Policar Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The only difference between RAW and ProRes 4444 XQ (or regular 4444) is ProRes maxes out at 12-bits and is debayered in camera. RAW was an interesting idea to offload expensive processing on desktop computers- its days are numbered. Compressed codecs will completely replace RAW. ARRI is now even providing tiny 50Mbit/s 422 MPEG2 to improve workflows.I've been saying that for a while, but is it really true? Tv production seems afraid of raw workflows, but at the very high end and the very low end there seems to be a market for it.Not that I'll ever understand why.Red definitely made a brilliant marketing move taking its camera's greatest weaknesses (you need to debayer and downscale to 2k in post and there's no analogue gain) and turning them into its entire marketing campaign. The Red One was so ludicrously immature at launch, but it started a fire. The Dragon has evolved into a respectable machine, and the competition is impressive, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Plagaro Mussard Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 ARRI is now even providing tiny 50Mbit/s 422 MPEG2 to improve workflows.Maybe it's me, but I really can't understand to buy a 30K$ camera to record at 50Mbit/s........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Maybe it's me, but I really can't understand to buy a 30K$ camera to record at 50Mbit/s........ BBC would disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Maybe it's me, but I really can't understand to buy a 30K$ camera to record at 50Mbit/s........ (Really) Long takes, I guess Xavier Plagaro Mussard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Anyone have $20K I can borrow?I do. 33% interest compounded monthly. No pay, you get a visit from my Moldavian friends. Interested? We can meet in my office. It's in the back of Lenny's bar on 5th and Market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Ava Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Guys this is obviously a camera designed for women, small lightweight....ah EF mount! ah ah ah Xavier Plagaro Mussard, Cinegain and Andrew Reid 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtheory Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I've been saying that for a while, but is it really true? Tv production seems afraid of raw workflows, but at the very high end and the very low end there seems to be a market for it.Not that I'll ever understand why.Because only highend and indie filmmakers have the luxury of time. TV is an extremely fast-paced delivery-oriented business, they simply can't afford longer production times that RAW requires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Hughes Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Because only highend and indie filmmakers have the luxury of time. TV is an extremely fast-paced delivery-oriented business, they simply can't afford longer production times that RAW requires.Definitely. TV editors (for reality at least) are already working 15-20 hour shifts 6, maybe 7, days out of the week to meet the ridiculous deadlines. They might also be working with footage from 6 or so cameras that are rolling for basically hours and hours on end. RAW doesn't seem like it would fit into that production workflow very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norliss Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 Wise words from mtheory and Nick Hughes above. I work in Post Production and for TV programmes, if you mentioned RAW they'd think you were having a laugh.RAW is fine for indy films shooting a smaller amount of stuff over a shorter time period OR for big budget stuff with the time/manpower to deal with it, but for uber tight turnaround TV programmes in which they shoot large volumes, it just ain't practical. Not only that, but aside from the marquee HBO/AMC type stuff, TV just isn't made to such high standards that would necessitate shooting RAW. The in-camera codecs with C-Log, S-Log etc are plenty good enough for them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now