RAW vs LOG | What's the Difference?! | C200 RAW Lite & C-LOG 3
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- ▶ Check out my gear on Kit: kit.com/camero...
In this video, we go over the differences between RAW & LOG, and why they both are SUPER important in the FIlmmaking World!
GET OUR Wedding & GH5 LUTs HERE | bit.ly/2Ojp8kf
What Tutorials do you want to see from Zach?
How to expose the for Log properly
That’s a great one! For sure!!
Video + photo editing
Editing Raw
This is a poor explanation. RAW isn't like this at all. It is just a larger data container to capture a wider ranger of HSL, which a standard 8 bit JPG cannot contain, The 32bit RAW clips on an 8 bit monitor and can be pushed either way to recover. If you shot at ISO 800, you cannot simply change it to ISO 100 and bring out the detail if you shot at ISO 100. If you shot at a certain white balance, you can mess around with the data to recover it, but it has limits depending on the software. The way you explain it, you could take a picture at 102,000 ISO and later on push it down to ISO100. This is not how it works, otherwise there would be no need to worry about any camera settings ever and just leave it in full auto.
Your explanation also wrong😅
Raw is raw recording of sensor data with whole dinamic range and has no interpretation to its details and colors. Bitdeth or "ISO irrelevant" isn't the characteristics of RAW it can be recorded from 6 to 18 bits per chanel it depends on camera and its capabilities. So raw is unaltered unmodified data wich can be edited in any direction.
Log is just one of ways to fit all availeble raw data in regular video container. In order to not crush colours completely, it uses special toncureve for better preservation of tonal difference so it can be reinterpreted back to standard RAW like image, but with loss in quality. Becose it is recorded in heavily compressed container in a first place. So it is interpreted container wich still can be altered in the same way as RAW it jast don't need to, in most cases it is usable as is and people tend to use LUTs to make sertain colorgraiding or even colour science. So in short thay both doing the same thin but in two different ways.
@@hohhan1978 When you say "whole dynamic range" you mean the dynamic range within the setting that you made. You cannot simply set ISO100 and expect to later boost it in post to ISO 10,000 and have the same image that you would have if you set the camera to ISO 10,000. It doesn't work that way.
I have used LOG, RAW, and HDR modes for years and did many tests. RAW is a clear winner on recovering dynamic range as well as colour gamut. LOG seems to be more like 16 bit TIFF IMO where a RAW is 32 bit. There's a limit when tone mapping and using LUTs which is evident when using a wide colour space and still seeing steps between shades when pushing them. With LOG it is especially poor at handling blacks and darker colours. Like you say everything looks compressed and bad when you push the exposure up too much. However when recording in HDR (Canon's extra mode) the blacks look so much better, like they recorded more information at the same settings. This is why I stopped using LOG3 all together. And when I take a pic of the same scene in RAW, the difference in post processing freedom is night and day.
@@ArcanePath360 Actually you can! as far as most of the cameras are ISO-less they just multiplying brightness of base ISO back and forth so only thing that is different there is balance of stops above and under middle gray.but dynamic range stays the same. If you wanna use LOG profiles in same way you MAST forget about LUTs because you need to transform its tone curve in to the linear space and there you can work exactly like you do with RAW only with more noise and loss in resolution. One of ways to avoid this problem is to record 10-12 bit Log instead of regular 8 bit per chanel.
Only Canon usually really physically changing its ISO for RAW recording and with it it can change dynamic range from its native value.
But still in 80% cases native ISO for raw recording is stated not for "Higher" dynamic range but for proper usable balance between stops in darks and brights. That works the same in LOG as well it only have more artifacts in this process. But again higher bit depth and bitrate can fix that as well.
@@hohhan1978 That first sentence makes no sense to me. Dynamic range is called dynamic for a reason. It is so many stops of light which move up and down with the camera settings. If I set ISO100 at f5 in a dim room, it will not pick up half of what it would if I set ISO10,000 at f5, and no amount of post boosting of the brightness in DPP or LR will recover what the sensor never picked up. However, you might be talking about completely different cameras so me. I'm talking about a Canon R7 or DSLR. Those are what I shoot with. Perhaps BM or Sony do things differently
@@ArcanePath360 You mistaken amount of light per iso and different ISO at same amount of light.😄with ISO-less sensor If amount of light that hits your sensor always the same, you record exactly same thing to RAW file with same dynamic range at any ISO.
In other way when you raise ISO at lower amount of light you just elevate brightness from darker stops and make no use from bright stops. Thus loose dynamic range in darks and gain in brights.
That technic even used to balance low noise sensors to perform equal amount of stops up and below gray, ARRI for example have its equality at 800 ISO as far as it performs most balanced at 800 ISO it is called as Native ISO value.
As example if you always shooting 0-EF at every given ISO you either loose or increase amount of stops for each one.
Canon is a different beast with its analogue ISO it actually decrease dynamic range with increasing ISO regardless of incoming Light Because it just became noisier will cutting highlight saturation point. You literally exchange your highlight stops for a bit better noise performance.
By the way that one will brake your mind with that Canon fact😜
If your scene fits within dynamic range for both 100 and 1600 ISO with same light input you will get much less noise at 1600.
Again WITH SAME aperture and shutter speed. But that aint gonna work for other cameras thay just enjoying better noise performance overall 😌
thumbs up because of the intro lmao!!!!
Amazing explanation. Precise and Informative.
Digital artifacts in LOG and RAW are a byproduct of a poor processing engine (slow data bit rate) that can't produce a steady data-stream.
Incorrect or a slow data-stream bit-rate will cause artifacts.
yup
Really great start for you guys, love the production quality. Looking forward to seeing you grow.
Thank you so much for watching!!
Quick Question:
When grading Raw, how is that done? I always see log footage where they drop a LUT on the footage and tweek afterwards. Is it the same process with raw?
Typically, I would do any RAW adjustments first! Things like changing ISO, White Balance, etc. If you still shot in LOG, then just add a LUT/or Grade from scratch and your all set
You Said: when Shooting Log you have 2 stops of Dynamic range, when Shooting RAW you have 12." ...are you serious???
That BRAW though, such a game changer
It really is! We are going to be testing the BMPCC4K soon & I have a feeling the BRAW will be INSANE!
@@CameronGallagher I've got myself the G2 and honestly the Pocket 4k is just as good but a micro four thirds sensor and not as high frame rates. The camera Is a must in my opinion. A buddy of mine pairs it with his scarlet W and has 3 BMPCC4k as is B-D cams 😂👍
Wow haha Yeah, I really want to see how the RAW matches against the Canon Raw!
You cannot change ISO in RAW video LOL, the ISO is how sensitive the sensor is to light, you can however recover a great deal of details in shadows and highlights in RAW video.
In fact I am surprised you just did not say, RAW video is just like RAW photo, principle is the same except RAW video is continous stream of images, if you shot RAW video at 24fps you end up with 24 frames per second of what you shot in your folder + an audio clip.
Some RAW cameras combined these into just one big file but in essence the principle is the same.
With RAW-video you can do just as much to the image as you can with RAW photos.
Mmmm yes, like changing the ISO in Resolve! 😜
You actually can't recover anymore highlight detail whatsoever in raw vs log. You can recover shadows due to exposure adjustments in post which is the same as an in camera iso change, but you cant add in dynamic range to clipped highlights (other than blackmagic cameras).
@@CameronGallagher Amazing explanation. What camera and Lens did you use for this video? Secondly did you use Raw or log for this video lol?
Thanks, I did think they were the same thing, because I never had a camera that had either Log or RAW videos
I have a canon that can shoot raw and clog and clog 3. If I shoot raw, does it matter which log profile I choose? I mean I can change it in post right? So it doesn’t matter?
So which is better Log or Raw for video shoot profile ?
The jingle kills my ears
I finally get it! Thank-you!
Why do you see results immediately with log as opposed to raw when it comes to applying by a lut?
Nice demo guys it's for sure difficulte to manage the contrast when you shoot under trees with a very bright sun, or even on a church with light candle, most analog camera or LOG profile fail on that kind of setup, plus RAW profile is more linear and able to work with HDRI still picture like open EXR or HDR, it's make compositing with CGI even more easy, especialy with an ACES color management profile.
Wow that second host really seems to have a talent for talking! Lol
Right? Must know his stuff lol
@@CameronGallagher LOL
Amazing video and explanation! Thank you very much
Wanted to understand RAW more better. If I shot in a very high dynamic range situation where keeping it in ISO 800 is the right exposure for the shadows and ISO 100, or whatever's the least, for the highlights. I would like to set the ISO as 800 in the RAW settings in post. Will my highlight recovery be possible? If so, then how?
PS. Sorry for this question, even though the video was thorough.
This video is bullshit. It explains RAW all wrong. I have been shooting RAW for some 20 years, and it does not work like this at all. It's simply a 32 bit file vs an 8 bit file (JPG) so it holds more data which you can recover later, but it isn't a magic bullet and you should always aim to properly expose for the best image quality. You need good software that comes with your camera to work on your proprietary RAW files to get the best from them.
More, please!!!)))) nice job!
Very informative, thanks!
Q: How can you change ISO in RAW after to fact, when it has something to do about electric gain on the video sensor to make it more light sensitive . If you change ISO from like ISO200 to ISO25400, does the picture get any brighter and with more grain? Because the T-stop (Aperture) does not change, that is fixed by the lens. Can anyone explain that to me??? Or is it just like exposure when you are working with Photo RAWs?
It’s kind of both! The Raw is basically capturing all possibilities of data at once! It’s technically not even a “Video” but has to be interpreted later. So it’s somewhat both, but the grain will increase as you increase the ISO
@@CameronGallagher
I know that it captures all of the data from the sensor, but still the ISO fixed by the sensors baseline, on my Panasonic EVA1 it is ISO800 and ISO2500. But the EVA1 also have two circuit, one for each ISO value. I think it is at bad choice of word to use ISO, when it is exposure we are talking about. And nothing to do about ISO.... Remember to good old days with film :0)
Anyway keep up the good work and looking forward to your next video.
Oh I totally agree! It’s a bad choice of words on the RAW status! Thank you! I’m so glad your enjoying everything!
They wrong you cant cange iso in raw its to late
I was confused by that too. It is physically impossible to change ISO after the image was already captured. Makes me think if these guys ever even used RAW format, or even understand what ISO is exactly.
Great intro dood
I shot a hyperlapse with a DJI Air 2 rotating into a sunrise, it was beautiful but for having to change my shutter speed to bring down the exposure mid video. I'm new at this so not sure how I correct this. Any suggestions?
Put your photos into a nested sequence, and put a cut right where the change in shutter speed is. Use color correction or levels to match the last frame of the first clip to the first frame of the last clip, so that there’s now no change at the cut. Next, keyframe the intensity of the effect to 100% at the cut, and 0% a bit earlier-a second, a couple seconds, the very beginning of the clip…whatever looks best.
Boom, fixed.
Hello there! When did you rebrand the channel?
Just the other day! I’m adding Zach and expanding! This way it’s not just me haha
I have a question. I´m new in this raw thing. So when I record a video and balance all lights and shadows according to what I see in the field monitor and then I load the raw footage in the computer, everything looks different and I have to balance whites again, correct exposure, etc It's feels like doing the job again. Please enlighten me, what should I do?
It could be a few things. A. your monitors could be REALLY far off, causing it to look super different. B. (and what I think it is) typically, a monitor is using a LUT to show "what looks better" but when you bring it into software, it shows the FLAT image. So thats usually a good thing!
From what I understand RAW is not actually changing the ISO in post it’s just adding and removing gain. There is a misconception that it is a voodoo codec that can magically change these things. If you mess up white balance in camera with RAW your image will still look as mediocre if had been shot in LOG
White balance you can easily change in RAW. No point fiddling with it during the shoot.
Video starts at 1:06
Zack forgot to put makeup😂
ok I learned that if you dont know what the heck you are doing with your camera then RAW will help you recover and compensate the lack of skill? :) Also watched you guys in 4K, you are constantly blurry/out of focus. Have you not noticed? Also I suggest to normalize audio of your intro vs actual video, so viewers dont have to change their volume because you assembled your video this way. I am a bit surprised that you guys actually teach others in this topic
Vlad, quit the Impaling
RAW does not have more DR!
Yes, it almost always does! The RAW codec typically is the proprietary interpretation of the sensors “full readout” including color & DR! Hence why most cameras websites will even say in raw they usually have 1-2 stops more of DR. Just use Resolves highlight recovery!
@@CameronGallagher Unfortunately that's absolute marketing nonsense. RAW can be great but especially so if the photons hitting the photosites on the sensor are codified with a Log gamma curve - before they are converted into numerical values for you to color grade and unlike a typical (none RAW) Log where you'll be given pixels to work with in post. If these photons are codified Linearly then you will pretty much always lose DR information. What you want is the type of RAW that Arri, Blackmagic provide (AKA Log Raw) or RED (I believe (would have to research) this is linear but at a much higher bit depth). You should read up more on this subject. Check here: prolost.com/blog/rawvslog, check Alistair Chapman talking about this all over the place, check google or even check Blain Brown's cinemtography book. Kind greetings! :) 10 Bit (None Raw) Log will easily outperform the Dynamic Range of 12 Bit RAW (especially so in the shadows)
Holy shit, 60s to get to the information.
60 seconds wasted?? Just think of all you could have done!
@@CameronGallagher I mean, I didn't mean to offend -sorry if I did. Take it as constructive criticism perhaps? Seems like yt offers chapters you can add. Some of us are working through deadlines and trying to figure stuff out on the fly watching 3-6 videos and after the 9th video of 2 minute intros it just gets old. if you provide quality content, people are going to subscribe. I don't think anyone has ever subscribed because they were asked to. But maybe I'm wrong.
"we are film" no you aint
Poor Explanation of RAW format. This is not how it works lol.
It's not supposed to be an "exact," but a way to think about it when exposing. The technical exacts can be fine, but usually make it much harder to understand day to day use-cases