what to do with raw video files of game footage
RAW video is absolutely overrated, only that doesn't mean information technology isn't a power tool.
DPreview wrote up a pretty accurate takedown of RAW video that fabricated some excellent points. RAW video today isn't going to requite you the amazing boost in dynamic range compared to Log every bit information technology would have, say, 10 years ago. It too has plenty of workflow hurdles to figure out, and it can be a data grunter too. But while we concord in some ways, we also believe RAW video is benign for filmmakers. Hither'southward why.
It's worth pointing out that DPreview is by and large a photography-focused site, so the article may be intended for the bulk of their readers which tend to lean toward photographers who also shoot video. As No Moving-picture show Schoolhouse is a filmmaker-focused site, to the states, RAW video is actually pretty darn astonishing, and for the vast bulk of projects, it's a format you should exist recording whenever possible.
1. RAW video may simply offer a bit more dynamic range, but it offers a whole host of color flexibility
One of the things that DPreview accurately points out is that dynamic range, the brightness range you can capture with a camera from darkest shadows to brightest highlights, is just slightly improved by RAW capture. While RAW was a large bargain in 2008 when all other video was linear, its paltry 7 stops of latitude pale in comparison when nosotros regularly can get 12-14 stops using Log encoding in cameras today.
Notwithstanding, equally we saw in our field test with the open up ProRes RAW, information technology offers a ton of flexibility when it comes to color. There's simply more color data stored with RAW, and thus, you can push it further than you tin traditional video formats. This means if the white residue isn't perfect, or if you want to practise a heavy color look, you can do more of that correction in post, with less noise and artifacting compared to a normal Rec.709 shoot or with certain Log formats.
If yous're shooting an indie feature and some shots are dark or take weird white balance considering of the local street lights, you lot'll exist glad you captured RAW. But if you happen to take exposed perfectly with authentic tint and white balance and are doing a very "calorie-free" course, RAW may not offer much benefit other than the ability to go back and heavily grade the footage after on.
2. Post workflows are mainly worked out, with ane major exception
The post workflows are much more robust for RAW than they were a decade ago, and while they aren't consistent between RAW formats, they do work. Final Cut Pro fabricated the bold decision of not having a separate "RAW" tab, and instead, you take all your normal color controls, simply with RAW shots they have more power. On the other mitt, programs like DaVinci Resolve keep RAW controls divide so yous can dial adjustments in before applying downstream effects. They're two unlike models, but both work.
The 1 major remaining hurdle is that Blackmagic RAW doesn't piece of work in FCP X, and ProRes RAW doesn't work in DaVinci Resolve. As these 2 formats grow in popularity, it's become a major frustration amongst creators. While in that location are great cameras like the Nikon Z7 Ii and Z6 Two that back up ProRes RAW and BRAW and the Sigma fp that supports three RAW formats (ProRes RAW, BRAW, DNG), that'south rare. Most mirrorless cameras support ProRes RAW or have their own RAW format, like Catechism and the Blackmagic cameras supporting BRAW.
Peradventure in the future, nosotros'll see both non-linear editors support each other's RAW format. For now, you tin can find back up for both with AVID or Premiere Pro.
3. Big files are rarely a concern
For better or for worse, RAW video comes with "bigger" file sizes. This doesn't necessarily mean that the RAW file itself is bigger, since often it's not. REDCODE RAW compression is so good, you lot'll oftentimes have a smaller file size from your .R3D file than you lot volition with a ProRes 4444 when shooting 4K. Both ProRes RAW and the less compressed ProRes RAW HQ have manageable file sizes too.
For perspective, 12-bit RAW is the same file size equally ten-chip 4:ii:two ProRes. And so your production workflow might save some coin when it comes to storage. When it comes to post, it's a footling different.
When it comes to the edit, you will need more storage, since you'll desire to store both the RAW and transcoded video files somewhere. Also, when we advise "bigger" we're referring to the processing ability needed to edit the file. And yes, even in 2021 with many companies advertising that their software works in "RAW" natively, nosotros recommend making transcoded dailies to edit from and merely reconnecting back to your RAW for the final colour grade. It nevertheless makes sense, and yous are always glad yous did.
While "bigger" files may seem like a problem, equally filmmakers, they've always been our bag. Whether it was buying 35mm motion picture back in the day, or early on hard deejay drives, or recent SSDs, filmmakers have always had larger file sizes to store. There are affordable ways to exercise this (we still like an OWC drive dock with blank SATA drives), but it'south just office of being a filmmaker. Sculptors gotta buy marble, painters paint, and filmmakers gotta buy difficult drives.
Ii major caveats remain
Only because you lot can worry about things like ISO or white balance in postal service, yous should absolutely try to become them right on gear up wherever possible.
I have a good friend who was the C photographic camera on a major job in a sports stadium. Unfortunately, there were no walkies, so his white rest settings didn't match the A and B camera. This was easily fixable in the color grade since they shot RAW. His operating was amazing, beautiful footage, only the customer hated it considering "it didn't lucifer" as well as A and B because the white rest wasn't perfect. That customer never hired him again over something that would've taken 20 minutes to fix when setting up the dailies transcode, or if they had walkies from the first.
Fifty-fifty when shooting RAW, it'south important to stay on top of your menu settings, considering the manner your dailies look will affect how clients perceive the footage and your work.
RAW benefits aren't ordinarily worth it on tight turnaround jobs. If y'all're shooting something Saturday that needs to be live on a billboard in Times Foursquare Monday morn (this happened to me), the fourth dimension spent processing RAW footage is likely not worth it, especially since the final display or projection may non be the highest resolution or highest-fidelity color screen. If that's the case it'southward amend to focus on working with a format that tin motion through post with ease, similar ProRes 4444.
Those thoughts aside, RAW is pretty useful for filmmakers, and in 2021, information technology's so accessible from so many cameras that it's absolutely something most filmmakers should be gear up for.
Source: https://nofilmschool.com/raw-video-worth-it-when-you-can