RAW Momentum?

[KnightsFan]

@Ilkka Nissila I don't necessarily want "log," specifically, but the arbitrary curves from most photo cameras are more difficult to work with, compared to a documented curve that the editing software can mathematically transform into a common space. And yes, while log does move bit depth from the main exposure range, 10 bit is plenty of depth to overcompensate.

[ghostwind]

If you want the best quality, can afford storage, and have good computing power for editing, I don't see why you wouldn't shoot RAW. It's not too complicated, really. 

[KnightsFan]

2 hours ago, ghostwind said:

If you want the best quality, can afford storage, and have good computing power for editing, I don't see why you wouldn't shoot RAW. It's not too complicated, really. 

You're not wrong, but the complicated part is deciding whether you can afford storage and computing power, or whether to use that money on lenses, snacks for your crew, other life expenses, etc.

[ghostwind]

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

You're not wrong, but the complicated part is deciding whether you can afford storage and computing power, or whether to use that money on lenses, snacks for your crew, other life expenses, etc.

True, I would agree with this. For me, I always make it a priority, even though it's costly and I don't "see" anything new when spending all that money on RAID drives/arrays, memory cards, and the computer upgrade. But I do that knowing that in the past, I've always benefited from it and have never regretted it. 

[Framed_By_Dan]

It definitely seems like manufacturers are pushing Raw like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The average buyer of the prosumer hybrid mirrorless cameras does not need Raw. 

I noted some chat above about bandwidth vs processing power. Seems this is also the case with the Lumix S1II/S1IE.

Seems like Lumix is beginning to favour Raw over H.264 and H.265 recording, which is very disappointing. I tested one for a weekend and was let down by the horrendous digital sharpening and aggressive noise reduction in the compressed codecs, even when it's turned all way way down, it's not "off".

Many claim the extra sharpening is to help the AF, but the AF still works in Raw - the only recording format that actually looks organic and natural. So it's evidently a processing problem.

I was really excited by the prospect of the S1II but I'm afraid it's completely unusable for my needs. I don't want or need Raw, I'd just like a nice, natural looking H.265 image please.

[Ilkka Nissila]

13 hours ago, Framed_By_Dan said:

It definitely seems like manufacturers are pushing Raw like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

The average buyer of the prosumer hybrid mirrorless cameras does not need Raw. 

I noted some chat above about bandwidth vs processing power. Seems this is also the case with the Lumix S1II/S1IE.

Seems like Lumix is beginning to favour Raw over H.264 and H.265 recording, which is very disappointing. I tested one for a weekend and was let down by the horrendous digital sharpening and aggressive noise reduction in the compressed codecs, even when it's turned all way way down, it's not "off".

Many claim the extra sharpening is to help the AF, but the AF still works in Raw - the only recording format that actually looks organic and natural. So it's evidently a processing problem.

I was really excited by the prospect of the S1II but I'm afraid it's completely unusable for my needs. I don't want or need Raw, I'd just like a nice, natural looking H.265 image please.

How about Prores 422? Prores 422 4K at 25 fps is 433 Mbps vs. 2.3Gbps Prores RAW 6K (normal) and 3.5Gbps for Prores RAW HQ. I would think the Prores 422 on the S1II is likely to be a good intermediate sized format between RAW and h.265, at least from my Nikon experience the quality should be very good.  

[Framed_By_Dan]

2 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

How about Prores 422? Prores 422 4K at 25 fps is 433 Mbps vs. 2.3Gbps Prores RAW 6K (normal) and 3.5Gbps for Prores RAW HQ. I would think the Prores 422 on the S1II is likely to be a good intermediate sized format between RAW and h.265, at least from my Nikon experience the quality should be very good.  

The file sizes are still too large for my work. I shoot long form, or at least a full day's worth of footage and can easily come home with 400-500gb of footage as its stands. Prores 422 would double it.

[ND64]

21 hours ago, Framed_By_Dan said:

The average buyer of the prosumer hybrid mirrorless cameras does not need Raw. 

The average buyer doesn't even need 10bit and log profiles. Most of them hate color grading. A TikTok girl I follow was asking the followers the other day to help her find a camera that has good color science and doesn't need grading, because she has no time for that. 

[Framed_By_Dan]

3 hours ago, ND64 said:

The average buyer doesn't even need 10bit and log profiles. Most of them hate color grading. A TikTok girl I follow was asking the followers the other day to help her find a camera that has good color science and doesn't need grading, because she has no time for that. 

This is true. I don't even use Log for the bulk of my work. Only when I know it's worth it/have a somewhat controlled environment. This is what makes the S1II/S1IIE even more frustrating to me with it's aggressive digital sharpening. The "baked in" profiles just look plain ugly.

[Ilkka Nissila]

11 hours ago, Framed_By_Dan said:

This is true. I don't even use Log for the bulk of my work. Only when I know it's worth it/have a somewhat controlled environment. This is what makes the S1II/S1IIE even more frustrating to me with it's aggressive digital sharpening. The "baked in" profiles just look plain ugly.

Is there somewhere where we can see an example of this problem vs. another camera with a better implementation of h.265? I think it's understandable that when a highly compressed video codec is used, there is noticeable quality loss and the manufacturer is trying to mitigate this with some algorithmic processing of the data. Is it really the case that the quality of the h.265 is worse than in a previous model from Panasonic or another camera in a similar price class, or could it be a case of increasing expectations over time as we see high-quality footage using better screens more often? 

[ghostwind]

3 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Is there somewhere where we can see an example of this problem vs. another camera with a better implementation of h.265? I think it's understandable that when a highly compressed video codec is used, there is noticeable quality loss and the manufacturer is trying to mitigate this with some algorithmic processing of the data. Is it really the case that the quality of the h.265 is worse than in a previous model from Panasonic or another camera in a similar price class, or could it be a case of increasing expectations over time as we see high-quality footage using better screens more often? 

I don't have an example, but from experience, I can tell you that shooting H.265 on the Sony FX3/6 is a lot nicer than on my Nikon Z9s, where it's too compressed/low bitrate, has too much NR applied, etc. So I've been shooting N-RAW 8K24p & N-RAW 4K60p/120p, not just because I prefer the detail and flexibility in post (white balance & exposure corrections, & shooting 8K for 4K delivery produces very nice oversampled 4K and gives me room to punch in with zero resolution loss), but because I can't stand the H.265 implementation. So it varies from camera to camera. Although I myself prefer RAW, my ideal camera would also offer high bitrate H.265 and ProRes codecs with minimal NR and sharpening, and make these two very user-configurable too. It seems we now have too many cameras with either very high bit rate codecs or very low ones. There's nothing in the middle, really, that's nice and flexible in the post. See the new Nikon ZR as an example. And I'd settle for 6K over 8K. 6K is plenty for punching in, stabilizing, etc., in post for 4K delivery.