Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Video

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 18, 2014, 04:02 PM   #1
dorsal
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
RAW Video vs 4K

RAW stills have many benefits over JPEG, but what about shooting video in RAW? The file sizes must be crazy huge, but are there benefits over 4K? I shoot underwater video as a hobbyist and the RAW video cams are getting down into the upper end of "crazy expensive for a hobby" price point -- so I'm wondering about RAW, or "just" 4K. Thoughts...?
dorsal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2014, 04:56 PM   #2
Consultant
macrumors G5
 
Consultant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
First questions usually are:

Do you have a 4k display?
Do you have any video editing software that can edit 4k?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dorsal View Post
RAW stills have many benefits over JPEG, but what about shooting video in RAW? The file sizes must be crazy huge, but are there benefits over 4K? I shoot underwater video as a hobbyist and the RAW video cams are getting down into the upper end of "crazy expensive for a hobby" price point -- so I'm wondering about RAW, or "just" 4K. Thoughts...?
Consultant is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2014, 04:59 PM   #3
simsaladimbamba
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: located
And while 4K is a nice resolution, RAW offers much more than just resolution.

I have 2 to 5 K Red Epic RAW footage and depending on the codec I use, I can take quite a lot of GBs for just a couple of minutes, especially when I use more than the standard 24 or 25 fps.

RAW offers handling of White Balance (WB), exposure, colour temperature (WB in other words) and a lot of other settings with the recorded footage, that 4 K H.264, or whatever compression you use, footage will not allow you to do.

While not a good camera from a handling perspective, maybe take a look at the BM Digital Cinema Camera 4K. It costs less than 3.000 €, and the 1080p Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera can be had for around 500 € nowadays, and it records in RAW and ProRes on SD cards.
simsaladimbamba is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2014, 06:11 PM   #4
ChrisA
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorsal View Post
RAW stills have many benefits over JPEG, but what about shooting video in RAW? The file sizes must be crazy huge, but are there benefits over 4K? I shoot underwater video as a hobbyist and the RAW video cams are getting down into the upper end of "crazy expensive for a hobby" price point -- so I'm wondering about RAW, or "just" 4K. Thoughts...?
RAW gives you a great amount of latitude for color correction. I'm sure you must know how hard it is to get that correct in UW work. Heck, can you even define "correct".

For those who don't shoot under water the technical problem is that seawater absorbs red light. The white sunlight is no longer white depending on depth. The red channel is nearly dead at 60 feet of depth. You need either some filters to block the other two channels (and the filter depends on the depth) or you need to bring your own lighting with you. Underwater lights and the batteries to operate them add bulk, cost and complexity. Worse is that light illuminate little specs of "whatever" floating in the water. Sunlight is best but is is gone as you go deeper. RAW can help with this because you get more bit depth and can scale the red back up.

All 4K does is offer more resolution. Many times you can't even make use of 1080 resolution if the water is not very clear. Here in California there is no point of even using 1080 if the subject is more then 5 or 6 feet away. Then how would to view your 4K footage? You'd need a 4K screen.

RAW would be ideal for UW work, 4K is not as useful.

Last edited by ChrisA; Jul 18, 2014 at 06:19 PM.
ChrisA is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2014, 06:43 PM   #5
ChrisA
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by simsaladimbamba View Post
While not a good camera from a handling perspective, maybe take a look at the BM Digital Cinema Camera 4K. It costs less than 3.000 , and the 1080p Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera can be had for around 500 nowadays, and it records in RAW and ProRes on SD cards.
Handing hardly maters because the camera would have to go inside a waterproof housing. And then you'd be wearing 4mm think gloves. Under those conditions ALL cameras handle poorly. That is just the nature of UW videography. In any case the housing completely changes the handling of any camera. Housings also double the cost at least. A housing for this camera runs about US$3,600

At this level you are realistically into about $12K in equipment when you total it all up, pelican cases and all.

A MUCH cheaper system uses a $250 consumer camcorder inside a housing that lacks controls. You turn the camera on an start recording then seal it up in the housing and let it run until the battery is dead. Normally the battery in one of these lasts longer then a typical tank full of air. Sert the camera soon to "wide" before you seal the access door. UW photo is always done with ultra wide lenses so at to minimize the amount of water you shoot through. Use an orange gell inside the window sexted based on your planned depth.

You would be surprised how well the above cheap system works. Of course you need massive amounts of footage and editing.

Point is that this need not be expensive but is can be very expensive. Diving is like that. It costs me zero to dive off my local beach (OK $3 air fill plus parking change) but costs $$$ to fly to Hawaii for a week. Can be nearly free or way-expensive.
ChrisA is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2014, 08:08 PM   #6
simsaladimbamba
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: located
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisA View Post
Handing hardly maters because the camera would have to go inside a waterproof housing. And then you'd be wearing 4mm think gloves. Under those conditions ALL cameras handle poorly. That is just the nature of UW videography. In any case the housing completely changes the handling of any camera. Housings also double the cost at least. A housing for this camera runs about US$3,600

At this level you are realistically into about $12K in equipment when you total it all up, pelican cases and all.

A MUCH cheaper system uses a $250 consumer camcorder inside a housing that lacks controls. You turn the camera on an start recording then seal it up in the housing and let it run until the battery is dead. Normally the battery in one of these lasts longer then a typical tank full of air. Sert the camera soon to "wide" before you seal the access door. UW photo is always done with ultra wide lenses so at to minimize the amount of water you shoot through. Use an orange gell inside the window sexted based on your planned depth.

You would be surprised how well the above cheap system works. Of course you need massive amounts of footage and editing.

Point is that this need not be expensive but is can be very expensive. Diving is like that. It costs me zero to dive off my local beach (OK $3 air fill plus parking change) but costs $$$ to fly to Hawaii for a week. Can be nearly free or way-expensive.
Sorry, forgot it was about underwater treatments. Or something. It is too hot here. Probably around 300 degrees in the scale no one uses.
simsaladimbamba is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 06:08 PM   #7
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
All 4K does is offer more resolution
While I agree its better in RAW, there is still some benefits to shooting in 4K besides resolution. I believe shooting in 4K and down sampling to 1080p will give you more detail. Not sure if its much worth it or not for the trouble of doing so.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 09:14 PM   #8
ChrisA
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxcooldude View Post
While I agree its better in RAW, there is still some benefits to shooting in 4K besides resolution. I believe shooting in 4K and down sampling to 1080p will give you more detail. Not sure if its much worth it or not for the trouble of doing so.
If it does give you more detail it is only because you are comparing an expensive 4K camera with a good lens to a crappy $175 1080i camcorder.

Or maybe you are comparing compression. The uncompressed 4K going to 1080p ProRes vs. 17Mbit/s H.264 going to 1080p ProRes.

The higher resolution does allow for some cropping so you have some more options in post, if the distribution will be 1080.

But the OP was shooting under water if I remember. In that case the answer is easy. RAW is very much worth it if you can afford it.
ChrisA is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 10:22 PM   #9
linuxcooldude
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisA View Post
If it does give you more detail it is only because you are comparing an expensive 4K camera with a good lens to a crappy $175 1080i camcorder.

Or maybe you are comparing compression. The uncompressed 4K going to 1080p ProRes vs. 17Mbit/s H.264 going to 1080p ProRes.

The higher resolution does allow for some cropping so you have some more options in post, if the distribution will be 1080.

But the OP was shooting under water if I remember. In that case the answer is easy. RAW is very much worth it if you can afford it.
Its all relative...I regularly shoot 1080p on a $3000.00 camcorder and you can shoot 4K on a Samsung smart phone. I'm talking about similarly based hardware or even on the same recorder. Some places can't take 4K yet so you can still shoot 4K then downgrade to 1080p.
__________________
Techshow:http://www.justin.tv/linuxcooldude
linuxcooldude is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 12:39 PM   #10
rodedwards
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Magic Lantern Free Raw Video !!!

Try Magic Lantern raw video ... it's still under development but I use the nightly builds (firmware under developement) for two years without any problems on Canon 5D2.

Personally, i don't want 4K. I only just got HD tv. Most people wont need 4k for at least 5 years or more.
rodedwards is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2014, 01:33 PM   #11
Unami
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austria
raw video can definitely be more useful, if you know how to handle it. keep in mind, that raw video will need lots of space, so you'd need a ssd/external recorder, if you want to record longer videos. (and lots and lots or hard disk space for storage).

most cheap raw cameras don't offer much in terms of handling. while it's pretty great to get a black magic pocket cinema cam for $475, you'll probably need an external battery, ssd-recorder, ssd, some nice 16mm glass or a speedboster adapter to get a wider FOV with dslr-lenses, an external audio recorder, if you want audio, and a rig to put it all together. that's at least another $2000. i don't know, if there's even an underwater housing, that would be usable with that. also, no zoom & manual focus.
Unami is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2014, 01:32 PM   #12
ppenn
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
I haven't read through the replies but what you're asking seems to be a "this or that" question which doesn't make any sense. 4k is a resolution and RAW would be more perceived as codec. You can shoot Raw that isn't 4k, you can shoot 4k that isn't, you can shoot Raw in 4k. They are two totally separate pieces of information.

To ask, "should I use raw or 4k?" is like asking if you should use paint or a triangle.


I'm not trying to be rude, but does this make sense?
__________________
Former Apple employee who needs to vent sometimes.
ppenn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2014, 03:33 PM   #13
handsome pete
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppenn View Post
I haven't read through the replies but what you're asking seems to be a "this or that" question which doesn't make any sense. 4k is a resolution and RAW would be more perceived as codec. You can shoot Raw that isn't 4k, you can shoot 4k that isn't, you can shoot Raw in 4k. They are two totally separate pieces of information.

To ask, "should I use raw or 4k?" is like asking if you should use paint or a triangle.


I'm not trying to be rude, but does this make sense?
Yes, you should obviously use a triangle.
handsome pete is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2014, 07:37 AM   #14
acearchie
macrumors 68040
 
acearchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppenn View Post
I'm not trying to be rude, but does this make sense?
Exactly! Went through nearly the whole thread without any pointing this out! You can shoot raw at 1080p, 2k, 4k, 6k, and the list goes on!

Also, in my mind raw definitely doesn't need capitalisation.

The question you always need to ask when buying new equipment is "what is my current setup lacking?" and "how can I improve what I already have?"
acearchie is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2014, 08:50 PM   #15
dvthuong2007
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
4k is a resolution and RAW would be more perceived as codec
dvthuong2007 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2014, 01:28 PM   #16
ppc_michael
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Send a message via AIM to ppc_michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consultant View Post
First questions usually are:
Do you have any video editing software that can edit 4k?
I don't think it's necessary to edit in 4K. Offlining for edit, then reconforming/onlining in something like Smoke or Davinci Resolve is how I've been doing it.
ppc_michael is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 1, 2014, 06:24 PM   #17
MacSawdust
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Thanks for the advice!

I'm not a pro, so I didn't mean to start the "triangle" debate. It was that I was looking to up my hardware game (we can debate my color grading and composition skills another time). Simplistically, the forum seems to be telling me 4K would give me "more pixels", but RAW would give me "better pixels". Unami had great advice, and I was thinking of the BM Pocket Cinema cam with a Panasonic Lumix 14mm f/2.5 G with auto focus. This kit should fit in a reasonable underwater housing and crush the video I currently get with my consumer cam.

Thanks again.
MacSawdust is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2014, 02:45 PM   #18
Unami
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austria
i've read that the autofocus of the bmpcc is pretty bad.

i don't know anything about underwater shooting but i still have my doubts that this is really the right tool for the job. on the other hand: for 475$ it's a pretty nice toy to have anyways.

check out phillip blooms amazing review of the cam to see what it can and can't do:

http://philipbloom.net/2013/12/02/part3-2/

(p.s.: in the meanwhile it got a new firmware update and can now record in less storage-heavy codecs like prores LT as well)
Unami is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2014, 07:25 PM   #19
recd
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Maybe also post to one of the underwater forums such as wetpixel?

I'll interpret your question as "should I buy an underwater video rig that will give the option to shoot in RAW at 4K resolution, or a 4K rig that uses a codec such as MP4, Mov, prores.

A Red in a Gates housing seems to be the choice for the Pro cinematographers.
It will shoot at 4,5K in RAW. It will end up costing more than you will ever want to spend. The file sizes are huge. You need to include the costs of storage media. How much would you need on a liveaboard trip?

Nauticam has produced housings for the Black Magic Production Camera. It will shoot in RAW at 4K. Reports I have read indicate battery life and camera interface are not ideal for underwater use. Records to SSDs

The Panasonic GH4 in a Nauticam housing will shoot at 4K at 100Mbps. Would cost $10,000-12,000 all up. Records to fast SD cards.

Personally, if you are not making money from your video, I'd look at the Panasonic, or wait and see how the the Sony A7s performs. However for the Sony you would need to include the cost an housed Atmos Shogun to record at 4K
recd is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Video

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2.4 K Raw? enny001 Digital Video 4 Nov 3, 2013 03:52 PM
The latest from magic lantern: RAW video AlaskaMoose Digital Photography 9 May 20, 2013 09:44 PM
Raw video under $1000 acearchie Digital Video 17 Apr 10, 2013 01:48 AM
iMovie Events vs. Projects--I want raw video butterflywoman Digital Video 3 Feb 14, 2013 02:29 PM
Editing Raw Video HurtinMinorKey iMac 0 Nov 13, 2012 10:54 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC