The RAW debate, thoughts, insights and arguments.
I am on the fence in either direction.
First I was against generalized RAW workflows, where the masses thought everything including your microwave should process RAW.
One of my main arguments against generalized, everyday usage of RAW is and was data rates. To be fair, at the time, few years back, I knew little about todays RAW world.
Data Rates – why bother ?
If you have the capacity to record, to transfer and edit in RAW, then why bother to struggle against RAW ?
Let’s assume there was a massive RAW penalty when it comes to data rates and file size, as in real RAW – not the vegetarian compressed version of todays RAW flavors.
A film production is a time sensitive adventure, that many run’n’gun film shooters might not have experienced yet.
20+ crew and more are not an exception. A decent 4+k camera fills 256Gb SSD mags in no time, in minutes actually ! Assume you have an A & B cam running, keeping the 1st AC or the DIT on its toes to rotate storage around.
Even on a fast SSD, data is rarely transferred to another equally fast SSD on the DIT station, but rather to a RAID or plain HDD, where data rates bottleneck. The 9-16min of shooting time for said SSD mag, takes now 15-20 or more minutes to transfer and verify and this for each camera – A & B.
Of corse a decent production has redundancy and is running on multiple mags in rotation. With given timing, all mags run over pretty quickly and the DIT spends his/her lunch break playing catch-up. Add to it, that in todays digital world, bits and bites are no longer of value and long multiple take clips are becoming the norm.
This is a very real logistical issue on a live set. Not much can be done, other than provide more than one transfer station, faster RAID storage and interfaces, more storage cartridges.
It is prudent to say, choosing when to use RAW and when to use ProRes, is a sensible thing. Globally saying RAW is better would be wrong.
RAW vs. RAW
Thankfully RAW is not RAW, both ProRes RAW and BMD RAW are sort of microwave versions of RAW, pre-cooked for better performance.
Image: origin Apple ProRes RAW white papers.
I had to update my own opinion on RAW when it comes to above bottlenecks.
ProRes RAW equals at its peak data rate a ProRes 4444 video stream, or even slightly below at minimum rates. The user has little control over the data rate on a given profile, other than image quality.
Badly exposed frames, result in higher bit rates, due to noise.
Still a well formed ProRes RAW image stream will tax the system more, data rate wise, for storage and processing equally. The previous bottlenecks still persist, but to a lesser extent.
When to shoot in RAW
When is RAW the right answer ?
I would say the answer is the same as with everything else film – it depends. I would not want to generalize and postulate a fixed set of rules.
Some of the answers lay within the code it self. ProRes RAW does not chroma subsample, hence it leaves sensor data mostly untouched, the RAW data stream is compressed, not the encoded image, making it a nearly loss-less coded. Delivery cleaner color information then ProRes, but at lower data rates then ProRes 4444.
If time, storage and processing taxation is not and issue, then RAW is one of the best options available today.
But… If your frames are properly lit, properly exposed and you expect average color grading, then you might as well stick to the old fashioned ProRes, which still provides very good color and performance.
Cinematographer vs. RAW
Now this is where I am on the fence !
For the past 100 years of analog film stock, the DOP was somewhat of an alchemist. The entire production had to trust the skills of the cinematographer. Setting the lights, controlling the camera down to the film stock and photochemical process.
The viewfinder image on camera was a purely optical representation of the image in front of the lens, until the film negative underwent processing and color reversal, into the dailies screening room.
Everybody had to trust this process and once in the ‘box’, there was little that could be changed.
The last 10 years have broken that trust, with the invention of digital sensors and instant playback on set. Suddenly more people got involved in how a frame was composed and how the story was told visually.
Even the best of ProRes data had its limits, of how much the frame could be re-lit, color corrected, staying at least somewhat true to, what the DOP intended.
With RAW I can see, how a lot of that decision making is further degraded. The DOP might not be part of the post production process, edit and color grade equally. With all the options now open to post production, the job of the cinematographer might possibly loose a lot of its magic once again.
As as second generation cinematographer I am somewhat opposed to the application of RAW formats to productions I participate, for creative reasons, not logistical .
Imagine a 8k production in RAW, where the frame can be re-framed dramatically, it can be re-lit and exposed, color processed in every direction.
With the introduction of the real time NLE, more testing and experimenting has become normal, now with RAW the options are growing exponentially.
Is this really required to tell a story ?
I believe the last say, on when to use RAW in the production process should be left to the cinematographer.
SaKiE 