Anybody still sticking to H.264 after testing RAW?

[senzazn12]

Just a thread to see how many people are still sticking to H.264 and their reasons for doing so. As great as RAW video is, I know there are some that might not be able to take advantage of it because of storage space or heavier workflow. There are some new great programs like this one in the link below that can get some of the dynamic range back that is lost in h.264 and can gain some sharpness as well. Not too sure how this would hold up versus using RAW but I'm guessing RAW would still beat it. Nonetheless, it could still be "good enough" that most everyday users would not notice.

http://acrovid.com/footagestudio.htm

[inhousegoods]

It all depends on the job you are doing. Shooting RAW is amazing, but the workflow is a lot longer. If I'm shooting run and gun documentary style, then I will shoot h.264, but if I'm on set where everything is prepped, I will shoot raw, simply because I know what shots I will want to use

[driftwood]

Still lots to do on the 5DMK3 as far as the h264 encoder's concerned. Some interesting results Im testing.

[vikado]

im sticking to h.264 for commercial work, the workflow is a pain to deal with.
but i did convince the producer i work with to do our next series of films to shoot with ML raw.
although, im dreading the fact im going to be processing a lot of files

[senzazn12]

Still lots to do on the 5DMK3 as far as the h264 encoder's concerned. Some interesting results Im testing.

What kind of results are you finding?

[noisyboy]

can get some of the dynamic range back that is lost in h.264

You can't regain what isn't there dude

[hirethestache]

Just a thread to see how many people are still sticking to H.264 and their reasons for doing so. As great as RAW video is, I know there are some that might not be able to take advantage of it because of storage space or heavier workflow. There are some new great programs like this one in the link below that can get some of the dynamic range back that is lost in h.264 and can gain some sharpness as well. Not too sure how this would hold up versus using RAW but I'm guessing RAW would still beat it. Nonetheless, it could still be "good enough" that most everyday users would not notice.

http://acrovid.com/footagestudio.htm

.H264 film is comparable to JPEG Low in photo, just as RAW film is to .CR2 Large in photo. There is no data to recover, as white is white and black is black, for lack of better wording.

[Shield]

How is that software any different than any other linear editor?  I can sharpen and play with the shadow/highlight sliders all day in Premiere Pro but it still isn't what I'm getting from raw.

Only way I'd use h264 now is if I need to record something straight longer than 12 minutes or I've run out of CF cards with remaining disk space.

[Malcolm Debono]

Definitely sticking with h264 for now. I shoot weddings primarily, and at the moment I end up with nearly 100gb footage by the end of the day. Can't imaging how much space this would be if it was shot in raw. Don't forget that you'd need to invest in fast, high capacity cards, as well as working drives and archiving drives for backups.

Besides, even if shooting raw was more feasible, 90% of brides wouldn't notice the difference in quality (most of my clients still prefer DVDs...). This also applies for the 4k argument.

[austinmarti]

.H264 film is comparable to JPEG Low in photo, just as RAW film is to .CR2 Large in photo. There is no data to recover, as white is white and black is black, for lack of better wording.

I don't know that I agree with you or the guy who posted above you.

There is no question that you can indeed "recover" a LOT of dynamic range by pulling the whites and raising the blacks when dealing with RAW data.

You can't achieve nearly the same results when shooting h.264.

[ToniX]

I see most of you are advanced users, but from the point of view of a newbie as I am, the RAW shooting require
a lot work for post production but also (even worse) a lot of knowledge about frames dimensions/anamorphing/shutter speeds/framerates/180°degrees/x3cropfactor/sdcard writespeed/picturebuffer /SRAW/but only if disabled that first/don't forget to turn off this other one, prior to .......aggghhhhhh.!

At the end of weeks of readings threads about this subject,  I decided to give up with RAW video for a while, until someone will be able to write down an updated guide, with best settings and pre/post production workflow logic.


I would like a lot to get into the RAW videoshooting, since I believe it give the same control over the visual impact like taking photos in RAW mode is, and RAW is my default.

I perfectly agree with those that say that choice between RAW and H264, should be determined by the circumstances.

That's why  I'm sticking with h264 

[Brawl]

im sticking to h.264 for commercial work, the workflow is a pain to deal with.
but i did convince the producer i work with to do our next series of films to shoot with ML raw.
although, im dreading the fact im going to be processing a lot of files

XD

[Mickeyboo]

It depends on the situation which one I would use.  For quality audio you have to go double system for raw now which means I can't realistically use it when I'm shooting with my Steadicam.  For example an upcoming live music shoot unless I get my recorder patched into the mixing console and sync with PluralEyes or use the same feature in FCPX with a small recorder as reference would be problematic for recording professional audio.  I may experiment with the beep tone generator in ML and a Sound Devices recorder with time code for syncing ...for me it's too soon to go all raw but I'm leaning in that direction as more solutions and workarounds are discovered...kudos to everyone in development at ML for making it all possible.

[1%]

Its really simple:
short clips needing lots of color = raw
long clip needing sound/not as much grading = h264

Its 15 minutes on a 64GB card... you're going to need a lot of cards.

[3pointedit]

And Driftwood is such a tease!

Personally I wont dedicate to much install cost (installing a variety of random programs and Codecs) to my systems to get a RAW workflow, where as h264 works more easily (even just portable apps). But I'm unique I guess in being very mobile with the access to the same PC all the time.

[kgv5]

h264 (ML encoder) when handled properly really can look good. Especially when there is a lot of movement (steadicam) and motion blur the difference between h264 and raw is not so visible. In static shots -yes, raw blows away h264. With the 6d and VAF filter installed the h264 image really can be nice because it is possible to unsharp it a lot wothout any artifacts. And the workflow is so nice. As 1% said: raw for short clips, h264 for the rest.

[ToniX]

h264 (ML encoder) when handled properly really can look good. Especially when there is a lot of movement (steadicam) and motion blur the difference between h264 and raw is not so visible. In static shots -yes, raw blows away h264. With the 6d and VAF filter installed the h264 image really can be nice because it is possible to unsharp it a lot wothout any artifacts. And the workflow is so nice. As 1% said: raw for short clips, h264 for the rest.

please would you share,  in short?

[Proto]

after using RAW I'm going to try and use it as much as possible, but I'll still use h.624 forsure

[anchoricex]

Still lots to do on the 5DMK3 as far as the h264 encoder's concerned. Some interesting results Im testing.

TELL ME MORE@!

[AnotherDave]

I wouldn't shoot compressed video again, period.

For something like an event, it might be ok... but I really enjoy the ML Raw 5d3 format.

I think that I'd be more likely to upgrade to a heftier camera after my experience shooting with the hack on a project.

*Shot used 6 x 64gb KB 1000x cards for a total of 42 camera rolls, 6.5 hrs of footage, and 2.68TB of data.  It all looks amazing.

[ShootingStars]

If it's a project I'm motivated to get the possible work out of, RAW. If it's a time constraint issue like client work, h264.