Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Gregg Guzman

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:53 am

Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 7:56 pm

Just a question for everyone.

I'm shooting a short film this weekend and really excited.

I'm trying to decide which file format to shoot with.

We're doing some shots outside and we have some in a greenscreen studio.

Wondering what the differences are between Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes. I've always shot in Raw 3:1, but curious if there is a reason to shoot Raw.

Using the Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 3634
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 8:55 pm

3:1 saves 3x space which can become quite a lot.
You've already done it, so not sure why the question. Don't be paranoid about shooting uncompressed. If 3:1 works for you then it's fine. Many high-end cameras don't even have uncompressed modes- they shoot at 3:1+. Maybe DNG is not the most efficient codec, but at 3:1 should be still "good enough".
Just try it on real content and decide- this is better than anyone can advise you.
Offline

John Richard

  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 9:55 pm

And make sure that your NLE of choice can deal with Raw 3:1 compressed.
Resolve can
Premiere cannot - requires other means to get it to a form that Premiere can deal with.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 8099
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 9:56 pm

If you need to hand the footage off to another editor/colourist then ProRes may be a requirement. If you’re doing the post work, stay with raw 3:1, but if you can manage the increased storage space and reduced runtime on a card, why not shoot lossless (uncompressed) and be in total control of the best option you have? Shoot the best codec you can adequately manage for your media cards, even if the quality difference is quite small.
Rick Lang
Offline

Mark Grgurev

  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:22 am

Re: Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 10:53 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:3:1 saves 3x space which can become quite a lot.


It's not saving 3x space. The 3:1 ratio is based on completely uncompressed CDNG which no BMD shoots to anymore. Shooting 4:1 would take up closer to a third of the space of lossless compressed CDNG and 3:1 uses a little less than half.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 3634
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 11:07 pm

Yep (forgotten about whole lossless thing), if you shoot lossless then this is about 1.7:1, but it will depend on the content. Lets say 2x space saving.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 1919
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Raw, Raw 3:1 and ProRes

PostMon May 21, 2018 11:19 pm

4:1 is probably still enough for most situations, but 3:1 is a good middle ground.

If you're doing the post work and editing in premiere, you should just stop torturing yourself and switch to Resolve, so that you don't have to worry about being able to use BMD's compressed raw

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R w/ 1080Ti eGPU in RazerCore

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craig Seeman and 6 guests