The reason you couldn’t recover the highlights of the red footage is because you clipped the sensor. Raw is Raw. Different raw codecs don’t change the cameras dynamic range or ability to recover highlights. If you clip the sensor it’s clipped no matter what. That’s the difference between his two clips. The prores clip is with in the sensors range and so was the red until you added more light and clipped the sensor. The only benefit of prores raw is the workflow other wise it’s more or less the same as any other raw codec. Also people aren’t haters just because you disagree with you. Especially because your DID mess up your test and admit yourself you don’t understand how it works. Informative educational content is great but if you are gonna teach people you gotta do your research.
We shoot theater release docudramas exclusively on RED units and you clearly clipped the sensor; not just overexposed. It's not apples to apples * pun intended*. I can 'artificially overexpose' RED footage as well into ultra-white territory and bring it back to "recover" highlight data too *sarcasm*. RAW is RAW and has nothing to do with the specs of a sensor and where they clip. You are confusing dynamic range and codecs as well as not taking into account the specific sensor and camera specs.
Bro,,, in raw files if U clip highlights (not over expose) , U cannot recover the clipped footage no matter which raw codec U will use ,, let's not confuse "over expose" with "highlight clipping" ,, for the 2nd r3d file the footage's highlight was clipped but for the ProRes Raw it was over exposed but highlight was not clipped .. hope that U will understand ...
It's amazing to me how the 'nay-Sayers' don't understand that you were simply just showing the ability to recover lost dynamics. Which is VERY OBVIOUS just on the spectrum graph alone. The picture being an exact match is mostly irrelevant, you're right bro, and you're definitely not crazy.
I appreciate the time you took to do this and including the scopes was very helpful. Hey man, you didn't have the time to use the same lighting. Any filmmaker understands that time is precious. The effort is appreciated and both videos gave me great insight on the possibilities of this new codec. Thank you.
Thing about RED cameras that many people don't seem to grasp is once your exposure gets out of the goal posts/traffic lights then pretty much you aren't bringing that detail back-whether it's in the hightlights or shadows. Yes you'd get better highlight detail by shooting at a higher ISO but the way the metadata works to manipulate in post is you're limited to what's in the RAW container-not histogram. Since r3ds are RAW-even moving it to a HDR/REC2020 color space more then likely they won't be as salvageable too. Also in regards to the Sony, digital is an Additive Color-meaning that when your exposure increases-so does saturation. Film is the opposite or a Subtractive Color. Take grass for example when you are shooting outside-it would clip/overexpose to a crazy saturated yellow, not stay green or just get whiter-like film does. That's the essence to the "film look" something like more of the higher end camera manufactures try to implement to a certain degree in their top-tier color sciences (i.e. Arri, RED, Sony Venice, Panvision/Light Iron). Which is why your skin tones look so janky when bringing the exposure down on the Sony-you may be decreasing the exposure on your overexposed skin but the saturation stayed the same-and in this case your skin tones were more in the red/blue channel-I'd like to see how the Sony Venice handles itself in similar shooting conditions. Anyway great video, as a RED Weapon/DSMC2 (whatever they call it these days) owner I wish I could bring back my highlights that are that far out of the histogram like this. But every camera has quirks-and as long as I keep everything in the goal posts you're good to go.
Really? I never shoot in ProRes. I'll always shoot raw on RED. And I love the FS7 internal codec and capabilities. I would shoot internal raw on a C200 if I had one as well. ProRes doesn't mean much in my workflow so I'm personally not mad at all. ProRes RAW is super cool but no where near ready to be a workflow used on a daily basis. I'm VERY happy with my REDs (in fact I just bought my third) and my Sony's!! (minus the FS5, don't love that one lol)
so the RED is always shooting at 800iso, the fs7 I assume is shooting at iso 2000, the red has more highlight recovers when it shot at its native iso (800), iso 250 is actually a simulation for the viewer. SO the red at iso 250 is aready overexposing the sensor.
Hi Anthony, it's a wonderful comparison no matter what some few people think that it is a comparison of skin tone;which is not. Just ignore those comments and make more informative videos. To me it looks like some people just couldn't get over the fact that ProRes Raw is a great codec. As for me I don't care whether a product is from Apple, Red, Sony, Panasonic or whoever, if the product is good then lets accept and use it. Anyway you did a great comparison ( I mean the first part of this video, no matter what people said). Cheers
When you reshoot your tests make sure the cameras are at the same ISO. If you over exposed the Red at 350 you are already pulling down the exposure a bunch on the Red viewer.
But wait. You are editing in a standard library. You need to edit in a wide gamut color space to get everything out of prores raw, and red as far as I know. You can still export to rec709 and grade to rec709 but you need to set your library to wide gamut
Also, you may need to change color space override to rec202pq. All atomos recorders end up with files that import into fcpx as rec709. You need to use wide gamut and change the color space override to see max results. Also, check under the "View" drop down nextto the inspector and select "show HDR values as tone mapped." Your skin will not look so red on the prores raw.
And sorry if I hurt your feelings. I do actually appreciate that you took the time to do this. I know how time-consuming these tests are. I do them myself, and did my own test between ProRes RAW and RAW to ProRes. There's actually not a lot of difference between the two. Except the RAW to ProRes files are smaller. Thanks again!!!
Thank you for the video! ProRes Raw looks impressive and I'm not sure why everyone is hating on Apple. I love FCPX and I love RED (and R3D). The two have been partners for a long time. RED already licenses PRORES and has the ability to output R3D and PRORES simultaneously. It is only a matter of time before they (RED) incorporates PRORES RAW into their cameras as well! And when they do, I will be the first in line. GO RED... GO APPLE... Long live FCPX!!!
chris s their relationship is really nice, and I hope you are right about the implementation of ProRes RAW in RED cameras! I just also hope and look forward to Adobe implementing the codec into their products. I don’t have a real beef with FinalCut, I know it’s a powerful and amazing piece of software. In fact, I was a FinalCut 7 user! I just despise the interface and timeline layout. I like to see all my layers stacked , and more importantly I go back and forth with/dynamically link to After Effects, Audition and Photoshop very very often. So FCPX would slow down my workflow, essentially costing me money. So that’s all! I’m not a true hater, I just play the game of it’s one or the other lol. But maybe one day I’ll conform 🤔
Sony was exposed to the right (with minimal clipping on the nose), but Red was overexposed to sensor clip on whole face. Nothing magical, just wrong white point in the data range in sony raw, for cdng it was exactly the same isues.
Hi Mate :) Good work! About color on the sony when you push out a RAW signal the Bionix color doesn't get applied, it's just raw sensor data with no prossesing so it's up to the recorder to apply the gamma and debayer the signal. There is a noticable diffirence in color when you compare the oddessey Q7 with the atomos shogun. I prefer the Q7, yes the menu sucks and it's kinda slow compared to the Atmos but the colors it produces is amazing :)! Keep up the good work!
Great info about the color! This is why I wasn't concerned about it lol. I own a 7q+ and would've been happy use that but obviously had to shoot this with a Shogun Inferno because of ProRes RAW. So no option but to use the Atomos. I also happen to love old school, not stylized/graphically pleasing menus. They are more simple to me. I'm just an old soul lol
Jersey Filmmaker Haha true I use the Q7 aswell, the extra time and clunkyness is in the end worth it because the endproduct is amazing and that's what the client pays for :) What I do hope is that the convergent team will make 444 aviable as a competition for proresRae.
Hey brother, I hope you made a follow up to this video. It misleads peaple badly thinking PRRaw gives or has in itself more Dynamic range, when in reality all it does is capturing the full potential of each camera sensor it is applied to it's full potential. The reason why you see your highlights over exposed in your scopes is because you are working on a rec 709 color space with a hi Dynamic range file without a Loggamma curve applied. That s how basically how the information of any log profile (Slog, Clog,Zlog etc..) would look without the "log" gamma curve applied and baked into it. PResRaw is a fantastic, don't get me wrong, but does not magically recover overexposed footage like you are implying. If you blow out your highlights, there is not going back, same with the shadows is you crush them! Thanks for the work and effort put into your videos though. I still appreciate them. Btw, just for the record.. I work with raw files fairly often and I'm waiting for PrRaw to be fully optimized to work with it!
Guys, every sensor has a fixed dynamic range, whether that be Red or any other brand. Either the codec further limits that range by baking in gain after the sensor, or it doesn't, or it does to whatever degree. Red will show you the RAW dynamic range coming off the sensor- beyond that you are clipped or hitting the noise floor. It doesn't matter which ISO you shoot at - the range is the same - ISO is juts a way of displaying that range. The Sony also allows for a wider latitude of recording when using Pro Res RAW - and the Sony also has a noise floor and clip ceiling based in the sensor. The Sony likely displays a much higher ISO (does it even tell you?) while shooting so then you can pull it down further. If it it allowed you to shoot while viewing a lower ISO display, and you made that view look clipped, you could not bring it back - just like the Red file. There is no magic here, and no mystery.
Apple ProRes raw plus Sony equals a 16 to 12 bit conversion. 2 things are happening 1. The data is going from sensor to ProRes Raw try not to compress but move data where it needs it most. Most of the time that’s the highlight. So ProRes really focuses on that end. 2. Sonys work on 16bit linear more highlight space to being with. Combine those two attributes and you have a highlight/high exposure beast. Try the reverse and see how underexposing goes on both cameras. Great comparison! Not why everyone was looking at it as if it was a color test when it was an exposure comparison but hey I got it. I would like to see if 444HQ can go up against ProRawHQ.
Point is; we (and you?) don't know how many stops your face was overexposed in each shot. Could be you overexposed the skin in the prores raw clip just 2 stops and the skin in the red footage like 4 stops. Also blowing highlights on a 709 monitor preview isn't the same as overexposing beyond the highlight goalposts on the red histogram. If it's beyond the goalpost it's unrecoverable. Also red is probably better with underexposure than the prores raw / the other camera. It should be about how much total usable dynamic range there is in the raw files, and expose to capture the dynamic range in the scene accordingly.
I think your comparison missed one key point: Did you truly overexpose your footage? On the RED it's super simple to tell if you're clipping your highlights because you just look at the right-side goal post and traffic lights. If any of them are lit, then you're clipping and there's no recovering them. Plain and simple. This clipping indicator isn't affected by your ISO setting, which is just metadata and doesn't affect the recorded RAW signal. Also note that the FCPX image processing pipeline can be tricky, and you need to make sure you're choosing the right LUT conversions from RAW. Also note that RED has a new IPP2 with a bigger log space to process the image to avoid clipping. It doesn't appear that you were using it in this comparison. On the Sony FS5 and ProRes RAW, I don't believe there's a clear indicator to tell you when your RAW recording is clipping--like there is on the RED. Although the Atomos recorders can show a clipping line in the waveform monitor, it seems like it's based on a specific SDR or HDR curve--not the RAW recorded signal. As long as you're not clipping the RAW recorded signal, you'll always be able to pull back highlights regardless of the camera or RAW format. I think a better video would be: "How to properly expose when recording to ProRes RAW to maximize your dynamic range." Because if you're not using all the 12-bits available for RAW recording on the Sony / Atomos combo, then you're not getting the full dynamic range and benefit of RAW recording.
Also note that R3D is a 16-bit RAW codec whereas the Atomos only currently records 12-bit RAW from the Sony, so by definition R3D can capture more dynamic range in this case and will always win because of... math. Note that ProRes RAW can go up to 16-bit, but the RAW output from the Sony is only 12-bit.
Yes. The simple answer is that he didn’t overexpose the raw footage, he just told final cut to display it as if it were iso 3200, Which is fake overexposure.
Here's the reason why there's a lot of highlights recovery, it's meant to be monitored (during capture) in HDR. When you put a HDR video in a SDR timeline, you will see miraculous highlights recovery. You can see similar result with HLG. Now, people giving you a hard time is... well... I wish they would put out a video with the perfect comparison test they mention. I did a comparison between RED Helium 8K, EVA1 in ProRes RAW and a GH5 in HLG. The big thing here is, exposure now needs a reference, over/underexposed for SDR or HDR, Love the videos, keep it up!
Felipe Baez thanks buddy!! And thanks for the info. HDR is something I’m still coming to understand, which is probably why I don’t understand how PRR works lol. Great insight! Thanks for watching 👊🏼
It seems you are still confusing dynamic range and codecs. Look at what DSLR people have been doing in regards to measuring and discussing dynamic range. You make claims about codecs, but since the material is different (cameras, codecs, lighting), you are not making any trustworthy arguments regarding, specifically, the codecs. There may be real difference, but it seems more plausible that different cameras & lighting affects the dynamic range more than the codec. Just see the DSLR folks who use vastly different codecs/raw formats but in the end the format affects the outcome very little. Some cameras have higher dynamic range, some deal better with over exposure and some are safer to underexpose.
This is a little late...but I am having to do a project with someone who is wanting to use RED over ProRes Raw and I just saw this video. So, I work in FCPX quite a bit. You were correct in making the Library Wide Gamut HDR.....but you didn't make the project rec2020. It was still 709. Which, when messing with colors might shove that roof onto the red footage that you wee getting. Why it was working on the ProRes and not the RED...probably cause of Apple and shit. I don't have access to the red footage to try this...but you might want to give it a third times the charm
I just like seeing your face.. I don't care if you're underexposed, or overexposed.. as long as you're exposed.. It's so funny, I just keep remembering that video you did with the Red, and the FS7, and they were talking about ''I shoot RAW'' and he was like ''No I shoot RAW.. I shoot better than you'' ''Shoot..'' funny stuff... BTW Love how you brushed your teeth. no homo. very dexterous
You simply did no over expose the proresRaw footage. You just took the raw footage and told final cut to show you what it would look like at iso 3200, which would obviously look blown out. ISO has no part in the exposure triangle, so you need to redo the tests ignoring ISO.
Excellent video thks a lot. I'm a Sony FS5 shooter and I'm interested in red camera too. Honestly this proresraw codec is truly amazing as you described.The potential in shooting HDR is jawboning. There is nothing to add except than when shooting Slog underexposing will create noise.everything under 10 IRE is suspicious of a noisy clip non recoverable.you highlighted this on part 1.is that the same with RED code raw? What i do not know and that is maybe the difference with RED code raw is that you can expose normaly a scene and drop iso as low as possible to simulate a shot in the night.... On Sony and proresraw you cannot drop the iso this is what I can say
Wow, I'm so late to this party. ProRes RAW user here. Stopped by because I wanted to check out how Red Raw works, just in case I need to shoot on a Red. Anyway - more importantly, there is one thing that's wrong with your test - The ProRes Raw file is not actually over-exposed. That's your issue. The Red you either overexposed with ISO or with that harsh light. However, the ProRes Raw file isn't actually overexposed - it just APPEARS overexposed when you first pull in the files into FCPx. So...yeah. Looks cool to be able to recover all those highlights, but that doesn't mean it was overexposed. If you record using the monitor you'll see how it was exposed correctly and displays fine, but as soon as you import them they look like the surface of the sun haha. But...they're actually fine. And I think that's an interesting point to debate. Why the hell do ProRes Raw files have to "look" overexposed when importing?
This ProresRaw thing is awesome ..... I'm an FCPX user and love it. Been an editor for almost two decades. But ProresRaw ..... absolutely awesome . I don't even care what they did 😂😂😂😂 it's beautiful.
Nigel Thompson haha yeah it works really well! I think a lot of people feel I did the test wrong because what they are seeing doesn’t seem right and not many have experienced it yet. So if they haven’t seen it for themselves and it’s pretty much unbelievable, then naturally I’m doing something wrong 😏
Thanks for this video, I appreciate the time spent to produce it. However, I think it might be fair to question the methodology - not saying that the end result wouldn't be the same if you use the exact same lighting with comparable camera settings, just that the current conclusion can't be trusted. ProRes RAW wouldn't be what's giving the Sony so much highlight recovery... it would be Sony's color science + their sensor, PRR is just a container. On paper, it doesn't seem that different from Cineform RAW. :-) It might seem like beating a dead horse at this point, but maybe doing the test again with consistent methods could settle the argument? It's understandable if you just want to move on though. :-)
Shawn Miller haha thanks for the comment. Great points, but I am definitely done with this at the moment lol. We’ll just have to take it for what it’s worth for now and maybe I’ll revisit it once again in the (distant) future 👊🏼
Fair enough! Maybe those of us wanting to see this test re-done could, you know... just do it... then take the heat from people who don't like the results. ;-)
you can’t use the standard color tools in FCPx on raw red files. You have to process Red raw files with Redcinex or the Red plug in in FCPx. I think the biggest misstake is the two images where not shot the same. The prores just shot over exposed overall, but the Red just overexposed on your face. Not the same thing and just no way to compare.
Hey, Thank you so much for replying to my comment in this video. There is no doubt the prores is the winner in this regard. Some people really played hard on you. Hope I didn't. lol
I really, really hope people don't look at this and come away thinking a codec in any way changes a camera/sensor's response to light. As has been pointed out, you're making many technical mistakes. Start by turning off the LUT that FCPX auto adds to log footage, under clip info, so that you can see what your data actually looks like: set LUT to 'none'. FCPX will snap back to the expected washed out "log look" and you can grade from there. ProRes RAW can't recover anything that's clipped-same as any other codec. You're having a monitoring issue.
To be fair, if I recall correctly, you recorded in 10:1 on the red and in prores raw HQ, which is more comparable to 3:1 or 5:1 at most. What I say isn't comparable is that the compression isn't equivalent. The red file is at much more of a data loss than the prores file.
Great Video.The Pro-res is a patented product of Apple.Yes everybody will have to pay licence fees.I is in my opinion the best proprietary Codec out there.
No, you're doing everything right, though most FCPX users have tons of additional plugins so we're not just using the basic tools supplied. You probably hate FCPX because you're simply not familiar with it. Its actually a very powerful editor, more so with recent updates. I dislike premier, but only because my workflow is FCPX and Resolve. Cool video with great examples 👍
Meh...once you've clipped your highlights (sensor overload!) - they're gone, be it Sony (them lights&cheeks) or RED (face). "RAW" ain't got nothing to do with it... :)
Great video like the previous one. Really interesting. Tip: don't waste your time casting your pearls before swine. Ignore disrespectful people and their ignorant comments.
Im in your video :'D I just thourght a lot about what I saw in the video and didn't had blown red and proresraw files to test it With the scopes now i can see mutch better whats happening, thanks for that. It would be interesting to test this against the red how many stops of dynamicrange there is in the raw files. there is realy a lot of highlight in the proresraw that you can push down again but it makes me now think more how the raw in the red realy works with the iso i was a little hyped when i first heard about prores raw but i still hope that we will be able to change colortemperatur and hue on most shoots you get the exposure almost right but there are times when i forget to set the color right. but on the other side if my exposure is wrong its most times to light and not to dark so for me it would be a good thing i think we will get some more infos about all that when other companys can use them to in there software thanks for the second part. and maybe a 3 when there is more information aboud all of this
In both videos, in FCPX you still have the Red Color 2 gamma 4 and the R3D files. You need to change the Red to RGB Wide gamut and log 310. then download the RED LUT KIT www.red.com/downloads?category=Other&release=final Free from red website.Something like medium contrast roll off 4. Red is 16 bit not 12
Hi, the RED can overexpose over +4stop and you can roll back the highlight to perfect exposure, I think you can not use right method ! You make a mistake between the overexposure and the sensor capacity and RAW files, see here this link that demonstrate the RED capacity, ua-cam.com/video/ODTZhAHDy0c/v-deo.htmlm11s
I own a FS5 with RAW update and a Atomos Inferno. I did a RAW Test myself. To exposure the RAW Material right, I use the waveform in the Atomos Recorder and I try to overexpose ist us much as possible, but I avoid any clip anything in the highlights! When I import the RAW Files in FCP it looks not like on the Atomos before! It looks overexposed, but its all in the material, so you can bring ist back! There is no magic! Its just that FCP interpreters the RAW Material it in a very strange way, they could also start with a flat image and you have to bring the contrasts back. You should expose the RED Material in the camera the same way, have a look at the flat RAW image in Camera and expose it in the way, that there is no highlight clipping. I think the FS5 has (even with RAW) realistic 13 Stops dynamic range, and a litte bit noise in the shadows, so you should use the "upper" 10 stops to get a clean image. But the huge benefit of using RAW is that the color temperature is not backed in the material, you can easy correct it in FCP from 3200 to 5600 if you have a mixed light situation.
The reason you couldn’t recover the highlights of the red footage is because you clipped the sensor.
Raw is Raw. Different raw codecs don’t change the cameras dynamic range or ability to recover highlights. If you clip the sensor it’s clipped no matter what. That’s the difference between his two clips. The prores clip is with in the sensors range and so was the red until you added more light and clipped the sensor.
The only benefit of prores raw is the workflow other wise it’s more or less the same as any other raw codec.
Also people aren’t haters just because you disagree with you. Especially because your DID mess up your test and admit yourself you don’t understand how it works.
Informative educational content is great but if you are gonna teach people you gotta do your research.
We shoot theater release docudramas exclusively on RED units and you clearly clipped the sensor; not just overexposed. It's not apples to apples * pun intended*. I can 'artificially overexpose' RED footage as well into ultra-white territory and bring it back to "recover" highlight data too *sarcasm*. RAW is RAW and has nothing to do with the specs of a sensor and where they clip. You are confusing dynamic range and codecs as well as not taking into account the specific sensor and camera specs.
Bro,,, in raw files if U clip highlights (not over expose) , U cannot recover the clipped footage no matter which raw codec U will use ,, let's not confuse "over expose" with "highlight clipping" ,, for the 2nd r3d file the footage's highlight was clipped but for the ProRes Raw it was over exposed but highlight was not clipped .. hope that U will understand ...
It's amazing to me how the 'nay-Sayers' don't understand that you were simply just showing the ability to recover lost dynamics. Which is VERY OBVIOUS just on the spectrum graph alone. The picture being an exact match is mostly irrelevant, you're right bro, and you're definitely not crazy.
Brice Howard 👊🏼🙌🏼👍🏼
Except it wasn’t lost dynamics. It was taking the raw data and starting off by telling final cut to blow them out. That’s fake overexposure.
Thanks for the info! The videos are great and informative.
CarOnTheWall you betcha!! Thanks for watching 🙌🏼
I appreciate the time you took to do this and including the scopes was very helpful. Hey man, you didn't have the time to use the same lighting. Any filmmaker understands that time is precious. The effort is appreciated and both videos gave me great insight on the possibilities of this new codec. Thank you.
a well constructed response, I'm looking forward for Pro Res Raw to expand to other editing platforms
Greetings from Greece. You've made your point, good stuff, thanks for your time, appreciate it. Thumbs up & Peace.
Thing about RED cameras that many people don't seem to grasp is once your exposure gets out of the goal posts/traffic lights then pretty much you aren't bringing that detail back-whether it's in the hightlights or shadows. Yes you'd get better highlight detail by shooting at a higher ISO but the way the metadata works to manipulate in post is you're limited to what's in the RAW container-not histogram. Since r3ds are RAW-even moving it to a HDR/REC2020 color space more then likely they won't be as salvageable too.
Also in regards to the Sony, digital is an Additive Color-meaning that when your exposure increases-so does saturation. Film is the opposite or a Subtractive Color. Take grass for example when you are shooting outside-it would clip/overexpose to a crazy saturated yellow, not stay green or just get whiter-like film does. That's the essence to the "film look" something like more of the higher end camera manufactures try to implement to a certain degree in their top-tier color sciences (i.e. Arri, RED, Sony Venice, Panvision/Light Iron). Which is why your skin tones look so janky when bringing the exposure down on the Sony-you may be decreasing the exposure on your overexposed skin but the saturation stayed the same-and in this case your skin tones were more in the red/blue channel-I'd like to see how the Sony Venice handles itself in similar shooting conditions.
Anyway great video, as a RED Weapon/DSMC2 (whatever they call it these days) owner I wish I could bring back my highlights that are that far out of the histogram like this. But every camera has quirks-and as long as I keep everything in the goal posts you're good to go.
Seems like people are getting pissed off because they spend a lot of money on RED vs Sony, C200, etc with ProRes.
Really? I never shoot in ProRes. I'll always shoot raw on RED. And I love the FS7 internal codec and capabilities. I would shoot internal raw on a C200 if I had one as well.
ProRes doesn't mean much in my workflow so I'm personally not mad at all. ProRes RAW is super cool but no where near ready to be a workflow used on a daily basis. I'm VERY happy with my REDs (in fact I just bought my third) and my Sony's!! (minus the FS5, don't love that one lol)
so the RED is always shooting at 800iso, the fs7 I assume is shooting at iso 2000, the red has more highlight recovers when it shot at its native iso (800), iso 250 is actually a simulation for the viewer. SO the red at iso 250 is aready overexposing the sensor.
Very cool with the ProResRaw highlight recovery. But I’m surprised you didn’t view the RedLogFilm version of the RED file for the test?
Hi Anthony, it's a wonderful comparison no matter what some few people think that it is a comparison of skin tone;which is not. Just ignore those comments and make more informative videos. To me it looks like some people just couldn't get over the fact that ProRes Raw is a great codec. As for me I don't care whether a product is from Apple, Red, Sony, Panasonic or whoever, if the product is good then lets accept and use it. Anyway you did a great comparison ( I mean the first part of this video, no matter what people said). Cheers
Thanks, man you are the best!
When you reshoot your tests make sure the cameras are at the same ISO. If you over exposed the Red at 350 you are already pulling down the exposure a bunch on the Red viewer.
But wait. You are editing in a standard library. You need to edit in a wide gamut color space to get everything out of prores raw, and red as far as I know. You can still export to rec709 and grade to rec709 but you need to set your library to wide gamut
Also, you may need to change color space override to rec202pq. All atomos recorders end up with files that import into fcpx as rec709. You need to use wide gamut and change the color space override to see max results. Also, check under the "View" drop down nextto the inspector and select "show HDR values as tone mapped." Your skin will not look so red on the prores raw.
Did you shoot SLog3 on the Sony?
And sorry if I hurt your feelings. I do actually appreciate that you took the time to do this. I know how time-consuming these tests are. I do them myself, and did my own test between ProRes RAW and RAW to ProRes. There's actually not a lot of difference between the two. Except the RAW to ProRes files are smaller. Thanks again!!!
Thank you for the video! ProRes Raw looks impressive and I'm not sure why everyone is hating on Apple. I love FCPX and I love RED (and R3D). The two have been partners for a long time. RED already licenses PRORES and has the ability to output R3D and PRORES simultaneously. It is only a matter of time before they (RED) incorporates PRORES RAW into their cameras as well! And when they do, I will be the first in line.
GO RED... GO APPLE... Long live FCPX!!!
chris s their relationship is really nice, and I hope you are right about the implementation of ProRes RAW in RED cameras! I just also hope and look forward to Adobe implementing the codec into their products.
I don’t have a real beef with FinalCut, I know it’s a powerful and amazing piece of software. In fact, I was a FinalCut 7 user! I just despise the interface and timeline layout. I like to see all my layers stacked , and more importantly I go back and forth with/dynamically link to After Effects, Audition and Photoshop very very often. So FCPX would slow down my workflow, essentially costing me money.
So that’s all! I’m not a true hater, I just play the game of it’s one or the other lol. But maybe one day I’ll conform 🤔
Sony was exposed to the right (with minimal clipping on the nose), but Red was overexposed to sensor clip on whole face. Nothing magical, just wrong white point in the data range in sony raw, for cdng it was exactly the same isues.
Hi Mate :) Good work! About color on the sony when you push out a RAW signal the Bionix color doesn't get applied, it's just raw sensor data with no prossesing so it's up to the recorder to apply the gamma and debayer the signal. There is a noticable diffirence in color when you compare the oddessey Q7 with the atomos shogun. I prefer the Q7, yes the menu sucks and it's kinda slow compared to the Atmos but the colors it produces is amazing :)!
Keep up the good work!
Great info about the color! This is why I wasn't concerned about it lol. I own a 7q+ and would've been happy use that but obviously had to shoot this with a Shogun Inferno because of ProRes RAW. So no option but to use the Atomos. I also happen to love old school, not stylized/graphically pleasing menus. They are more simple to me. I'm just an old soul lol
Jersey Filmmaker Haha true I use the Q7 aswell, the extra time and clunkyness is in the end worth it because the endproduct is amazing and that's what the client pays for :) What I do hope is that the convergent team will make 444 aviable as a competition for proresRae.
Hey brother, I hope you made a follow up to this video. It misleads peaple badly thinking PRRaw gives or has in itself more Dynamic range, when in reality all it does is capturing the full potential of each camera sensor it is applied to it's full potential. The reason why you see your highlights over exposed in your scopes is because you are working on a rec 709 color space with a hi Dynamic range file without a Loggamma curve applied. That s how basically how the information of any log profile (Slog, Clog,Zlog etc..) would look without the "log" gamma curve applied and baked into it. PResRaw is a fantastic, don't get me wrong, but does not magically recover overexposed footage like you are implying. If you blow out your highlights, there is not going back, same with the shadows is you crush them! Thanks for the work and effort put into your videos though. I still appreciate them. Btw, just for the record.. I work with raw files fairly often and I'm waiting for PrRaw to be fully optimized to work with it!
Guys, every sensor has a fixed dynamic range, whether that be Red or any other brand. Either the codec further limits that range by baking in gain after the sensor, or it doesn't, or it does to whatever degree. Red will show you the RAW dynamic range coming off the sensor- beyond that you are clipped or hitting the noise floor. It doesn't matter which ISO you shoot at - the range is the same - ISO is juts a way of displaying that range. The Sony also allows for a wider latitude of recording when using Pro Res RAW - and the Sony also has a noise floor and clip ceiling based in the sensor. The Sony likely displays a much higher ISO (does it even tell you?) while shooting so then you can pull it down further. If it it allowed you to shoot while viewing a lower ISO display, and you made that view look clipped, you could not bring it back - just like the Red file. There is no magic here, and no mystery.
Thanks for your time man testing and sharing!
Do you think we should buy a iMac or Macbook? I use to hate Apple but now I have to recognize they are very convincing...
Apple ProRes raw plus Sony equals a 16 to 12 bit conversion.
2 things are happening
1. The data is going from sensor to ProRes Raw try not to compress but move data where it needs it most. Most of the time that’s the highlight. So ProRes really focuses on that end.
2. Sonys work on 16bit linear more highlight space to being with.
Combine those two attributes and you have a highlight/high exposure beast.
Try the reverse and see how underexposing goes on both cameras.
Great comparison! Not why everyone was looking at it as if it was a color test when it was an exposure comparison but hey I got it.
I would like to see if 444HQ can go up against ProRawHQ.
Point is; we (and you?) don't know how many stops your face was overexposed in each shot. Could be you overexposed the skin in the prores raw clip just 2 stops and the skin in the red footage like 4 stops. Also blowing highlights on a 709 monitor preview isn't the same as overexposing beyond the highlight goalposts on the red histogram. If it's beyond the goalpost it's unrecoverable. Also red is probably better with underexposure than the prores raw / the other camera. It should be about how much total usable dynamic range there is in the raw files, and expose to capture the dynamic range in the scene accordingly.
I think your comparison missed one key point: Did you truly overexpose your footage? On the RED it's super simple to tell if you're clipping your highlights because you just look at the right-side goal post and traffic lights. If any of them are lit, then you're clipping and there's no recovering them. Plain and simple. This clipping indicator isn't affected by your ISO setting, which is just metadata and doesn't affect the recorded RAW signal. Also note that the FCPX image processing pipeline can be tricky, and you need to make sure you're choosing the right LUT conversions from RAW. Also note that RED has a new IPP2 with a bigger log space to process the image to avoid clipping. It doesn't appear that you were using it in this comparison.
On the Sony FS5 and ProRes RAW, I don't believe there's a clear indicator to tell you when your RAW recording is clipping--like there is on the RED. Although the Atomos recorders can show a clipping line in the waveform monitor, it seems like it's based on a specific SDR or HDR curve--not the RAW recorded signal. As long as you're not clipping the RAW recorded signal, you'll always be able to pull back highlights regardless of the camera or RAW format.
I think a better video would be: "How to properly expose when recording to ProRes RAW to maximize your dynamic range." Because if you're not using all the 12-bits available for RAW recording on the Sony / Atomos combo, then you're not getting the full dynamic range and benefit of RAW recording.
Also note that R3D is a 16-bit RAW codec whereas the Atomos only currently records 12-bit RAW from the Sony, so by definition R3D can capture more dynamic range in this case and will always win because of... math. Note that ProRes RAW can go up to 16-bit, but the RAW output from the Sony is only 12-bit.
Yes. The simple answer is that he didn’t overexpose the raw footage, he just told final cut to display it as if it were iso 3200, Which is fake overexposure.
The real issue is all of the data processing that’s going on with new Apple codecs see the iPhone-a lot going on there and I suspect some crossover
Here's the reason why there's a lot of highlights recovery, it's meant to be monitored (during capture) in HDR. When you put a HDR video in a SDR timeline, you will see miraculous highlights recovery. You can see similar result with HLG. Now, people giving you a hard time is... well... I wish they would put out a video with the perfect comparison test they mention. I did a comparison between RED Helium 8K, EVA1 in ProRes RAW and a GH5 in HLG. The big thing here is, exposure now needs a reference, over/underexposed for SDR or HDR, Love the videos, keep it up!
Felipe Baez thanks buddy!! And thanks for the info. HDR is something I’m still coming to understand, which is probably why I don’t understand how PRR works lol. Great insight! Thanks for watching 👊🏼
What did you find in your comparison between those cameras/codecs?
The most simple way is, shoot both r3d and protest on red in same lighting condition and to test them
It seems you are still confusing dynamic range and codecs. Look at what DSLR people have been doing in regards to measuring and discussing dynamic range. You make claims about codecs, but since the material is different (cameras, codecs, lighting), you are not making any trustworthy arguments regarding, specifically, the codecs.
There may be real difference, but it seems more plausible that different cameras & lighting affects the dynamic range more than the codec. Just see the DSLR folks who use vastly different codecs/raw formats but in the end the format affects the outcome very little. Some cameras have higher dynamic range, some deal better with over exposure and some are safer to underexpose.
This is a little late...but I am having to do a project with someone who is wanting to use RED over ProRes Raw and I just saw this video. So, I work in FCPX quite a bit. You were correct in making the Library Wide Gamut HDR.....but you didn't make the project rec2020. It was still 709. Which, when messing with colors might shove that roof onto the red footage that you wee getting. Why it was working on the ProRes and not the RED...probably cause of Apple and shit. I don't have access to the red footage to try this...but you might want to give it a third times the charm
muddygun haha awesome! Thanks for the info!
you dont know how to use final cut period ....... that is not highlights control
I just like seeing your face.. I don't care if you're underexposed, or overexposed.. as long as you're exposed..
It's so funny, I just keep remembering that video you did with the Red, and the FS7, and they were talking about ''I shoot RAW'' and he was like ''No I shoot RAW.. I shoot better than you'' ''Shoot..'' funny stuff...
BTW Love how you brushed your teeth. no homo. very dexterous
Great !!! Plus, I can watch your video during the half time of Brazil-Serbia
You simply did no over expose the proresRaw footage. You just took the raw footage and told final cut to show you what it would look like at iso 3200, which would obviously look blown out. ISO has no part in the exposure triangle, so you need to redo the tests ignoring ISO.
This method is wrong, you must use the same settings same lighting. Even your self don't know how much overexposed both cameras.
Excellent video thks a lot. I'm a Sony FS5 shooter and I'm interested in red camera too. Honestly this proresraw codec is truly amazing as you described.The potential in shooting HDR is jawboning. There is nothing to add except than when shooting Slog underexposing will create noise.everything under 10 IRE is suspicious of a noisy clip non recoverable.you highlighted this on part 1.is that the same with RED code raw?
What i do not know and that is maybe the difference with RED code raw is that you can expose normaly a scene and drop iso as low as possible to simulate a shot in the night....
On Sony and proresraw you cannot drop the iso
this is what I can say
Wow, I'm so late to this party. ProRes RAW user here. Stopped by because I wanted to check out how Red Raw works, just in case I need to shoot on a Red. Anyway - more importantly, there is one thing that's wrong with your test - The ProRes Raw file is not actually over-exposed. That's your issue. The Red you either overexposed with ISO or with that harsh light. However, the ProRes Raw file isn't actually overexposed - it just APPEARS overexposed when you first pull in the files into FCPx. So...yeah. Looks cool to be able to recover all those highlights, but that doesn't mean it was overexposed. If you record using the monitor you'll see how it was exposed correctly and displays fine, but as soon as you import them they look like the surface of the sun haha. But...they're actually fine. And I think that's an interesting point to debate. Why the hell do ProRes Raw files have to "look" overexposed when importing?
This ProresRaw thing is awesome ..... I'm an FCPX user and love it. Been an editor for almost two decades.
But ProresRaw ..... absolutely awesome . I don't even care what they did 😂😂😂😂 it's beautiful.
Nigel Thompson haha yeah it works really well!
I think a lot of people feel I did the test wrong because what they are seeing doesn’t seem right and not many have experienced it yet.
So if they haven’t seen it for themselves and it’s pretty much unbelievable, then naturally I’m doing something wrong 😏
Jersey Filmmaker I'll say you should do a perfect test now. Same lens same subject.
Thanks for this video, I appreciate the time spent to produce it. However, I think it might be fair to question the methodology - not saying that the end result wouldn't be the same if you use the exact same lighting with comparable camera settings, just that the current conclusion can't be trusted. ProRes RAW wouldn't be what's giving the Sony so much highlight recovery... it would be Sony's color science + their sensor, PRR is just a container. On paper, it doesn't seem that different from Cineform RAW. :-) It might seem like beating a dead horse at this point, but maybe doing the test again with consistent methods could settle the argument? It's understandable if you just want to move on though. :-)
Shawn Miller haha thanks for the comment. Great points, but I am definitely done with this at the moment lol. We’ll just have to take it for what it’s worth for now and maybe I’ll revisit it once again in the (distant) future 👊🏼
Fair enough! Maybe those of us wanting to see this test re-done could, you know... just do it... then take the heat from people who don't like the results. ;-)
Shawn Miller 🤣 that’s always an option
you can’t use the standard color tools in FCPx on raw red files.
You have to process Red raw files with Redcinex or the Red plug in in FCPx.
I think the biggest misstake is the two images where not shot the same.
The prores just shot over exposed overall, but the Red just overexposed on your face. Not the same thing and just no way to compare.
Hey, Thank you so much for replying to my comment in this video. There is no doubt the prores is the winner in this regard. Some people really played hard on you. Hope I didn't. lol
I really, really hope people don't look at this and come away thinking a codec in any way changes a camera/sensor's response to light.
As has been pointed out, you're making many technical mistakes. Start by turning off the LUT that FCPX auto adds to log footage, under clip info, so that you can see what your data actually looks like: set LUT to 'none'.
FCPX will snap back to the expected washed out "log look" and you can grade from there. ProRes RAW can't recover anything that's clipped-same as any other codec. You're having a monitoring issue.
To be fair, if I recall correctly, you recorded in 10:1 on the red and in prores raw HQ, which is more comparable to 3:1 or 5:1 at most. What I say isn't comparable is that the compression isn't equivalent. The red file is at much more of a data loss than the prores file.
Great Video.The Pro-res is a patented product of Apple.Yes everybody will have to pay licence fees.I is in my opinion the best proprietary Codec out there.
He trolling y'all lol
No, you're doing everything right, though most FCPX users have tons of additional plugins so we're not just using the basic tools supplied.
You probably hate FCPX because you're simply not familiar with it. Its actually a very powerful editor, more so with recent updates. I dislike premier, but only because my workflow is FCPX and Resolve.
Cool video with great examples 👍
no highlights have they on setting he used master control ... wrong wrong wrong
Meh...once you've clipped your highlights (sensor overload!) - they're gone, be it Sony (them lights&cheeks) or RED (face). "RAW" ain't got nothing to do with it... :)
Great video like the previous one. Really interesting. Tip: don't waste your time casting your pearls before swine. Ignore disrespectful people and their ignorant comments.
it's amazing
Im in your video :'D
I just thourght a lot about what I saw in the video and didn't had blown red and proresraw files to test it
With the scopes now i can see mutch better whats happening, thanks for that.
It would be interesting to test this against the red how many stops of dynamicrange there is in the raw files.
there is realy a lot of highlight in the proresraw that you can push down again
but it makes me now think more how the raw in the red realy works with the iso
i was a little hyped when i first heard about prores raw but i still hope that we will be able to change colortemperatur and hue
on most shoots you get the exposure almost right but there are times when i forget to set the color right.
but on the other side if my exposure is wrong its most times to light and not to dark so for me it would be a good thing
i think we will get some more infos about all that when other companys can use them to in there software
thanks for the second part.
and maybe a 3 when there is more information aboud all of this
In both videos, in FCPX you still have the Red Color 2 gamma 4 and the R3D files. You need to change the Red to RGB Wide gamut and log 310. then download the RED LUT KIT www.red.com/downloads?category=Other&release=final Free from red website.Something like medium contrast roll off 4. Red is 16 bit not 12
Hi, the RED can overexpose over +4stop and you can roll back the highlight to perfect exposure, I think you can not use right method ! You make a mistake between the overexposure and the sensor capacity and RAW files, see here this link that demonstrate the RED capacity, ua-cam.com/video/ODTZhAHDy0c/v-deo.htmlm11s
I own a FS5 with RAW update and a Atomos Inferno. I did a RAW Test myself. To exposure the RAW Material right, I use the waveform in the Atomos Recorder and I try to overexpose ist us much as possible, but I avoid any clip anything in the highlights! When I import the RAW Files in FCP it looks not like on the Atomos before! It looks overexposed, but its all in the material, so you can bring ist back! There is no magic! Its just that FCP interpreters the RAW Material it in a very strange way, they could also start with a flat image and you have to bring the contrasts back.
You should expose the RED Material in the camera the same way, have a look at the flat RAW image in Camera and expose it in the way, that there is no highlight clipping.
I think the FS5 has (even with RAW) realistic 13 Stops dynamic range, and a litte bit noise in the shadows, so you should use the "upper" 10 stops to get a clean image. But the huge benefit of using RAW is that the color temperature is not backed in the material, you can easy correct it in FCP from 3200 to 5600 if you have a mixed light situation.