This is a comparison between raw and H264 from a Canon 5D Mark III. Two cameras, same ISO, shutter speed, lens (105mm) F stop (5.6). They are the same height, about 6 inches apart.
I am looking for more of a real world comparison of the two recording formats. RAW footage of trees and hummingbirds is nice, but I want to know how it will affect me as I shoot video for my job. What changes in lighting and contrast? How do the details change? Is the workflow/drivespace/time worth it?
The jury is still out. In my opinion, RAW looks better (duh). But is it better enough to shoot this way FROM NOW ON? I don't know. The results I'm getting are subtle but noticable. Skin tones look much more accurate to me. Yes, the sharpness is better, but I also deal with Moire...things that shooting H.264 automatically removes. But I am not BLOWN AWAY with the difference in sharpness. It's sharper, but not OMG! sharper.
As I continue to grow as a videographer, I want to be a better craftsman with the tools I have. Yes, it would be nice to have an Alexa with ultraprimes at my disposal, but I don't. SO I NEED TO MAKE THE BEST WORK I CAN WITH WHAT I HAVE.
Justin Kern, a flickr contact of mine says this:
"I hesitate to write about gear. Tools are tools and the bitter truth is that a great craftsman rises above his tools to create a masterpiece whereas most of us try to improve our abominations by buying better or faster hammers to hit the same nails at the same awkward angles."
This has become my mission statement. We could ALWAYS have better equipment, more lights, more toys, better lenses, etc.... But what are we doing with the tools we have now? I'm incredibly blessed with the gear I HAVE NOW. I need to utilize it better. At the end of the day, it's ALL about how you make the viewer feel.
Is what you're doing controlling the viewer? Influencing the viewer? Moving the viewer?
It's so much more than shooting RAW or 264. 2K or 4K. (or 6K). 24FPS or 2400FPS.
More to come.....