Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pocket 4K ProRes LT vs GH5 V-Log 10 bit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I don't like to say anything definitively because I'm a creative first and technician as a distant second.

    But in my experience, yes, raw and ProRes will clip at the same point.

    Similarly, one of the first quick tests I did with the new Extended Video mode on the P4K was to test clipping vs recording in film.
    What I saw immediately was that EV clipped earlier than film mode. Not a great deal but enought that it simply made sense to shoot in Film w/ the EV LUT active and then apply the EV LUT in post.

    Best of both worlds in that regard.

    Either way, again in my experience, the new color science and technology involved in the P4K shows a noticeably better handling of highlight roll-off, specifically on skin that previous BM cameras/color science.
    More organic, more color depth and softer highlights.

    This is shooting ProRes HQ.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ameer Azari View Post
      Data rates.
      ProRes which is basically MotionJPEG vs way more sophisticated H264 compression. Easy win of course...
      ProRes has to be set to 422 at least to be usable. LT is garbage
      My website:
      www.55media.net

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
        There's a video by ProAV that a lot of people are citing to say that RAW has more dynamic range but they were using Highlight Recovery which data for clipped channels based on data from non-clipped channels. When I commented about this on ProAV's video, they said that they were not able to get that detail out of the RAW footage without having Highlight Recovery checked on so it's likely that RAW and ProRes are clipping at the same point.
        Whatever it takes to get that detail back is fine by me. You can't pull it out of ProRes in Resolve (at least not yet), so yeah, RAW wins on the dynamic range front.

        HOPEFULLY, BRAW will maintain this advantage.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Flabasha View Post
          Whatever it takes to get that detail back is fine by me. You can't pull it out of ProRes in Resolve (at least not yet), so yeah, RAW wins on the dynamic range front.

          HOPEFULLY, BRAW will maintain this advantage.
          That's not dynamic range if it's detail being created by the NLE. And BRAW will have Highlight Recovery in the future.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Flabasha View Post
            Whatever it takes to get that detail back is fine by me. You can't pull it out of ProRes in Resolve (at least not yet), so yeah, RAW wins on the dynamic range front.

            HOPEFULLY, BRAW will maintain this advantage.
            Actually, it would be a great test to see the shadow recovery when you ETTR.

            That would solve the clipping in a second. And in a controlled environment, you can simply add a soft light in the dark areas.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'm relatively new to Resolve, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something here -- my background is in photography. But how is it possible that RAW wouldn't allow for more natural highlight recovery? In photography, that's one of its biggest advantages. Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does RAW video differ in that sense?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DJK83 View Post
                I'm relatively new to Resolve, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something here -- my background is in photography. But how is it possible that RAW wouldn't allow for more natural highlight recovery? In photography, that's one of its biggest advantages. Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does RAW video differ in that sense?
                While I'm not 100% on this I think a lot of the difference may come from the camera used. I know many photography cameras claim high stops of dynamic range when in photo mode but capture much more restricted range in video mode be it because of the colour space used or codec I'm not sure.

                But since these are dedicated video cameras the top dynamic range of 13 on the pockets should be what you get close to so long as your set to film log.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Ryanite View Post
                  I know many photography cameras claim high stops of dynamic range when in photo mode but capture much more restricted range in video mode be it because of the colour space used or codec I'm not sure.
                  Yes, but in that case, those cameras aren't shooting RAW video. What I don't understand is how RAW video differs from RAW photos. With every DSLR I've used (for photography, not video), you'll never see the full amount of dynamic range unless you shoot RAW and then recover highlights and push shadows. So I'm confused as to how it's possible that RAW and ProRes could clip at the same point.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                    That's not dynamic range if it's detail being created by the NLE. And BRAW will have Highlight Recovery in the future.
                    It's not creating anything. That info is in one of the color channels.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Flabasha View Post
                      It's not creating anything. That info is in one of the color channels.
                      I'm aware but it's using that data to create or modify data in the other channels.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
                        I'm aware but it's using that data to create or modify data in the other channels.
                        I'm not sure your viewers would care

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DJK83 View Post
                          Yes, but in that case, those cameras aren't shooting RAW video. What I don't understand is how RAW video differs from RAW photos. With every DSLR I've used (for photography, not video), you'll never see the full amount of dynamic range unless you shoot RAW and then recover highlights and push shadows. So I'm confused as to how it's possible that RAW and ProRes could clip at the same point.
                          Prores is a pretty darn good codec, I'm not sure it'd be a fair comparison to match it to jpeg. Sounds like jpeg on a camera simply drops a lot more information than prores does for video. Maybe it's not so much raw video vs raw photo but jpeg vs prores?

                          There's also Log which keeps all the information as compressed as possible, you can shoot ETTR and expose right before clipping and pull down everything after but you don't have to. So its not always the case that you need to pull down highlights. Usually you'd have all your information in the middle of a waveform, with raised shadows and dull highlights, then you'd pull down the shadows and push up the highlights.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Flabasha View Post
                            I'm not sure your viewers would care
                            True but that wasn't really my point.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DJK83 View Post
                              I'm relatively new to Resolve, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding something here -- my background is in photography. But how is it possible that RAW wouldn't allow for more natural highlight recovery? In photography, that's one of its biggest advantages. Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does RAW video differ in that sense?
                              A still camera uses a picture style to take a high DR still and cram it into a low DR pipe like sRGB.

                              A BM cam uses log encoding to cram high DR video into a low DR pipe like rec709.

                              The "video" mode on a BM cam is analogous to a DSLR picture style.

                              A picture style is the same thing as an in-camera LUT.

                              There is no difference between raw video and raw stills, they are the same thing.

                              Good Luck

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                the key difference here is LOG not the codec...

                                a stills camera shoots jpegs where the dynamic range captured is already 'collapsed' into the normal sRGB colour space and gamma curve
                                the video equivalent would be to shoot in rec709 or 'video' mode which does likewise though usually with more of an eye towards matching a technical video standard than making the best use of the input DR (BM's newer "extended "rec709 LUT does something more akin to how still cameras typically develop the raw sensor image into an sRGB jpeg)

                                however mostly we would shoot in 'film mode' which is BM speak for Log (similar to canon C log or arri logC, or sony Slog) This doesn't really have a stills camera equivalent at all. Its storing image values in a more efficient brightness encoding scheme (logarithmic rather than linear) designed to hold much more DR within a similarly limited number of bits but its not necessarily "raw" as such.

                                shooting to raw cinemaDNG is the direct equivalent of shooting in raw mode on a stills camera

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X