raw imaging, marketing, and post production
Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:27 PM
I need help in deciding which camera to go with. Or any insights technically? thanks
Posted 06 January 2011 - 06:44 AM
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.