Why is editing done with raw files?

[Nardella]

So, I just saw the video about the RED Rocket. The view window of the editor was much less than 8k in size. So clearly there is no need for the user to be able to see the full detail of the image. 

 

So, why wouldn't an editing software suite be able to work with simple 1080p versions of the files for editing and switch to 8k RAW files for final rendering and export? 

 

This way the final output would have the same quality. Everything but the final render and export (which could be done on a server) could be done on a $1500 computer. 

 

If the editing software could do this a 5 man editing team could all be working on less than $10k of hardware and a single expensive render and export server. Not only that, but things like timeline scrubbing, effects previews and such would perform better. 

 

Am I missing something? Is there some advantage with working with raw files that makes poor performance and incredibly expensive hardware worth it? Or is it simply a lack of interest by the companies who make the editing software? Honestly if a production company could save thousands of dollars on each workstation and get better performance then they would probably be willing to pay a lot to have this capability. 

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, Nardella said:

So, why wouldn't an editing software suite be able to work with simple 1080p versions of the files for editing and switch to 8k RAW files for final rendering and export? 

Most professional grade NLEs actually fully support use of intermediate/proxy files.

[Mira Yurizaki]

18 minutes ago, Nardella said:

So, I just saw the video about the RED Rocket. The view window of the editor was much less than 8k in size. So clearly there is no need for the user to be able to see the full detail of the image. 

 

So, why wouldn't an editing software suite be able to work with simple 1080p versions of the files for editing and switch to 8k RAW files for final rendering and export?

I would wager a lot of professionals probably do this anyway for simple editing to get the timeline to where they want it. However anything beyond that will be better suited to edit with the raw file so you know exactly what you're getting.

 

It's like why Apple pushed 5K on iMacs: it's so you can edit 4K video at 1:1.

[Evanair]

Color correcting is done with RAW files to properly see the color. Editing is done with Proxy files, which have to be rendered out and take some time.  

 

Depending on how MUCH work you have to do, sometimes the rendering to 1080p from 8k just to get the proxy files takes longer than the actual editing process with 8k files.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Evanair said:

Color correcting is done with RAW files to properly see the color. Editing is done with Proxy files, which have to be rendered out and take some time.  

 

Depending on how MUCH work you have to do, sometimes the rendering to 1080p from 8k just to get the proxy files takes longer than the actual editing process with 8k files.

And I would imagine that for LTT, production turn around time would be paramount.  If someone sends you a piece of hardware that's a big deal, three days from the end of the embargo, leaving you with three days to benchmark, write, shoot, edit and release; even just an hour spent transcoding proxies could be costly.

[Evanair]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

even just an hour spent transcoding proxies could be costly

Very true. LTT uses premiere, so the good thing is the proxys auto-link if you do it correctly.  Meaning you can be editing on the 8k files and it will switch them to proxy's as they are generated.  With Cineform being very heavy on the GPU, that's where render servers come in.  It's not straight forward to setup, but works great once it does... when it works.

[AkiraDaarkst]

53 minutes ago, Evanair said:

Color correcting is done with RAW files to properly see the color.

@OP,  you can ignore this incorrect statement.

 

People work with RAW video files and other formats for various reasons.  One of the main reasons for using Cinema DNG RAW (or any other format that is equivalent) is that you are getting less compressed and lossy files that capture as much as possible data (information)/capability of the sensor.  Additionally, because they are less compressed and lossy, in a way they can be easier to work with in terms of performance because the NLE no longer has to decode a compressed file.  But obviously 8K RAW video is going to require a more powerful workstation than fairly well compressed H.264 1080p video (e.g. video recorded by most consumer cameras).

 

However, not everyone needs to film in a RAW format.  If you're filming something for stuff like live broadcast ENG or videos that need to be edited fast and released in a short amount of time, you would always avoid filming in RAW because it requires time in the NLE before the final version is ready.  So you will try to get as much possible done right in-camera.  However if you have time to allocate for post production, then you can film in RAW or any other codec/format you desire that does the job for you.

 

Essentially, if you are working on a video production where you need the recording to have the most latitude/flexibility when going through the post processing steps, you will use the best format you can afford to use.  That format can either be any format of Cinema RAW (Cinema DNG, RED R3D, Sony RAW, etc.) with different compression levels or can be very high bit rate versions of codecs (e.g. XAVC) with different flavors of compression (e.g. XAVC-I, XAVC-L).  It's the same thing why in photography RAW is generally preferred over shooting JPEG in camera.

 

If you don't have a powerful workstation, working with proxy files is fine.  But if you have a powerful workstation, working with the original format is usually better.  And in NLE's such as Premiere, when you load a RAW video file into the project there are a lot of different things you can alter even before editing the video in the timeline, which you will not likely get with proxy files.  Just look at the screen shot below of a RED RAW file loaded into Premiere.  If you transcode the original RED RAW video file to a proxy format such as ProRes and load it into Premiere you won't see all these metadata values.

 

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

Cinema RAW formats

 

Pros

• captures and preserves the most information seen by the sensor
• offers the biggest lattitude
• offers lowest compression and least lossy files

Cons

• huge file sizes
• doesn't look nice straight out of the camera
• might require a decent workstation depending on the resolution

[Evanair]

So, you're going to say you color correct proxy files?  Sounds like a waste of time.  I simply listed one, reason not all of them.

4 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

People work with RAW video files and other formats for various reasons

For this, I should have clarified that my only use of raw files was for color correction.  You are correct there are many other reasons to use it, I simply listed my own. Obviously there are many other reasons other than color correction to use raw files, some of which you listed above. Having the full sensor data helps for many editing reasons. 

 

One question, because I haven't used RED files in premiere, does the built in Proxy conversion added in CC allow the RED Source settings to be used when you flip between proxy/original files?

[.spider.]

7 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Cinema RAW formats

 

 

Cons

• doesn't look nice straight out of the camera

That's unique to RAW files?

[AkiraDaarkst]

5 hours ago, Evanair said:

So, you're going to say you color correct proxy files?

No.  Small low resolution proxy files are not used for color correction or color grading.  Color correction and color grading are two different things.  However it is possible to color correct and grade using transcoded versions of the originals.  You don't necessarily need to use the original RAW files, though if you own a camera that can record in RAW and you have done so, then it is best to use the original format.  And it's not about seeing the colors properly.  It's because high bit rate versions of codecs and RAW formats tend to have more data than what is usually found in distributed versions of videos (where that extra data has been stripped off as necessary).

 

If I use my camera to film in RAW or even a high bit rate codec with a LOG profile, the colors look washed out with low contrast.  I'm not going to see colors properly until I finish color correcting and grading, and even then the colors I see on my monitor will depend on the accuracy of the monitor's color and calibration.

 

Color correction involves doing things like correcting white balance, or making sure the colors such as greens, blues, reds, etc. are correct.

Color grading is a step up from color correction in that the artist uses colors to determine the overall mood, look, feel of the image.