Jump to content


Photo

raw imaging, marketing, and post production


  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 Joel Balik

Joel Balik
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Director

Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:27 PM

I just realized, like in audio production, that the best and most honest imaging of colors is the most reliable to work with. Can someone acknowledge this? For instance I noticed that Canon likes to market a "cinema" film look which should be a convenient function opposed to post production film look effects and processing time management. If one is good at post production color correction and effects then "cinema" look effects from a camera algorithm isn't that important? Isn't it better to work off a true raw image format. For instance I notice that Panasonic tends to focus on better processor imaging like Sony even to their small format camcorders. "Cinema" look effects, Canon reputation of imaging, and true 24P.

I need help in deciding which camera to go with. Or any insights technically? thanks
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11943 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 January 2011 - 06:44 AM

Isn't that a bit circular? The best is the best way to go? Well, yes.

The advantage of in-camera processing is that it generally occurs before compression, which means you don't end up compromising your picture so much by grading it later on, which occurs after compression.

The disadvantage of in-camera processing is that you can't, or at least often practically can't, make adjustments to the way it behaves to suit each and every shot you make. This has been done, inasmuch as people have been hired to sit around on movie sets "painting cameras" such as the Sony F900 to optimise the image before it's compressed, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

The third way is to use the in-camera processing to create an image which may not look good on its own, but which provides for more flexibility in grading later. This is where the various flat presets for things like the Canon DSLRs come in, but I'm concerned that they may force the colorist to make very large adjustments to achieve good-looking colorimetry, which might exacerbate compression artefacts.

Isn't it better to work off a true raw image format



Yes, but the only camera systems to have offered this are or were Dalsa, arguably Viper, and some of the Arri D-series, all of which are or were extremely high end and extremely expensive and required exotic recording systems and postproduction workflows.

All else, even things like an F23, unavoidably do at least some processing, although as a practical matter you might consider them broadly equivalent.

P
  • 0


Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

The Slider

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets