Informative Video on the Sigma FP: Why log is irrelevant and info on color gamut

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Markr041 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,924
Re: Informative Video on the Sigma FP: Why log is irrelevant and info on color gamut

saltydogstudios wrote:

Markr041 wrote:

tagscuderia wrote:

Markr041 wrote:


It is long but you get a clear explanation of why when shooting dngRAW you do NOT need a log profile in the camera. Essentially, the sensor is linear and RAW captures all the sensor information. You can apply a log profile in post.

I'm no filmmaker/videographer and pay little to no attention to video specs et al but... even I know that Log is for those NOT wanting to capture CinemaDNG; 10-bit H.264/265 is far more manageable than RAW and fits into filmmakers' existing workflows.

The fp's USP is full-frame RAW at an aggressive price point, but CinemaDNG creates all sorts of demands that (seemingly) a lot of people don't want to be faced with. It's why internally recording to ProRes LOG is also highly requested.

P.S. cardinal sin of commenting on the internet... I haven't watched the video

As far as I am concerned, for video there is no point in using the Sigma fp if one is not going to take advantage of the RAW capability. That is precisely why the fp is superior to most cameras for video. There are plenty of more-useable and compact cameras that have log compressed codecs. Compression is what does the most harm to video quality, and creates the most problems in editing.

And you are wrong, very wrong: except for space (which is now very cheap), working with cng RAW files in Resolve is EASIER than working with heavily-compressed HEVC or H264 files, log or not. I think that it is ignorance that makes people shy away from shooting in RAW. HEVC is the least "manageable" codec - it creates enormous burdens on the processor, and can barely be played on timelines, thus requiring conversion.

I have shot and edited using HEVC at high bitrates and also RAW, so I know what the performance is in editors.

yes, space is the issue.

It's basically the difference between CD quality (10 megabytes per minute) and MP3 quality (1 megabyte per minute). Or JPG and RAW.

You need more SSDs on the day, you need a HUGE drive on your editing station to store all that data and so on.

Most amateur cinematographers are happy to shoot in the equivalent of JPG and be done with it.

It is less CPU intensive as it's really not "decoding" anything - but it is very SPACE intensive.

Which I suspect is part of the reason the fp didn't sell as well at launch as they were expecting - they didn't realize how many cinematographers were effectively JPG shooters and they didn't offer in-camera JPG.

I agree that space is a real issue, and I do not think Sigma does a good job in explaining the value of RAW video files.

There is a a help - a cheap and simple program called SlimRAW losslessly compresses DNG files, very quickly. I have tested it with the Sigma DNG files and the program reduces the size by over a third (63.2% of the original) - that helps!

 Markr041's gear list:Markr041's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200 Panasonic LX100 Sony RX100 IV Panasonic ZS100 Olympus TG-5 +12 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow