On a TV screen differences in resolution will be negligible for practical purposes, but a color cast will be huge.
post #47 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Low-light Tests: Frame grabs using the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 first, then the Lumix 20mm f2.0. RAW converted to jpegs using Lightroom 5.2.

I dont know how low that light was, but it looks like that is probably the best all around lens for the pocket. I have made some tests myself and I saw that @ f1.8 - ASA800 the camera was able to capture more shadow detail than my eyes could see. The 20mm is a T2 lens and the zoom is T3. I imagine that the low light performance will be more than enough. Im pretty sure you will have some low light situations on your next videos. Maybe a video shot a night?

Mark, have you checked the original video that you posted on youtube? I was really surprise to see the resolution hit. I dont think that it makes OIS useless, but it sure shows that in the situations that you can put the camera on a tripod or a table, it should the number 1 choice.
post #48 of 62
In the very low-light (it was dark where the eye could see no color essentially), the f1.8 clearly has less grain when pushed. What is nice is there is luminance noise but no chroma noise (colored specs dancing around) - it is like film grain.

Night shots are tricky - for the above I was seeing what would happen with no light to push the clips so it looks like there was good light. I shot (and shoot) everything at ISO800 with this camera.

Night scenes are naturally dark. I dislike intensely night scenes artificially pushed up to look like - what? dusk? Shoot so the neon signs are not blown (street scenes, fairs at night), edit so they have the right, bright color for those signs and done. Most of the rest should be very dark. If one does that it is not clear that you even need a fast lens. I have IR with one of my Sonys if I want to video in the dark. smile.gif
post #49 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tugela View Post

On a TV screen differences in resolution will be negligible for practical purposes, but a color cast will be huge.

redface.gif

Highlight
.

.
Shadow
.

.
Resolution
.

.
And yet, people would rather see a video that screams "cheap camera"...
.

.
... rather than this!
.

.

Yeah right. And the funny thing is that panasonic is known for their blue cast, canon for their yellow cast, but when you have a cast on a RAW file is a FAIL (wich you can eliminate if you want to - something that you cant do on other cameras because it will degrade the image)
Edited by thedest - 12/2/13 at 6:12pm
post #50 of 62
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

In the very low-light (it was dark where the eye could see no color essentially),

So thats better than I thought.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Night scenes are naturally dark. I dislike intensely night scenes artificially pushed up to look like - what? dusk? Shoot so the neon signs are not blown (street scenes, fairs at night), edit so they have the right, bright color for those signs and done. Most of the rest should be very dark. If one does that it is not clear that you even need a fast lens. I have IR with one of my Sonys if I want to video in the dark. smile.gif

I agree. Im actually worried about getting a lens that @ ASA800 allows me to recreate something similar to what my eyes were seeing. But I think that Im just having that normal anxiety before buying a new system.
post #51 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

redface.gif

Highlight
.

.
Shadow
.

.
Resolution
.

.
And yet, people would rather see a video that screams "cheap camera"...
.

.
... rather than this!
.

.

Yeah right. And the funny thing is that panasonic is known for their blue cast, canon for their yellow cast, but when you have a cast on a RAW file is a FAIL (wich you can eliminate if you want to - something that you cant do on other cameras because it will degrade the image)

It look's like a dull overcast day.

He say's it was a dull overcast day.

Why do you want to make the lighting look like it isn't a dull overcast day? And in the process introduce a color cast?

I happen to have mini-obsession with streams, and to me the first clip appears to be a more accurate representation of what a stream actually would look like under those lighting conditions.

He has done it as an exercise in modding RAW footage. That is fine, but it doesn't mean the color is right. The issue with your view is that you assume that because it is RAW, the color must be good. That is not a wise assumption. In most cases with RAW footage, the shooter is making a worse guess at the correct color than the camera would. Cameras are not perfect, they often get the color wrong as well, but that should not be an excuse for poor color correction.

And btw, a 5D Mark III is NOT a cheap camera.
post #52 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Low-light Tests: Frame grabs using the Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 first, then the Lumix 20mm f2.0. RAW converted to jpegs using Lightroom 5.2.

Low-light:


Extremely low-light:

When you're in China, can you look for a girl friend for that guy!
post #53 of 62
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
post #54 of 62
Thread Starter 
Thats a perfect analysis.

When I started to play with RAW videos my eyes changed, and now I can see lots of tricks being applied in movies and TV shows to create a feeling. Some of them have a blue cast (usually police series), some are yellow and some of them are even green. And the funny thing is that no one cares about that. It just adds to the mood of the show.

And when you are grading a RAW video, its pretty easy to recreate a believable natural look, buts its very hard to resist the temptation to create a "look". Its just fun.

Sometimes I feel the same thing about hanging a nice picture on the wall. Its just boring. Sometimes a distorted view from an artist is so much more entertaining.
post #55 of 62
Thread Starter 
A video made with the same kit that mark is using
..
vimeo version: https://vimeo.com/80866003
Edited by thedest - 12/3/13 at 1:35pm
post #56 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

A video made with the same kit that mark is using
..
vimeo version: https://vimeo.com/80866003

One thing i am not keen on is the greens,they look very similar too my GH2 as in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt2NgO8Zi1w old film of mine,i never took to the yellow look on its wild greens.
post #57 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

One thing i am not keen on is the greens,they look very similar too my GH2 as in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt2NgO8Zi1w old film of mine,i never took to the yellow look on its wild greens.

I agree on the greens - too yellow in all scenes. But in this case, because it is RAW, he can get it exactly (or at least more realistically) correct in the editor. In other words, it is not a camera fault - that is what he created from the RAW images.

I thought the reds may have been too hot also in some scenes (I am commenting on the color).
post #58 of 62
Thread Starter 
I dont know. I think that the RAW video is pretty accurate. The greens are green enough for me. And the images from the motorshow are just wonderful.

Some of the shots are in the end of the afternoon, so maybe its the warm light of the sun. And we have to remember that in different countries we have different kinds of light.

Im pretty sure that my RAW videos will be a shock for a person that lives in Russia or England, because the lights from those countries are completely different from the one I live, and the sky will never be as blue. I live in a place with lots of sunlight and saturation. When I go to Europe I get kinda depressed, because it looks live im living in an old undersaturated movie. Even the grass looks dull biggrin.gif

And the GH2 video also looks pretty good to me. I dont know if its accurate because I wasnt there, but its very believable. (EDIT: I have just watched the GH2 video again, and its actually a pretty nice video. I dont think that the greens are bad at all)

I think I never saw people talking so much about accuracy. We should wait for mark's next videos, because he also loves accurate results - im more about the art.
Edited by thedest - 12/3/13 at 6:06pm
post #59 of 62
Wow...that is interesting music! smile.gif

But yes, too much yellow, that is why the vegetation had that odd color.
post #60 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedest View Post

I dont know. I think that the RAW video is pretty accurate. The greens are green enough for me. And the images from the motorshow are just wonderful.

Some of the shots are in the end of the afternoon, so maybe its the warm light of the sun. And we have to remember that in different countries we have different kinds of light.

Im pretty sure that my RAW videos will be a shock for a person that lives in Russia or England, because the lights from those countries are completely different from the one I live, and the sky will never be as blue. I live in a place with lots of sunlight and saturation. When I go to Europe I get kinda depressed, because it looks live im living in an old undersaturated movie. Even the grass looks dull biggrin.gif

And the GH2 video also looks pretty good to me. I dont know if its accurate because I wasnt there, but its very believable. (EDIT: I have just watched the GH2 video again, and its actually a pretty nice video. I dont think that the greens are bad at all)

I think I never saw people talking so much about accuracy. We should wait for mark's next videos, because he also loves accurate results - im more about the art.

As post 41 says,vegitation was too yellow,i filmed it,all my greens were so no matter what settings,PS have you never been to the Mediterranean sea in summer pretty vivid colours,even old England does at times.smile.gif
Yes i like the music Tugela,i cant find the disc now though rolleyes.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Working with RAW video: a topic to share techniques