RAW Momentum?

[Davide DB]

The simultaneous release of the Zr and C50, along with Resolve's ability to import ProRes RAW, was truly like throwing a stone into a pond. Now the shilltubers and others are going crazy over RAW. I wonder if this is just a moment or if it will last.

I have played with the Zr RAW files you linked me to. Gorgeous. So far, there is no news of C50 files.

If any of you have representative ProRes RAW files from the S1II, S1R, and GH7 to share, you would be doing me a big favor.

What I wonder is, do we really need RAW? As far as I know, even in cinema it is used sparingly. Of course, knowing you can shoot in RAW if you need to is nice, but has the cost of storage dropped, or did I miss something? Where the hell do I save an archive of RAW files? I would prefer H.265 or similar files that are lightweight and pleasant to work with. I have seen files from the FX3/FX6 that were spectacular and graded like butter in the Color page.

[ND64]

Other than marketing, raw is easy. I mean in electronics, bandwidth is always cheaper to provide than processing power, and raw needs less processing and more bandwidth. Note how soon Sony increased the bandwidth per sensor lane from 4Gb/s to 12.5Gb/s. 8 of these can handle 100Gb/s, enough for 10k60p 12bit! 

[Davide DB]

1 hour ago, ND64 said:

Other than marketing, raw is easy. I mean in electronics, bandwidth is always cheaper to provide than processing power, and raw needs less processing and more bandwidth. Note how soon Sony increased the bandwidth per sensor lane from 4Gb/s to 12.5Gb/s. 8 of these can handle 100Gb/s, enough for 10k60p 12bit! 

 

It's easy but archive storage it's not cheap. I mean, for my use case during the years I've building an underwater footage archive. nevertheless i understand that who works on events does not archives footage forever.

[eatstoomuchjam]

2 hours ago, Davide DB said:

What I wonder is, do we really need RAW?

"Need" is a strong word.  It's likely that a lot of the benefits of 12-bit raw could be realized by just using a 12-bit variant of any other codec.  I'm told that a lot of productions shot ProRes 4444XQ when they had Arriraw available.  That said, PRR HQ is about the same quality as 4444XQ, but with much smaller file sizes.  I think it's because PRR is non-debayered which means it's only saving 1 value per pixel instead of 3.

A limiting factor, though, is that a lot of processors and GPU's only have onboard support for accelerated decode of 10-bit HEVC - so 12-bit will seem really slow/laggy on a lot of people's systems.

Otherwise, people will talk about the ability to change white balance in raw, etc, but I've personally found those things to be a little bit overblown.  If you're swinging from 2300k to 5600k, maybe, it's better to have all of the color channel info, but if you captured at 5600k and want to move to 5200k, it's probably fine.  And, of course, people will bring up the ability to change ISO in the raw import, but this is asinine.  It is convenient as a quick way to change exposure, but is functionally equivalent to just adjusting an exposure slider for non-raw footage (again, as long as the file is thick enough that the all of the details are there). 

For me, I like having thick files with a lot of dynamic range - so for now, I prefer cameras with raw.  That's absolutely subject to change if people start shipping cameras with 12-16-bit HEVC.

2 hours ago, Davide DB said:

I have seen files from the FX3/FX6 that were spectacular and graded like butter in the Color page.

I think that the popularity of the FX3/FX6 and the sheer number of people making great-looking stuff with them serves as a great allegation against the necessity of raw.

It also really depends on your goal/intention.

I just got back from 2 weeks in Namibia.  I chose to bring my GFX 100 II and didn't bring an external recorder for raw so what footage I shot of animals there will be all 10-bit ProRes 422 (5.8k or 8k).  I also had an EOS R5 with me which was capable of 8k raw, but I ended up just giving it to my gf to use the whole time to shoot photos since the animals tended to be more than a few meters from the car and it let her see them (her with the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and me mostly with the GF 500/5.6).  I don't think that, even once, I thought to myself that I should take back the R5 to capture some raw footage of a giraffe drinking from a watering hole.

If anything, I thought "does this really need to be ProRes?"

[ND64]

Same arguments were valid in still photography. Lot of news/event shooters stuck with jpeg while the rest of photographers see the "jpeg only" sign on the camera display as a catastrophe. Its been always about having flexibility for artistic purposes. If your work is concentrated on documentation of real world as it is, Standard color profile Jpeg is the best choice.

[Jahleh]

As a just hobbyist I don’t probably need Raw, but viewing from a 3m screen you don’t want to view something shot on a phone in crappy HDR mode either. 

After starting to shoot Raw I’ve wanted to shoot more, to see how the Raw clips look. Also tinkered more in Resolve to get better understanding how to get better looking end result. Got also new lenses to get better footage from different angles.

Could have just done the same with Panasonic H.265 but somehow it started to feel boring. Sometimes change is good if it makes you want to shoot and learn more.

The only bad thing about Raw is cost of storage, which might make you trim the clips too tight to save space. For CPU and GPU in Apple land 6k raw isn’t any heavier to edit than 6k H.265, unless you need NR, which is as heavy as using speed warp to slow down 6k25p H.265.

4TB SSD costs now the same than 2TB a few years ago.

 

[Kino]

13 hours ago, ND64 said:

Other than marketing, raw is easy. I mean in electronics, bandwidth is always cheaper to provide than processing power, and raw needs less processing and more bandwidth. Note how soon Sony increased the bandwidth per sensor lane from 4Gb/s to 12.5Gb/s. 8 of these can handle 100Gb/s, enough for 10k60p 12bit! 

Agreed. However, as you have noted in your example, Sony's SLVS-EC interface is designed primarily for delivering high-resolution and high-framerate capture and not necessarily for increased bit depth:

https://www.sony-semicon.com/en/technology/is/slvsec.html#:~:text=Select content-,Overview,more pixels and higher speed.

https://www.automate.org/tech-papers/the-evolving-landscape-of-cmos-image-sensor-interfaces#:~:text=High-,SLVS-EC (Scalable Low-Voltage Signaling with Embedded Clock,and data transfer are critical.

[MrSMW]

It took me a long time to be persuaded of the advantage of raw vs Jpeg, but once I gave in, I saw the light.

I suspect if in camera storage and subsequent drive storage was not an issue, I might be tempted.

If I was to earlier in my career rather than the twilight, even more so, but I have decided against.

Very tempted with the new Zr, but in the end I have made the decision that I am better putting my effort elsewhere.

There are 3 areas for me where I could invest my time & energy.

1. Tech

2. Creativity 

3. Marketing 

I choose 2&3 going forward because 1. is as good as it needs to be for me.

[Ilkka Nissila]

17 hours ago, ND64 said:

Same arguments were valid in still photography. Lot of news/event shooters stuck with jpeg while the rest of photographers see the "jpeg only" sign on the camera display as a catastrophe. Its been always about having flexibility for artistic purposes. If your work is concentrated on documentation of real world as it is, Standard color profile Jpeg is the best choice.

In still photography, the storage space issue for RAW is less pressing than in video and since each still image can be studied for a long time (at least in print) people can pay more attention to quality (and photographers can afford more time into editing of individual frames with masks etc. while in video it would be extremely tedious to make exposure blending or other manually drawn mask based operations on a frame by frame basis). In the early years of digital system cameras, the difference between RAW and JPEG was more obvious and people got used to RAW because the image details were better and of course the files are more editable. For video, I suspect that RAW usage will be more limited to high end where there are professional colorists etc. and occasional shooters who don't shoot a huge quantity of material. But maybe I am wrong. 😉 

[eatstoomuchjam]

It's also worth pointing out that jpeg is, as far as I know, 8-bit only.  It's one of the reasons that modern iPhones (and maybe Android?) default to HEIF instead.

[Davide DB]

20 hours ago, ND64 said:

Same arguments were valid in still photography. Lot of news/event shooters stuck with jpeg while the rest of photographers see the "jpeg only" sign on the camera display as a catastrophe. Its been always about having flexibility for artistic purposes. If your work is concentrated on documentation of real world as it is, Standard color profile Jpeg is the best choice.

I don't think photographic RAW can be compared to video, or maybe I didn't understand your point.

With a 4TB hard drive, you can store infinite RAW photographs. I dive almost every week and usually bring home about 10 minutes of good footage, which I'd ideally like to archive. For special projects, I might get up to 20 minutes. This means between 100 and 300 GB per session. That's not a small amount.

Now, it's clear that shooting in RAW is not a medical prescription, but I was wondering if it's a practical solution for everyone, considering that's all anyone talks about now.

[Andrew Reid]

On 10/3/2025 at 12:15 PM, Davide DB said:

I would prefer H.265 or similar files that are lightweight and pleasant to work with. I have seen files from the FX3/FX6 that were spectacular and graded like butter in the Color page.

I prefer H.265 as well, over the pseudo raw formats.

Cinema DNG is still the best quality RAW in terms of the film look and unprocessed sensor readout.

[ND64]

4 hours ago, Davide DB said:

With a 4TB hard drive, you can store infinite RAW photographs

Thats with today storage technology and prices. 20 years ago, CompactFlash was expensive and one of the reasons people complained about raw. That's why they were insisting that 12 megapixels is enough and 24mp is unnecessary huge! 

[Snowfun]

21 hours ago, Jahleh said:

As a just hobbyist I don’t probably need Raw

True. Except that, as hobbyists, we’re not up against deadlines and there are occasions when the more stuff we have to play with, the better. In that respect raw provides more fun opportunities! That is, I suspect a very different perspective to that of a single working professional who needs to optimise client satisfaction (income) while minimising time spent sitting in front of a computer. 

[Andrew Reid]

Actually... The boom in raw codecs is being driven by clients

That's my hunch.

They want the best possible quality master files to do whatever they do with them.

And lack the understanding that H.265 is more than fine, or that LOG should *shock horror* be graded!

[Jahleh]

55 minutes ago, Snowfun said:

True. Except that, as hobbyists, we’re not up against deadlines and there are occasions when the more stuff we have to play with, the better. In that respect raw provides more fun opportunities!

Absolutely agree. Since starting to shoot Raw, even pseudo one, shooting and editing have become more interesting. 

 The only deadline that a hobbyist can have is to clear your CFExpress card every night, if you plan on shooting the next day. I have only one 2TB card, so I took a habit to trim the captured footage after every shooting day, save it to SSD, and edit a quick video out of it, so we can watch it from the big screen how the day went. 

[ND64]

People are using Z5ii, a $1700 camera, to shoot raw video, with changing extension hack. 4k30p, 450mb/s on SD. Yea its soft, but its filmic soft.

I like this approach when I don't want to deal with massive files.

[Davide DB]

Where I can download S1II raw files to play with?

[KnightsFan]

On 10/4/2025 at 3:33 AM, eatstoomuchjam said:

It's also worth pointing out that jpeg is, as far as I know, 8-bit only.  It's one of the reasons that modern iPhones (and maybe Android?) default to HEIF instead.

This is my reason for shooting photos raw. The difference between 8-bit jpeg and raw photos is much greater than between 10-bit log and raw video.

And also most in-camera jpeg profiles aren't exactly documented, afaik. With a documented log curve you can adjust white balance and exposure in post, and while you lose "some" fidelity vs raw, the transformations are accurate. So on a slightly different topic, I'd personally really like for more photo cameras to shoot 10 bit log photos, and for standard photo editing software to have the same kind of color management that Resolve has. I don't do anything crazy to my photos, but I do see the limits of 8 bit jpeg in normal use, which I do not see with 10 bit log video.

 

Overall, I sort of suspect that most people who want to shoot raw video already are. External raw recorders are easy enough, so if you're already committed to the workflow and HDD requirements, the external recorder often isn't the breaking point.

[Ilkka Nissila]

7 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

And also most in-camera jpeg profiles aren't exactly documented, afaik. With a documented log curve you can adjust white balance and exposure in post, and while you lose "some" fidelity vs raw, the transformations are accurate. So on a slightly different topic, I'd personally really like for more photo cameras to shoot 10 bit log photos, and for standard photo editing software to have the same kind of color management that Resolve has. I don't do anything crazy to my photos, but I do see the limits of 8 bit jpeg in normal use, which I do not see with 10 bit log video.

While I think it would make sense for hybrid cameras to offer similar "looks" across photos and video for easier presentation together, I am not really sure storing photos in log format makes sense.  First, while linear encoding would waste bits due to the highlight photon shot noise making the least significant bits meaningless, this has already been corrected in compressed raw file formats such as Nikon's (technically lossy but visually lossless) compressed NEF. If I recall correctly, Nikon simply leaves out the LSBs in highlight pixels, thus saving storage space. In log video mode, cameras bias the exposure metering to produce about three stops of underexposure compared to normal SDR photos, and this leads to a lot of noise in the main subject (if there is one). It may not be such an issue for video because in video you can do temporal noise reduction which you cannot do for photos since they're individual frames with different content in each image. Usually in still photography, people want the main subject to have the highest possible image quality, and exposure metering algorithms typically emphasize the detected or selected subject and only secondarily protect highlights from blowing out. I still almost always increase midtones in post-processing by a curves adjustment, reducing highlight contrast and bringing the subject (midtones) up in brightness. For scenes that require a large dynamic range, many photographers I know of shoot a set of bracketed frames in order to ensure high SNR for each major part of the image and then merge the images with masks or other such techniques (depending on the subject). For video, exposure blending with masks is not possible but some automated DR-enhancement methods that blend two amplification levels exist in a few cameras (dual gain output). While the idea of having highlight exposure latitude is appealing, it comes at a cost in the midtone and shadow SNR and I think many still photographers would consider the outcome to be of poor quality compared to what they are used to. It's also the case that many if not most (?) still photographers use Auto ISO and manual exposure mode as their go-to exposure mode and they expect the camera in most cases to set the ISO precisely to get close to the desired brightness for the main subject as they are shooting. I often set the camera to ISO 100 or 64 and Auto ISO, lettting the camera vary ISO from 64 to 12800 to get the exposure correct and the photos near usable as they come out of the camera with minimal tweaking. This won't work for log as most of the ISO settings are unusable in log given the 3 stop underexposure built-into the approach. Yes, you can apply +2-3 stops of EV correction and then get similar results to linear modes but then the exposures on the screen will look off and it's harder to see the subject and get the correct feeling of the scene and how it would render in the photograph. I just don't see this going anywhere outside of a few filmmakers wanting look-matched still photos when video is their primary output. Still photographers outside of agency photojournalism shoot raw and that's that for the most part.