Shooting in RAW format is the go-to method if you want superior image quality, flexibility in post-production, and peace of mind that you’re getting nothing but the best out of your camera, right? Well, not so fast. Björn Kurtenbach took a comprehensive look at the differences between processed XF-AVC and RAW formats with his Canon EOS C300 Mark III. Being a filmmaker and cinematographer for many years, Björn Kurtenbach has gained some experience with different shooting formats over the years. And now that RAW formats seem to have finally become mainstream in many sub-$10-15k cameras (Nikon Z 9 for example – article here), the question arises whether it really makes sense to shoot everything in RAW. Everything looks the same (until we start pixel-peeping). Image credit: Björn Kurtenbach XF-AVC vs RAW The Canon EOS C300 Mark III offers something called Cinema RAW Light as an internal recording option. This format is somewhat manageable in terms of file sizes, as its bitrate is only a tad higher than the XF-AVC All-I (Intra-Frame) codec. Since huge file sizes are one of the most commonly cited problems in RAW workflows, Björn thought this might be a good approach to test the actual image quality of the RAW-Light format compared to AF-AVC codecs in both intra-frame and inter-frame compression. It turns out that filming in RAW format just for the sake of it doesn’t make much sense. The image quality is not better per se. It does hold the potential to deliver better image...
Published By: CineD - Thursday, 12 May, 2022