"@radikalfilm what do you mean by "not wanting post"? I have no desire to learn anything about a Cinealta RAW workflow, a BMCC or a MK3 can give me all the "raw" I need."

I could give you a link to an Arri Alexa webinar then? :))) It's all log space anyway, but details matter. They're shooting "Game of Thrones" with it you know? Not interested? Nevermind, you root for the underdog, I get it. Now I'm trolling so I better stop.

The point I was seriously trying to make is that WORK just gets shifted around, from production to post. Some of it (sculpting with light) makes sense to stay on set regardless of acquisition medium advancement. Relighting a scene in finishing is technically possible with RAW, at $$$/hr. Having a good DoP on set at $$/hr and getting it right the first time is well, cheaper, if nothing else.

@lolo since I brought it up..."sculpting" is really a pretentious way of saying "look at me I'm an artist" :) In post (finishing), it is more appropriate to call it scene relighting, and it's done for two reasons: a) the DoP screwed up but the take is selected for performance reasons b) There was a collective decision (director/DoP) to light the scene in post, so the scene is lit "barebones" on set (this means flat, not the lack of light!)

You'd do it in an app that is supportive of this sort of work (high end grading/finishing tools like Scratch, Smoke, and in compositing apps like Flame, Maya Composite (formerly Toxik), Nuke if you must). There is no single recipe and no single tutorial, it depends of where the scene needs to be taken.

Technical things would be selective exposure adjustment within a shape tracked to someone's face for example, or sky replacement for scene matching. Artistic decisions would be adding a light source to the scene (it needs to be integrated with proper perspective or it looks fake). Or removing (or rather attenuating) an existing light - this would use a freeform shape with very diffuse boundaries.

This would usually fall onto the colorist, but may involve VFX people as well. Pick a tool you want to learn and look for specialized tutorials for that tool.

Quoting my missus and 4 (hey they were drunk) PM's who sign off ingestion/ cameras/ etc blah who I did try and buy Guiness for tonight - ... simplified -"fuck RAW" lol productions can't afford it! Lovely as it is to twiddle away in amateur world - and is great for future development - lets get real no-ones going to book a hack on a paid job however much you Andrew it. Cameramen dont choose cameras production do - hello? Noones shooting RAW in day to day as there's no budget or time !

@leonbeas

This is why I think that place for second complimentary AVCHD stream exist. Where special RAW conversion and transformation is made, so all bright and shady areas are preserved most.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

I agree, hope someone soon to figure this out, some kind of AVCHD visualy lossless stream based in HDR frame analisis that could give us 12 to 14 stops of Visible DR, would be amazing. This with some room for grading would be like super compact compressed RAW.

@radikalfilm :"It's more about the feature set and operating logistics than acquisition format."

Completely in same boat, that's a much more realistic way to see things and keep both feet in the ground. RAW video is for the masses the illusion that make people thing they are closer to professional work. Raw will give very good results at budget productions if those productions are planned to shoot RAW, and proper grading is now a must.

I foresee thousands of Petabytes bad graded, badly recorded RAW over the next months. Just like when people "discovered" that "cinematic" look in FOV and 60P. NIGHTMARE

Like I said before, RAW is another tool and a very good one indeed, that could make your work shine where you couldn't because of tight budgets, or tell the whole world that you don't have an idea what your doing.

Its all in the choices you make for every specific job/work.

THANKS FOR THE AMAZING SPACE YOU HAVE HERE VITALIY

@GravitateMediaGroup :"so you think RAW is just "too much" of a workflow for the average shooter?"

Never said that, what I mean is RAW is more merchandising than real innovation, we have fullHD 10bit 4-4-4 uncompressed video for a while now, that is form o RAW, the reason most people didn't work with that is all around costs, not only the camera but everything you need. And the complexity to work with these formats. Many people avoid these workflow because its not cost effective unless you are shooting a film, or a super expensive documentary like BBC, or Super high quality commercial.

Now, today, RAW is accessible computers can handle it. AMAZING

Its always a personal choice, if you want to use it use it, but you will realize that for the most of us working with video, it's 70%/90% fast low payed work and 30%/10% work that you can pre-produce and plan accordingly, shoot relatively precise to not spend much hard drive, and spend hours transcoding and grading, to deliver in professional high quality. For me RAW fits this 30%/10% jobs and maybe my personal work. But for the rest 70%/90% I will not use RAW, don't have the time and 90% of the clients think the cheaper the better.

RAW is not free thou by any means, is not going to take you to the $100.000 mark as it was a couple of years ago it will take you $10000 for the camera and audio stuff and decent lenses only (you will not want cheap glass in RAW, if so better stick with H264), plus a $3000 computer to work fluid, plus backup solution $1000 to $4000 plus time loading files, lots of time transcoding, more time grading and rendering for high quality delivery. So if that fits average workflow go ahead and do it my thumb is UP.

like @radikalfilm said :"It's more about the feature set and operating logistics than acquisition format."

You have to thing what kind of work and how you will deliver and then price/quality wise choose the best way to do your job.

From my last comment: "Like I said before, RAW is another tool and a very good one indeed, that could make your work shine where you couldn't because of tight budgets, or tell the whole world that you don't have an idea what your doing.

Its all in the choices you make for every specific job/work."

Raw helps to forget some technical necessities and concentrate on meaning.

If there will ever be a camera that can capture over 30 stops worth of dynamic range in one exposure (or heck, why not 60 stops or even crazier amounts?), I'll gladly get one. Maybe cameras like that could be realized with a sensor in which the second green filter in Bayer array would also have a ND filter in order to capture highlights. Or maybe some kind of fractal sensor where one of photosites in array of four is itself an array of smaller photosites. Fuji tried something like that a few years ago, gave them an edge in dynamic range competition for a while.

The less technical details one has to consider in that moment when important things happen in front of the camera and in photographer's mind, the better, at least when photographing non-staged things and unrepeatable moments. But then again, every staged actor performance is unique as well, unless those actors are robots… so, cheap raw, what's the problem? I see only two problems - it isn't in every camera yet, and the storage for it costs more. But the sooner it'll be an option even in cheap P&S cams, even for video, the better.

It was fun to read all point of views...

It remembers me when Red One Showed up... I just see another tool, another workflow, another option... Don´t see the issue.

Maybe because I´m less technician than other great guys in here....but I still think that storytelling (either on film or picture) is the most important thing. I don´t care what anyone is using to show his Story, meanwhile it works.

I saw really great short films shooted with Iphone.

Just shoot, or do pics, with anything you can get.

Maybe I´m naif.

Vector based video looks like interesting research result from academia. Unfortunately not all experimental technologies from academia make their way to market (for various reasons) .... and if they do we can't really be sure about time-frame, extent of market penetration or availability.

One way of thinking about new and experimental technologies is using Gartner's Hype Cycles http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp

Although I will admit the 6D takes some pretty nice pictures compared to my previous junk nikon d7000

@GravitateMediaGroup huh??? The Nikon D7000 is still a fine camera! (much better than either of my Nikons! :-o )

And the gap in improvement between a 6D and a D7000 is not sufficient for your wildly bold claims (although I will agree to a very small degree they're true).

Also, may I ask why did you jump brands from Nikon to Canon?? :-/ Bit odd.

The gallery linked on the first page of this thread makes it obvious that even if you have a camera that shoots in a raw(it's not an acronym, why does everyone capitalize it?) format, you can still end up with a bunch of pictures that look like butt if your composition skills are weak.

I attended a masterclass with John Seale, his sentiment was these days get strong composition shoot raw or highest digital quality, and fix the rest in post. (Obviously only if you have budget or need for post). His other advice was try to make a heart warming emotional film with two people standing next to a wall.

Once upon a time many vfx were done in-camera. Sun sets etc. Now your skill set has to change to just get strong compositions, and learn post if you want control of image. But if you are professional operator or dop chances are you want to specialise in that not vfx. My advice is more for us do-everything people.

So point is that John does believe that a dop does less now with an all digital workflow, but composition is still king- and it has to be strong.

Emotional as in audience crying.

I suppose yes, small production will never have such a large post budget.