Q: Newbie considering Raw

[Pete Huffman]

   I've been using the Sony A7S3 since it came out. I'm interested in the FX5, but besides the triple base ISO, It looks to similar to what I have with a bit more resolution. My question is how much better is Raw vs using XVAC. I'm trying to figure out how much better the quality would be.

   I shoot sport videos, american football, a lot of dark scenes (but the school got better lights this year!). Also i film most of the game in 120fps for slow motion and catching those micro moments of the players faces and expressions. My goal is to get all that with the most pleasing look as I can. Like if i could get Terrance Malik to film football.

Thanks for your time.

Pete

[Aapo Lettinen]

have not shot with the newest Sonys but usually raw has main difference in sharpness and when shooting in extreme lighting conditions, if shooting in good light carefully exposed then the difference is mainly the small bit of added sharpness.

If shooting in very difficult lighting conditions it starts to show clearly though. When I used to process tons and tons of nature footage and shot my own stuff too on various cameras, the biggest difference between raw and all-i formats is in the lowest 1 to 1.5 stops of shadows where one sees tons of difference especially if cranking up the ISO due to low light.

If your intention is to crush the shadows instead of trying to recover them upwards like 1 to 2 stops or more then you may not "need" raw at all. but if the intention is to shoot underexposed stuff in low light levels and then lift the shadow areas a lot in post then you will get lots of advantage from raw. In documentary style shooting the storage and workflow often prevent shooting exclusively super high bitrate raw so I would plan for shooting mainly xavc and shoot select shots on raw which need more post work and are high iso contrasty stuff. xavc has traditionally behaved poorly when underexposed and post lifted so it is not good for that kind of shooting style anyway, recovering very dark shadow areas usually looks bad on xavc at least on older cameras.

In this specific case of yours I would probably shoot the most important games in raw and the "normal" ones in xavc with only specific select shots in raw. thus you would get great marketing material from best moments of the season but can keep the material amounts manageable in the long run.

[Pete Huffman]

That is helpful to know (more info in the shadows, as i don't want the blacks crushed). Thanks for that. And yes, the extra drive space needed for these files also a concern me (especially with the prices of hard drives going up faster than bitcoin). I'm leaning toward not getting the FX5 and going to try to focus on getting my exposure skill more fine tuned (i have the el cine on the atomos to help) and wait to see if the FX5 gets updated (in a least a year!!) before buying it. I'd hate to buy a $6K camera and only be able to use it properly enough to replicate what i already have. 

Thanks for the info.

PEte

[Aapo Lettinen]

3 hours ago, Pete Huffman said:

That is helpful to know (more info in the shadows, as i don't want the blacks crushed). Thanks for that. And yes, the extra drive space needed for these files also a concern me (especially with the prices of hard drives going up faster than bitcoin). I'm leaning toward not getting the FX5 and going to try to focus on getting my exposure skill more fine tuned (i have the el cine on the atomos to help) and wait to see if the FX5 gets updated (in a least a year!!) before buying it. I'd hate to buy a $6K camera and only be able to use it properly enough to replicate what i already have. 

Thanks for the info.

PEte

Yes if you need 120fps then it may not be good to get the FX5 yet when it does not have that update yet.

Used Canon C300 Mk3 can record 4k 120fps raw and it is a little over half the price of the FX5kit if you have compatible lenses and if the used canon kit has enough batteries and you can get cheap memory cards.

Used RED cameras can almost all do 4k 120fps in good quality raw, even the very old ones, but they have poor light sensitivity and consume tons of power and are much heavier than modern newly bought cameras. If the light sensitivity is not an issue then you could try a used Raven or Scarlet-W which can be got for cheap but you would still need pretty fast lenses which cost. You would crank up the compression to keep the material amount manageable even when shooting everything in raw. The Raven and Scarlet-W both would be affordable enough that you could probably get one now instead of needing to wait for FX5 to get proper features or saving for more light sensitive camera. Could shoot most of the stuff with Sony mirrorless you have and the slow mo shots with RED when needed.

Ursa Mini G2 can do good quality slow mo in raw but they have poor reliability record now after about 6 years of use. And light sensitivity very poor.

Most new mirrorless-style cameras from 2k upwards can do internal raw of some kind up to about 60fps. If that is enough then you could try multiple Canon models or for example Panasonic S1IIE which is half the price of the FX5 but can be got now and should be  really light sensitive. Lots of other options too from most manufacturers in that 2k to 4k price range like used C70 or newly bought C50, etc. There is tons of options if does not need to go over 60fps in raw and you can shoot the 120fps in 10bit compressed 422 codec. All mirrorless cameras are light sensitive enough for your use and most have good enough dynamic range (NOT NIKONS, NOT EVEN THE ZR).

I would maybe look the C300Mk3 first and check if it is something you could have use for or if it is too bulky camera for that use. They are specifically made as documentary cameras and tend to be pretty light sensitive so could be just what you are looking for with internal nd's and everything.

Kinefinity Vista could be another option, shoots Prores which grades a little better for shadow areas than xavc and is much more light sensitive than RED, probably about similar range than the C300mk3 I have understood. It should be available this Fall, consumes very little power and is relatively cheap still so you would have possibility to buy tons of cards or ssd's. You could use your current E-mount lenses on it which is a huge plus. But you would shoot exclusively prores then. Should be enough for your use though if exposed right.

Z-cams are pretty good for multi-purpose docu stuff but they may not have enough framerate for your needs on all models and usually are best bought new because limited processing power + passive cooling hot running sensor cause possible hot pixels being difficult to map out on them. Thus if it is a used camera it may develop some annoying dead pixel after some years of use which you need to handle in post because the camera can't map it out by itself. They are handy cameras and affordable if bought used though. Most models use similar sensor than Panasonic mirrorless cameras so the look is about the same with same kind of "panasonic blue" etc and have pretty good light sensitivity on larger sensor models

[Pete Huffman]

This is such a great place to get help. Thank Aapo for you ideas. I ended up updating my still camera with the A7R6, which for me will be an excellent B cam. Will probably get the FX5 once the V2 comes out and everyone else does some real world testing and work with it. It will also give me time to see if sony comes out with a FX6ii as i would consider that if it comes with built in ND.

Pete