-
Bob Zelin wasn’t too kind to X
-
[Bill Davis] “Just a guess, but with the world moving toward RAW workflows – getting the exposure precisely correct at the camera is perceived as “less” important than it used to be?”
The value of RAW is overstated I think. For a lot of workflows, it creates insurmountable problems.
I think it’s more that shooting is increasingly driven by LUTs that can be applied on set or location, then carried through non-destructively for tweaking in post. They’re the bridge between exposure and grading…which makes them intimately tied to both.
So, it’s not, “It’s okay to get close enough because we’re going to grade in post anyway.” It’s “We’re going to set this up with more details than we’ve ever had access to before, starting with exposure but going well past it.”
As a result, I don’t see exposure as any less important…but it’s no longer THE thing wrt setting up the picture. That is, its NATURE changes, rather than its VALUE does.
-
[Tim Wilson] “The value of RAW is overstated I think. For a lot of workflows, it creates insurmountable problems. “
Could you please engrave this in stone and set it up where everyone can see it for evermore?
Simon Ubsdell
tokyo-uk.com -
[Bob Woodhead] “Really, I’m interested in the “why not” of this.”
I’m going to go with $$$.
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Could you please engrave this in stone and set it up where everyone can see it for evermore?”
I actually have it tattooed across my lower back with a male stripper in a martini glass, Elvis, and a pun on REC-601 that I won’t repeat here.
-
For me the value of RAW is being able to play off ISO vs noise reduction in Resolve and color temp tweaks for interesting grading looks. Extra dynamic range is a welcome bonus.
Bad exposure control or poor lighting is certainly not welcome but if something is grabbed in a hurry or the sun pops out during the interview it is nice to have head room.
Having a flattened gamma or log curves when shooting ProRes/ DnxHD is also a bonus but the basics of photography shouldn’t be thrown away. Bad framing and exposure allowing for post reframing and grading is poor technique.
-
[Michael Gissing] “For me the value of RAW is being able to play off ISO vs noise reduction in Resolve and color temp tweaks for interesting grading looks. Extra dynamic range is a welcome bonus. “
I don’t mean to sound down on RAW in theory. People want it for good reasons…but some people want it because they think they’re supposed to, or because they’ve heard they should. Many people can get the dynamic range they need from hi-res ProRes and DNxHD.
With obvious exceptions. I’m just saying that there are a lot of workflows being driven by ProRes and DNxHD even out of Alexa. RAW isn’t the only way to get beautiful 4:4:4:4 footage…
…which of course you know. I don’t know why I even brought it up. LOL It just drives me crazy when it’s treated as the Holy Grail for everyone.
-
[Andrew Kimery] “[Bob Woodhead] “Really, I’m interested in the “why not” of this.”
I’m going to go with $$$.”
I’m going with it also.
To get the price down that low you gotta cut some corners.
-
Totally fair call Tim. RAW has its place. It is a PITA for many workflows and just right for others.
-
[tony west] “[Andrew Kimery] “[Bob Woodhead] “Really, I’m interested in the “why not” of this.”
I’m going to go with $$$.”
I’m going with it also.”
Like Smokey and the Bandit once said*:
I third that emotion.
*this is not a valid reference so please don’t believe it
-
[Michael Gissing] “Totally fair call Tim. RAW has its place. It is a PITA for many workflows and just right for others.”
In my humble little opinion, FCPX does a raw workflow right, at least an R3D workflow.
Red has done a nice job there, and FCPX’s tools make it easy for many-a-workflow.
Color as metadata is a very very powerful tool.
Jeremy
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up