How Jordan of DPReview showcases flexibility of RAW video (lazily)

[The Dancing Babamef]

Canon R3 Final Review - YouTube

@ 6:26

 Jordan: "if you need tons of flexibility in post, this lets you record RAW video internally--"

and the example of the flexible grading you're able to do with the internal RAW looks like he did the example grade in 5s, he raised the shadows in the underexposed clip and upped the saturation but that's it. Lazy if you ask me. 

 

[newfoundmass]

It's Canada in late November. I'm not sure what you're expecting from that shot... I suppose he could've made it look unrealistic? 

I'd be more critical of his shot choice than his grading of Alberta when everything is gray and muted. 

[fuzzynormal]

You can't save crappy shots.  You screw it up in the field it'll never look right.  That's why I'm always left scratching my head as to why shooters are so laser focused on squeaking out .5 stops of DR with their gear.

[newfoundmass]

DR is great but also really overrated. It's one of those things that really only matters to us video dorks. 

[Mark Romero 2]

9 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

Canon R3 Final Review - YouTube

@ 6:26

 Jordan: "if you need tons of flexibility in post, this lets you record RAW video internally--"

and the example of the flexible grading you're able to do with the internal RAW looks like he did the example grade in 5s, he raised the shadows in the underexposed clip and upped the saturation but that's it. Lazy if you ask me. 

 

It's funny because when i was watching the video this morning I was thinking, "what a bad grade!" Sure, it is kind of a bland shot of a bland Alberta sunset but Jinkies, Scooby.

[kye]

On 11/21/2021 at 12:10 AM, The Dancing Babamef said:

Canon R3 Final Review - YouTube

@ 6:26

 Jordan: "if you need tons of flexibility in post, this lets you record RAW video internally--"

and the example of the flexible grading you're able to do with the internal RAW looks like he did the example grade in 5s, he raised the shadows in the underexposed clip and upped the saturation but that's it. Lazy if you ask me. 

 

Now now, he's a camera reviewer who reviews cameras for making camera reviews, you have to keep a hold of your expectations!

These are the same people that keep making endless "how to get cinematic images" videos but for some unfathomable reason keep talking about new cameras and higher resolutions when the people who actually make cinema have basically been using the same cameras for a decade.

[austinchimp]

Now I haven't watched the review itself, but aren't we being a bit harsh here?

I find this a useful - if basic - demonstration of the DR and a quick and dirty grade. It's an ugly shot, sure. It's not a Hollywood level production, but if I'm being honest this is the kind of shot I end up with in my edits frequently, and the kind of shot you want to know you can salvage something 'usable'. Not spectacular or perfect, but usable, and in that case this is a good demonstration.

If you're expecting world-class images from both a technical and artistic standpoint then go see Dune in the cinema or watch any number of big-budget movies. This is a low/no budget camera review.

As a content maker myself I can see what he was trying to do, and it was adequate in my view. I don't like this attitude of piling on on somebody for one shot that you personally might have done different.

Or perhaps all of our work is beyond reproach with every shot a masterpiece?

[Jimmy G]

In the context of a camera review methinks the backlit scene tries to provide example of what can be found in lifted shadows...is that particular example a strong argument for RAW (internal or otherwise)? I think not...merely narrative footage as the reviewer plows through passing points. Some controlled test scenes demonstrating the capabilities of Canon's internal RAW implementation would be of value, but that was not what that video review was about.

[The Dancing Babamef]

7 hours ago, austinchimp said:

Now I haven't watched the review itself, but aren't we being a bit harsh here?

I find this a useful - if basic - demonstration of the DR and a quick and dirty grade. It's an ugly shot, sure. It's not a Hollywood level production, but if I'm being honest this is the kind of shot I end up with in my edits frequently, and the kind of shot you want to know you can salvage something 'usable'. Not spectacular or perfect, but usable, and in that case this is a good demonstration.

If you're expecting world-class images from both a technical and artistic standpoint then go see Dune in the cinema or watch any number of big-budget movies. This is a low/no budget camera review.

As a content maker myself I can see what he was trying to do, and it was adequate in my view. I don't like this attitude of piling on on somebody for one shot that you personally might have done different.

Or perhaps all of our work is beyond reproach with every shot a masterpiece?

"This is a low/no budget camera review." *price is set at $5 999* I'm not going to mention the price of the kit when it comes to RF-glass and the memory cards. When you see someone saying they're looking for a camera with little to no budget, are you going to offer this as a reasonable option? 

Stop taking what ever it is that makes write that hyperbolic and disingenuous garbage on 2nd/3rd paragraph, looks like a JPEG-shooter's opinion anyway. 

[PannySVHS]

Would love some more love for Canon 5d raw on this forum. Rather than topics about tech journalists. I used to enjoy Jordan and Chris. But my fascination for new cameras was the highest in the days of the gh2, gh3 and gh4, with some G6 magic inbetween. This cam tech youtube stuff is super videoish with dull images and astera lights of boredom most of the time. Kye discussed the phenomenon of microfilms and leisure time filming pleasures, personal vignettes with a personal and intimate approach. These tech channels do not inspire that. Jordan and Chris made many exiting videos for the camerastore but they were depending on the pioneering times of 5Ds, GH cameras and so on. Now its just a race for the lazy image with dynamic range overkill and pixel madness.

[austinchimp]

17 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

"This is a low/no budget camera review." *price is set at $5 999* I'm not going to mention the price of the kit when it comes to RF-glass and the memory cards. When you see someone saying they're looking for a camera with little to no budget, are you going to offer this as a reasonable option? 

Stop taking what ever it is that makes write that hyperbolic and disingenuous garbage on 2nd/3rd paragraph, looks like a JPEG-shooter's opinion anyway. 

low/no budget referred to the production value of the review itself, not to the type of productions it would be used on. As in - this review has been shot with a very low budget. They obviously don't use a big crew or have a gaffer with them, or even a proper DP. It's a run and gun review. With that knowledge, I don't expect too much. I just want to see simple demonstrations to illustrate what they're talking about.

Maybe your expectations are different, which is fine. Maybe if you post some examples of your work we can see what kind of level you're expecting? Not trying to provoke, only to understand where you're coming from.

[The Dancing Babamef]

color grade - YouTube

3 hours ago, austinchimp said:

low/no budget referred to the production value of the review itself, not to the type of productions it would be used on. As in - this review has been shot with a very low budget. They obviously don't use a big crew or have a gaffer with them, or even a proper DP. It's a run and gun review. With that knowledge, I don't expect too much. I just want to see simple demonstrations to illustrate what they're talking about.

Maybe your expectations are different, which is fine. Maybe if you post some examples of your work we can see what kind of level you're expecting? Not trying to provoke, only to understand where you're coming from.

My taste in grading. Camera: Z6 ,shot in ProRes RAW HQ

[newfoundmass]

I'm still unsure what you were expecting him to do with a shot like that? I'd kinda understand if you were criticizing him for not getting a better shot, but as far as a grade for that specific shot I'm not sure what else he could do to it. As stated, it's Alberta in late November on a cloudy, gray day. Where I live it's pretty much like that too, from November until April or May. 

This just seems petty. 

[mercer]

I'd say he was showing what can be done with the camera...

Logically, you wouldn't raise the shadows in that shot because there is no light source behind him, so his back should have been shadowed... even silhouetted.

And that's why it looks unnatural. 

[The Dancing Babamef]

It's not all about the grading, no one had a gun to his head forcing him to shoot and grade this exact shot. He should have enough experience to know what looks great and what doesn't.

If there's no light outside then maybe shoot the same internal RAW showcase inside with lights? Jordan has worked with cameras and different equipment while making videos for a decade. I am holding him to a high standard because he should know better.

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm still unsure what you were expecting him to do with a shot like that? I'd kinda understand if you were criticizing him for not getting a better shot, but as far as a grade for that specific shot I'm not sure what else he could do to it. As stated, it's Alberta in late November on a cloudy, gray day. Where I live it's pretty much like that too, from November until April or May. 

This just seems petty. 

 

[kye]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:47 PM, austinchimp said:

Now I haven't watched the review itself, but aren't we being a bit harsh here?

I find this a useful - if basic - demonstration of the DR and a quick and dirty grade. It's an ugly shot, sure. It's not a Hollywood level production, but if I'm being honest this is the kind of shot I end up with in my edits frequently, and the kind of shot you want to know you can salvage something 'usable'. Not spectacular or perfect, but usable, and in that case this is a good demonstration.

If you're expecting world-class images from both a technical and artistic standpoint then go see Dune in the cinema or watch any number of big-budget movies. This is a low/no budget camera review.

As a content maker myself I can see what he was trying to do, and it was adequate in my view. I don't like this attitude of piling on on somebody for one shot that you personally might have done different.

Or perhaps all of our work is beyond reproach with every shot a masterpiece?

In my experience, there are two kinds of (serious) codec tests that people do.

The first is for when you have controlled shoots and you are trying to understand the absolute sweet spot of the camera.  For this, you shoot a controlled scene using a model (or two), test charts, and anything else you might think is usable, and you shoot it at 0, and then under and over by 1 stop, 2 stops, 3 stops, 4 stops.  Then you bring everything back to proper exposure in post and look at the skin tones and noise and other image attributes.

This is used in seriousness by professional cinematographers who do the tests and then work out that perhaps the sweet spot is +0.5 stops, and they'll shoot the camera there for every shot on 8 and 9-figure productions because that's the best place for skin tones, or whatever.  "You expose camera X at X stops under/over" is common knowledge once a camera comes out and is tested and everyone will do that - why wouldn't you?

The second is for when you're not shooting in controlled shoots and you want to know how far you can push the camera.  For this, you shoot a range of situations and deliberately push the camera in all sorts of ways, under and over exposing in a range of circumstances, doing things like in low-light under exposing with native ISO and raising in post vs rising ISO in-camera etc, filming in mixed lighting and fixing in post, filming in radically contrasty lighting, filming highly saturated things like neon signs and car tail-lights to see how it handles extreme saturation, etc.  These tests are designed to work out how far you can push the camera.

Taking one shot is suitable for neither scenario and tells you very little.  It's.....lazy.

On 11/24/2021 at 3:44 AM, PannySVHS said:

Would love some more love for Canon 5d raw on this forum. Rather than topics about tech journalists. I used to enjoy Jordan and Chris. But my fascination for new cameras was the highest in the days of the gh2, gh3 and gh4, with some G6 magic inbetween. This cam tech youtube stuff is super videoish with dull images and astera lights of boredom most of the time. Kye discussed the phenomenon of microfilms and leisure time filming pleasures, personal vignettes with a personal and intimate approach. These tech channels do not inspire that. Jordan and Chris made many exiting videos for the camerastore but they were depending on the pioneering times of 5Ds, GH cameras and so on. Now its just a race for the lazy image with dynamic range overkill and pixel madness.

I'd suggest that the people who use 5D with ML are actually out shooting rather than talking about cameras.  It's one of the closest matches there is for an Alexa (the others being OG BMPCC / BMMCC, and maybe Sigma FP, etc) so once you get that setup it's camera choice = solved so move onto next choices like lenses and lighting and composition and story and then navigating the entire process to make and publish something.

On 11/24/2021 at 7:41 PM, austinchimp said:

low/no budget referred to the production value of the review itself, not to the type of productions it would be used on. As in - this review has been shot with a very low budget. They obviously don't use a big crew or have a gaffer with them, or even a proper DP. It's a run and gun review. With that knowledge, I don't expect too much. I just want to see simple demonstrations to illustrate what they're talking about.

Maybe your expectations are different, which is fine. Maybe if you post some examples of your work we can see what kind of level you're expecting? Not trying to provoke, only to understand where you're coming from.

Here's a test I did with the GH5 10-bit 150Mbps mode, which isn't even the GH5s best mode BTW, in trying to break the codec.  

I chose a flat looking scene and tried to break the flattest looking part of it (the clouds) to see what was there.  This is informal but is an example of a test to see where the limits of the 10-bit are.

I'm not in the R3 target market (or Canon Cripple Hammer target market for that matter) but if I was spending $6K on a camera then I'd want to know:

1. where the sweet spot of the camera is
2. how far I can push the darn thing and still get a "nice" image (ie, acceptable for a main shot - according to my standards)
3. how far I can push it and get a shot that is still usable in an edit (ie, for 1 second)

..and you want to see some work that puts things in context?  Sure.  I am an amateur who shoots travel and events for family and friends in available lighting (which is absolutely awful lighting BTW).

Here's a couple of videos where the camera was pushed beyond its/my capabilities.

and 

and lest you think I don't know WTF I'm doing, here's a test video I shot where the camera was within its capabilities.

Of course, all of this is hypothetical anyway, because if I was spending that much on a camera (the R6 costs about as much as all the cameras I have ever purchased put together BTW) I'd pretty much be asking Tarot Card readers for their opinion on it before listening to Jordan! 

[The Dancing Babamef]

I'd like to add that the content that Chris and Jordan make is largely audio except when you want to see example shots and possible cons of a lens or a camera to get a better view of what they're talking about.

I am in the small minority that talks about the color palette being too drab across all the videos of DPR TV and it's not that they have to make every shot interesting by grading it to look more vibrant and exciting. But when I see what they're using to record the reviews it makes you think: are they lazy? If I'm shooting a review and have my name basically as the editor I would then put my best foot forward.

[kye]

42 minutes ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

I'd like to add that the content that Chris and Jordan make is largely audio except when you want to see example shots and possible cons of a lens or a camera to get a better view of what they're talking about.

I am in the small minority that talks about the color palette being too drab across all the videos of DPR TV and it's not that they have to make every shot interesting by grading it to look more vibrant and exciting. But when I see what they're using to record the reviews it makes you think: are they lazy? If I'm shooting a review and have my name basically as the editor I would then put my best foot forward.

They're in the YT algorithm game, which oddly enough, doesn't take saturation into account, but does take into account how often you post.

Unless you're seriously talented, the best strategy is to post mediocre videos more often and if you have any spare time then you're better off putting them into gaming the system with clickbait-y titles and thumbnails.  Camera technology content (and all technology content really) is time-critical and basically disposable, so it's basically about pushing things through as quickly as possible at the minimum quality to retain viewers.

[The Dancing Babamef]

That is correct, although they don't pump out reviews that often. Their reviews are often followed by ads or product showcases.