Z9 video: surprised how good UHD/60 is vs NRAW 4.1K

Michael1000 wrote:

Roland Wooster wrote:

The motion tests, pushed through color grading and exposure adjustment, suffered far more noise in the 4.1K/RAW content than the UHD/60.

It seems the 4.1/RAW has very little value, or there's something wrong with it. I'm seeing no value over the much smaller UHD/60/H265 content.

The 8K by comparison is incredible, I shot a project today in 8K/60/Normal and it's amazing.

Roland.

That's the idea of Raw. It is coming from the sensor. True Raw has no noise reduction. You do it in post.

You are not getting any use out of Raw if you are just comparing videos side-by-side. I've hear the same complaints about N-LOG, too. As you have seen, the Nikon encoding is very good for those who just want video right out of the camera. Raw is for those doing a lot of post production, shot matching, and pushing the video to its limits.

Have you actually tested and compared the 4.1 versus the UHD content? I would love to see any comparison content, after post processing that shows an advantage to the 4.1K raw. I tried to do this myself, testing with challenging lighting scenarios that were even underexposed intentionally, and then corrected in post, even after rendering via Davinici Resolve Studio, the UHD/H265 content looked better than the 4.1K RAW. I would love to see demonstrations if anyone can prove otherwise.

The 8.3K/RAW on the other hand is extremely good, and that's now what I shoot by default, it's just the 4.1K RAW that I've seen nothing that couldn't be done with the UHD/H265 at 4x lower data rates.

Roland.