@GravitateMediaGroup :"so you think RAW is just "too much" of a workflow for the average shooter?"

Never said that, what I mean is RAW is more merchandising than real innovation, we have fullHD 10bit 4-4-4 uncompressed video for a while now, that is form o RAW, the reason most people didn't work with that is all around costs, not only the camera but everything you need. And the complexity to work with these formats. Many people avoid these workflow because its not cost effective unless you are shooting a film, or a super expensive documentary like BBC, or Super high quality commercial.

Now, today, RAW is accessible computers can handle it. AMAZING

Its always a personal choice, if you want to use it use it, but you will realize that for the most of us working with video, it's 70%/90% fast low payed work and 30%/10% work that you can pre-produce and plan accordingly, shoot relatively precise to not spend much hard drive, and spend hours transcoding and grading, to deliver in professional high quality. For me RAW fits this 30%/10% jobs and maybe my personal work. But for the rest 70%/90% I will not use RAW, don't have the time and 90% of the clients think the cheaper the better.

RAW is not free thou by any means, is not going to take you to the $100.000 mark as it was a couple of years ago it will take you $10000 for the camera and audio stuff and decent lenses only (you will not want cheap glass in RAW, if so better stick with H264), plus a $3000 computer to work fluid, plus backup solution $1000 to $4000 plus time loading files, lots of time transcoding, more time grading and rendering for high quality delivery. So if that fits average workflow go ahead and do it my thumb is UP.

like @radikalfilm said :"It's more about the feature set and operating logistics than acquisition format."

You have to thing what kind of work and how you will deliver and then price/quality wise choose the best way to do your job.

From my last comment: "Like I said before, RAW is another tool and a very good one indeed, that could make your work shine where you couldn't because of tight budgets, or tell the whole world that you don't have an idea what your doing.

Its all in the choices you make for every specific job/work."

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

I agree, hope someone soon to figure this out, some kind of AVCHD visualy lossless stream based in HDR frame analisis that could give us 12 to 14 stops of Visible DR, would be amazing. This with some room for grading would be like super compact compressed RAW.

@radikalfilm :"It's more about the feature set and operating logistics than acquisition format."

Completely in same boat, that's a much more realistic way to see things and keep both feet in the ground. RAW video is for the masses the illusion that make people thing they are closer to professional work. Raw will give very good results at budget productions if those productions are planned to shoot RAW, and proper grading is now a must.

I foresee thousands of Petabytes bad graded, badly recorded RAW over the next months. Just like when people "discovered" that "cinematic" look in FOV and 60P. NIGHTMARE

Like I said before, RAW is another tool and a very good one indeed, that could make your work shine where you couldn't because of tight budgets, or tell the whole world that you don't have an idea what your doing.

Its all in the choices you make for every specific job/work.

THANKS FOR THE AMAZING SPACE YOU HAVE HERE VITALIY

@leonbeas

This is why I think that place for second complimentary AVCHD stream exist. Where special RAW conversion and transformation is made, so all bright and shady areas are preserved most.

Quoting my missus and 4 (hey they were drunk) PM's who sign off ingestion/ cameras/ etc blah who I did try and buy Guiness for tonight - ... simplified -"fuck RAW" lol productions can't afford it! Lovely as it is to twiddle away in amateur world - and is great for future development - lets get real no-ones going to book a hack on a paid job however much you Andrew it. Cameramen dont choose cameras production do - hello? Noones shooting RAW in day to day as there's no budget or time !

@lolo since I brought it up..."sculpting" is really a pretentious way of saying "look at me I'm an artist" :) In post (finishing), it is more appropriate to call it scene relighting, and it's done for two reasons: a) the DoP screwed up but the take is selected for performance reasons b) There was a collective decision (director/DoP) to light the scene in post, so the scene is lit "barebones" on set (this means flat, not the lack of light!)

You'd do it in an app that is supportive of this sort of work (high end grading/finishing tools like Scratch, Smoke, and in compositing apps like Flame, Maya Composite (formerly Toxik), Nuke if you must). There is no single recipe and no single tutorial, it depends of where the scene needs to be taken.

Technical things would be selective exposure adjustment within a shape tracked to someone's face for example, or sky replacement for scene matching. Artistic decisions would be adding a light source to the scene (it needs to be integrated with proper perspective or it looks fake). Or removing (or rather attenuating) an existing light - this would use a freeform shape with very diffuse boundaries.

This would usually fall onto the colorist, but may involve VFX people as well. Pick a tool you want to learn and look for specialized tutorials for that tool.

"@radikalfilm what do you mean by "not wanting post"? I have no desire to learn anything about a Cinealta RAW workflow, a BMCC or a MK3 can give me all the "raw" I need."

I could give you a link to an Arri Alexa webinar then? :))) It's all log space anyway, but details matter. They're shooting "Game of Thrones" with it you know? Not interested? Nevermind, you root for the underdog, I get it. Now I'm trolling so I better stop.

The point I was seriously trying to make is that WORK just gets shifted around, from production to post. Some of it (sculpting with light) makes sense to stay on set regardless of acquisition medium advancement. Relighting a scene in finishing is technically possible with RAW, at $$$/hr. Having a good DoP on set at $$/hr and getting it right the first time is well, cheaper, if nothing else.

haha, here we go again...

@cde

technology may dramatically change, it's increasing at a faster rate everyday. In 10 years we may shoot video with our eyeballs.

Raw(not an acronym) doesn't give you better lighting, just more dynamic range.

Btw, it could be that you will be able to sculpt light via software. Adding 3D depth map and appropriate hardware can allow to make some light adjustments in post.

Most people just skipped around the topic and assumed that I get on my knees and pray to RAW every night.

Actually I assumed that after looking at your website ;-)

Raw(not an acronym) doesn't give you better lighting, just more dynamic range.

A bad shot, properly exposed with poor lighting is still a bad shot with poor lighting.

@seeker interesting point, just a better mouse trap. As I was laboriously developing in Lightroom pics I took over Easter of my nephews, my sister goes "Ah so your camera doesn't take normal pictures like ours", with a somewhat quizzical look (like in "try in two sentences or don't bother"). So I'm like "As I'm pushing these sliders around imagine I'm in a dark room pouring chemicals and shaking trays just the right amount. Your camera does that for you when you take the picture, but badly".

She understood the analogy, and will never be interested in learning "pouring chemicals and shaking trays", she wants the red button with whatever comes out. GMC's fallacy is there will be an "iAuto" button/workflow for RAW that will be sooo good and knowledgeable, that any production disaster (I bet he doesn't think in terms of "production") can be turned into watchable work. Yes RAW gives us flexibility in post (and a chance to save material that might have been unusable otherwise), but people like my sister and GMC don't want post.

@GMC, if I'm wrong about you, I extend my apology and invite you to register tomorrow at this free Scratch webinar discussing Cinealta F5/F55/F65 RAW workflows: http://www2.assimilateinc.com/e/5312/nealta-event-registration-html/tfmwj/762379155

+1 @leonbeas @GMC you are still so wrong. You don't think like a professional at all, your thinking is point and shoot. You don't get it and never will.

That director of yours who doesn't know and care about lighting will pay someone (me) a fortune in post to grade/relight the footage until it looks cinematic, right? This is what all that RAW flexibility bought him after all. Umm no. He doesn't know or care for better. He will go as far as finding a press-this-button plugin from Magic Bullet.

As @leonbeas says it best, "you have to practice and feel the pain of being bad at what you do, until you get to that point where flexibility helps you". For me that was buying a used DVX100 in 2009 and another one in 2011! and shooting documentary for broadcast. Did it feel like a straightjacket with 6 stops of DR? Sure did. Did I produce subpar footage? Sure did. Am I a better shooter with 10+ stops of dynamic range BECAUSE of that? You bet.

Do I think about repositioning the subject or lighting his face in daylight now? Oh noes, but the fidgety Mk3 RAW has 14 stops of DR now, you could shoot against the light, it's so easy and flexible! It only takes a couple of power windows/shapes and tracking in your grading app!

Rant over. You're hopeless because you're a random guy with a magic bullet/point and shoot mentality.