I find some shots from my canon 5d iii that shooted last year in raw video version 1. last night i import dng files from those shots and i feel when try recovery highlights in acr it was very amazing and better results compare with mlv shots. Does anyone test both mlv raw files vs raw video version 1 in highlights recovery? (specially 5d mark iii)
It would be fine if you would be able to provide some samples backing your statement. MLV is pretty much RAW + meta data + (optional) sound.
Shoot exactly the same scene with raw and mlv and see if you get different results
Any updates on the samples yet @ali farahani?
I need to shoot a shot with both mlv and raw then compare them. I will sharing my results here first week.
i'm not that into the raw saf, just have done some tests, I do not believe that there should be difference, i would rather bet that there is difference when you convert in a format that you can use in editing, like changes in debrayering, black level fixes and many of those things have changed, not the actual data you should be the same.
Perhaps its related to which app used for extracting dnf files. In Raw video last year i used raw2cdng Initial versions and for new mlv shots i use raw2cdng V2. Its only a guess and not sure really.I just got the feeling Highlighs are better recovery in my last year footages in raw format that created by Raw2cdng (initial versions). But both new and last year shots are not in the same scenes or same lighings setup or any. I will go to create samples a few days.
I did a full movie 1 TB in MLV and 2TB in RAW 1 and I can't see any difference in the quality, except, RAW1 it's more stable when you shoot long period of time.
I had more hot pixels with MLV, (maybe sound function turn higher temperature inside the camera).
Makes sense @budafilms!