Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ProRes Flavors vs DNG RAW - BMPCC

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

  • ProRes Flavors vs DNG RAW - BMPCC

    In this video, I compare all of the ProRes formats with eachother and then stack them against DNG RAW. The video is mainly focused on compression, and what you can expect from general use.



    ProRes files shot at f16, ISO 200 with 45 degree shutter (only because my ND filter had been left at home and it was a bright day).
    RAW file shot f5.6, ISO 800 with a 45 degree shutter (exposed to the right).

    Download source files here: http://goo.gl/x6oE5Q

    Thanks for watching! Hope it helps! It certainly enlightened me.
    Last edited by D.L. Watson; 10-04-2014, 02:58 PM.
    www.dlwatson.net
    Follow @ Facebook: www.facebook.com/dlwatson.filmmaker
    Follow @ Twitter: www.twitter.com/dlwfilms

  • #2
    If you shoot log and record in prores you need to do so at iso 800 for an accurate comparison to raw. You're throwing away a ton of information shooting at 200. The difference is really not as substantial as presented here. Good Luck and thanks for posting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah to me the only reason to buy the camera is for RAW, for anything requiring less there are a range of much better options.
      Lotsa Zeon thingos with thousands of cute cores...enough is never enough

      www.andrewdeme.com
      http://www.youtube.com/andrewdeme
      www.facebook.com/andrewdeme
      http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewdeme

      (I reserve the right to edit, modify or delete any content I create anywhere at anytime...it probably wasn't that good anyway)

      Comment


      • #4
        The Pocket Cinema camera's smaller sensor means you hit diffraction much earlier, around f/8-ish. I would think having shot this test at twice that means the results suffer. This seems to be more of an issue since you shot the raw files at a more appropriate f/5.6 and upped the ISO to 800. Why the change?

        You can clearly see a difference on the zoom in when aliasing suddenly appears on the car's grille in the raw clip which was not there on the ProRes.
        Last edited by Gary Huff; 10-05-2014, 06:41 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by AndrewDeme View Post
          the only reason to buy the camera is for RAW..
          yup
          instagram
          my work

          Comment


          • #6
            Shoot in RAW, Grade in Resolve Lite, Export to ProRes HQ, Edit in FCPX...throw away RAW.

            Owning a BlackMagic Camera and shooting in ProRes means you are missing out on all the fun...as per the test vid.
            Lotsa Zeon thingos with thousands of cute cores...enough is never enough

            www.andrewdeme.com
            http://www.youtube.com/andrewdeme
            www.facebook.com/andrewdeme
            http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewdeme

            (I reserve the right to edit, modify or delete any content I create anywhere at anytime...it probably wasn't that good anyway)

            Comment


            • #7
              RAW isn't for everything. It's a tool. There's nothing wrong with ProRes if you know how to work within its parameters and you don't need a deep grade.

              Good luck shooting an interview in Raw

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gary Huff View Post
                The Pocket Cinema camera's smaller sensor means you hit diffraction much earlier, around f/8-ish. I would think having shot this test at twice that means the results suffer. This seems to be more of an issue since you shot the raw files at a more appropriate f/5.6 and upped the ISO to 800. Why the change?

                You can clearly see a difference on the zoom in when aliasing suddenly appears on the car's grille in the raw clip which was not there on the ProRes.
                Excellent observations on the video, Gary. He mentioned he forgot his ND filters and changed the exposure when going to raw because he wanted to expose to the right for raw versus a more normal exposure for the ProRes. But with the ND filters, he would not have stopped the lens down so far and used a normal shutter angle and ISO rating presumably.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AndrewDeme View Post
                  Yeah to me the only reason to buy the camera is for RAW, for anything requiring less there are a range of much better options.
                  So 12.5 stops of dynamic range, unparalleled lens options, and HQ prores for $1000 bucks doesn't do it for you?

                  Originally posted by AndrewDeme View Post
                  Shoot in RAW, Grade in Resolve Lite, Export to ProRes HQ, Edit in FCPX...throw away RAW.

                  Owning a BlackMagic Camera and shooting in ProRes means you are missing out on all the fun...as per the test vid.
                  Good advice if you're shooting a 1:1 ratio, in a real world 10:1+ not so much. Why both grade and covert to HQ a bunch of footage that's going to end up on the floor?

                  Originally posted by Gary Huff View Post
                  The Pocket Cinema camera's smaller sensor means you hit diffraction much earlier, around f/8-ish. I would think having shot this test at twice that means the results suffer. This seems to be more of an issue since you shot the raw files at a more appropriate f/5.6 and upped the ISO to 800. Why the change?

                  You can clearly see a difference on the zoom in when aliasing suddenly appears on the car's grille in the raw clip which was not there on the ProRes.
                  Right so the prores footage is exposed 3 stops under the raw footage physically, and 2 stops digitally.

                  One of the things about these "tests" I find irksome is that the poster rarely learns anything in the process. By and large they serve to reinforce an already present opinion. There's a 5 stop exposure difference and it never occurs to the OP to check his methodology before spending hours in post and advising other people how to shoot. Not much of a comparison, but well presented.

                  I'd challenge anyone to shoot a side by side @ 800 changing ONLY raw recording vs prores and report back on how much difference there really is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is a massive difference between the data rate, bit depth and dynamic range of RAW and ProRes HQ, sure in the hands of a highly skilled professional with best of breed lighting....the difference will be less obvious.

                    But for me the magic is in the unscripted moment and the latitude I get from RAW allows me to minimise many of the mistakes I make at the time of shooting and I make heaps of mistakes !
                    Lotsa Zeon thingos with thousands of cute cores...enough is never enough

                    www.andrewdeme.com
                    http://www.youtube.com/andrewdeme
                    www.facebook.com/andrewdeme
                    http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewdeme

                    (I reserve the right to edit, modify or delete any content I create anywhere at anytime...it probably wasn't that good anyway)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AndrewDeme View Post
                      There is a massive difference between the data rate, bit depth and dynamic range of RAW and ProRes HQ, sure in the hands of a highly skilled professional with best of breed lighting....the difference will be less obvious.
                      There is little if any difference in the dynamic range of raw and pro res footage on the BMPCC. The bit depth doesn't even come in to play until you start pushing the footage. The dynamic range is a function of the chip and the exposure curve not the compression, if compression had anything to do with dynamic range (it doesn't) why do HQ and Proxy look identical in terms of DR? The difference shown here has nothing to do with talent it's the fact the exposure settings are totally different, 5 stops. Don't you own a pocket, how is this news? Apparently the magic of raw minimizes the amount of time we need to spend learning how our cameras work.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I find this more of an accurate comparison test

                        http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.ph...-BMCC-Showdown

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Howie Roll View Post
                          There is little if any difference in the dynamic range of raw and pro res footage on the BMPCC. The bit depth doesn't even come in to play until you start pushing the footage. The dynamic range is a function of the chip and the exposure curve not the compression, if compression had anything to do with dynamic range (it doesn't) why do HQ and Proxy look identical in terms of DR? The difference shown here has nothing to do with talent it's the fact the exposure settings are totally different, 5 stops. Don't you own a pocket, how is this news? Apparently the magic of raw minimizes the amount of time we need to spend learning how our cameras work.
                          The whole fun with the Black Magic Camera range and RAW is in pushing the footage, otherwise shooting RAW is overkill.

                          Shoot for 5 and spend 20 post processing.
                          Lotsa Zeon thingos with thousands of cute cores...enough is never enough

                          www.andrewdeme.com
                          http://www.youtube.com/andrewdeme
                          www.facebook.com/andrewdeme
                          http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewdeme

                          (I reserve the right to edit, modify or delete any content I create anywhere at anytime...it probably wasn't that good anyway)

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X