RAW Video Explained

adanac

Member
Hello! I am new to multirotors and have been getting a lot of great assistance here. I'm not yet to the point where I can contribute with multirotor knowledge, but I do know a bit about video so I thought I'd post something basic about it here in order to give back a little. I know this will be rudimentary and much simplified for many here but some folks new to video might find it useful. The subject is....

RAW Video

Your still camera...
An easy way to approach this subject is from your own, digital still camera. Virtually all digital still cameras on the market produce an image file called a jpeg. Although a jpeg can look great, it is (in this context) a compressed, lossy version of the image the camera produces for you at the time you took the shot. It takes all the sensor data and, using a (usually brand-proprietary) algorithm, discards a lot of image information to produce a file that is, hopefully, a good trade-off between image quality and file size.

However, many (better) cameras also allow you to produce RAW files. These files contain much more of the sensor data your camera recorded. All that additional data allows you manipulate the image files in post, permitting ISO, white balance and exposure changes, to name a few, while retaining a high degree of image fidelity that would not be possible with a jpeg.

The trade-off is that producing RAW files takes much more (and faster) storage, and requires processing and data speeds that cost more. With few exceptions, even the best digital still cameras are able to shoot RAW at only several frames per second, with a limited amount of total frames possible.

Video cameras....

Until recently, it's been the same situation with video cameras - until just a few years ago, none could shoot RAW. Now, RED and Arri, to name two, produce professional digital cinema cameras that shoot compressed raw video at much higher resolutions than HD, and sometimes at high frame rates. This is achieved via processing power. They are essentially powerful processors with cameras attached! They consume a lot of power, have loud fans, and usually require costly storage. As of this writing a single 64GB memory card for the RED Epic and Scarlet cameras costs $725. A Scarlet brain alone costs $8K.

Lately, however, there have been two new exciting developments in this area, namely Blackmagic Design cameras and the development of third party software for some Canon DSLR's from Magic Lantern.

The three Blackmagic design cameras shoot 2.5K, 4K and 2K in RAW. The latter is a terrific point and shoot sized camera that shoots in RAW and Prores. Although it's size makes it an interesting proposition for AV work, it maxes out at 30fps, meaning no real slow motion.

Magic Lantern has, for a while, developed what is essentially an open-source hack for several Canon models that replaces Canon's built-in software with their own, permitting great features Canon doesn't offer. Recently, though, they have been able to include RAW shooting in some cameras, which is a major development.

Conclusion...

Shooting RAW video has been around for a few years but has largely, until recently, been affordable only to professionals. Recent developments are making it smaller and more affordable and, thanks to Magic Lantern, a (relatively) affordable air-worthy camera that shoots RAW is arguably already here. Video camera technology in general is moving very quickly now and it will be interesting to see what the future brings us.

A note about resolution...

One hears the term "4K" a lot nowadays. How does that compare to HD? I had a moment of trouble when I first learned about this and here's why: HD has always been characterized by it's vertical resolution (1080), but we now express it in terms of horizontal resolution.

This means that since HD is 1920 x 1080, it is just under 2K. Obviously, this also means that 4K has considerably more resolution. The RED Epic Dragon shoots 6K!
 
Last edited by a moderator:


tombrown1

Member
Great post. You're right that many of us on these forums come at av from a multocopter first standpoint, and tend to learn about video tech along the way from scratch.

Quick dumb question: how does the bit rate fit into the equation? Is 2k and 4k related to bit rate?

Thanks,

Tom
 

adanac

Member
2K and 4K are video resolution (chart attached). The bit rate is, in and of itself, not particularly important as it depends on other factors like resolution, frame rate, compression, etc. Obviously, the more data you want to record in x amount of time the higher the bit rate would have to be. Some camera manufacturers advertise bit rate so that one gets an idea of their camera's capabilities.

View attachment 15791


Great post. You're right that many of us on these forums come at av from a multocopter first standpoint, and tend to learn about video tech along the way from scratch.

Quick dumb question: how does the bit rate fit into the equation? Is 2k and 4k related to bit rate?

Thanks,

Tom
 

Attachments

  • high_def_chart_black_150.jpg
    high_def_chart_black_150.jpg
    63.3 KB · Views: 321


jes1111

Active Member
Just to clarify a small point: the correct description is "raw" not "RAW", i.e. it really is the word "raw", not a three letter acronym "RAW". And it means just that... raw, as in "unprocessed". The challenge in capturing raw sensor data (video or still) is in moving the huge volume of data into storage quickly enough, not in processing it, per se.
 

adanac

Member
Thank you for these corrections. Putting RAW all in caps is a bad, old habit of mine.

True, by processing I meant moving. Poor choice of words on my part.


Just to clarify a small point: the correct description is "raw" not "RAW", i.e. it really is the word "raw", not a three letter acronym "RAW". And it means just that... raw, as in "unprocessed". The challenge in capturing raw sensor data (video or still) is in moving the huge volume of data into storage quickly enough, not in processing it, per se.
 

Just to clarify a small point: the correct description is "raw" not "RAW", i.e. it really is the word "raw", not a three letter acronym "RAW". And it means just that... raw, as in "unprocessed". The challenge in capturing raw sensor data (video or still) is in moving the huge volume of data into storage quickly enough, not in processing it, per se.

This is probably one of the most important things to know about capital R raw and little r raw. I've got contacts at most of the major camera manufacturers. Their reps and engineers will never describe how the in camera signal is captured into the storage medium. Data rate comparisons are somewhat misleading and not an accurate point of comparison due to other factors like color gamut. At this point, most of the big players like Arri, Red, Canon, Sony are trying to push the boundaries of color space, with Canon even dipping into the IR spectrum. Raw for video is a powerful tool, but most likely not needed for most entry to mid-level production activities.
 

Motopreserve

Drone Enthusiast
This was a really great, concise explanation. I knew most of these theories already, but nice to see it so well laid out like this. I also didn't know about Magic Lantern - now debating whether I should give it a try on my 60D. More research to do... :)
 

Top