6d cropped raw or h.264

[Teraphim]

I'm using magic lantern for long time (from 600d to 6d now), but never used raw video functionality.
After searching forum and youtube i still cannot answer a question:
6d Cannot write 1080p raw non stop, so best solution for raw on 6d, as i understand, is 1600x670 (2,39:1) 1,14crop. I've tested it few minutes ago and 6d can write about 1 minute without skipping frames.
So my question is: Would it be better for video quality to write 1600x670 raw and then upscale to 1920x or standard full hd video recording is better in this situation.

[ansius]

can't you your self shoot comparison videos and and make the judgment? Honestly, for most uses RAW is just way to fancy and complicated.

[Levas]

Do you shoot photos in raw ?
If answered with yes, then you know the benefits.
If answered with No, it's better to stick with standard build in full HD recording.

In doubt ?
Do what ansius says, shoot two the same videos, one in raw and one in standard full HD and compare

[Teraphim]

I understand benefits of shooting raw, but my main question was - would it be better to shoot in  1600x670 raw or shoot 1080p non-raw video.
Btw, i've shoot yesterday some raw videos and looked them in mlvP app and they are too much noisie for that iso that i've used (800, 1600). What's the problem?

[Andy600]

If you can describe what you mean by 'better' and tell us what you want to film or achieve, it would be easier to answer you question. There are benefits and disadvantages to both.

[Teraphim]

I've seen many comparsion videos on youtube where people compare sharpness, detalisation and other stuff like this in raw videos vs h.264 (apart from wide color grading capabilities of raw) and as i understand -- 1080p raw is no doubt better then 1080p h264. But on 6d i cannot shoot 1080p raw because of sd interface speed limitation. So i'm trying to understand will i have that sharpness, detalisation and other advantages of raw if i will shoot 1600x670 or 1700x raw and upscale it to 1920x or 1080p h264 will be more sharp and detailed in this situation.

[DeafEyeJedi]

Like many of us did and still do...

Shoot a few quick test files between those two preferences of your choice ... imo I think 1600x670 Raw (stretched to 1080p) looks slightly if not much better than original 1080p in H264.

FYI I don't own 6D so not sure how bad line skipping will look like after stretching.

Jm2c.

Otherwise wait for others to chime in...

[Andy600]

I think to put it simply, raw puts the all of the processing in your hands and it's up to you (and the apps you use) to decide how to handle noise, sharpness, detail, scaling etc.

Internal H.264 recording does most of this for you but h.264 compression itself causes image degradation. You will have more latitude to sculpt your final look with raw than you will get with h.264 but you also take a hit because of the limited image size you can achieve on the 6D not to mention the massive increase in file sizes.

If you are going to shoot h.264 and plan on a small degree of color grading I would suggest using Technicolor Cinestyle as it gives you greater latitude but you will need to transcode and preferably use some sort of temporal processing (such as you get with Neat Video) to remove/lessen h.264 artifacts.

Raw is always going to be better in terms of color information but aliasing and moire will look more pronounced. There is always a trade-off and it's really a matter of what you yourself can achieve through manually processing the raw images compared to how the camera processes internally. Better is subjective.

[Levas]

If it's better then h.264 depends mostly on your raw image processing skills.

I have a 6d and shoot al lot of video in 1728x724 @25fps. This gives about 16 seconds of videorecording on 6d. After trying out several workflows I find out that I get the best results if I process my raw dng files in Raw Therapee, export them in tiff format. Import the tiff's in davinci resolve and let davinci do the upscaling on export to 1920x800 resolution.

It's a lot of work but gives gorgious results, far better then build in full HD h.264.
Raw Therapee can debayer with LMMSE technique which solves 90% of your color alliasing problems.
I'm used to lightroom, so I had to invest some time to get similar results in raw therapee with highlight saving and color rendering. But the LMMSE debatering gives far better detail then the debayering of lightroom.

[DeafEyeJedi]

and is RawTherapee's LMMSE better than AE's debayering?

[Levas]

I don't know, never used adobe after effects.
But my guess is that both lightroom and adobe ae use eadh debayering.
Which softens fine detail, at least that's what I see when comparing same dng's processed in lightroom and raw therapee.
Lightroom by the way has better noise reduction, you'll probably never get best of both worlds in one editor