In video there is almost no reason to use more than 150Mbps AVC HD or 150Mbps HEVC UHD. RAW should only be used for photos.When I shoot in RAW, it makes a big difference actually
In video there is almost no reason to use more than 150Mbps AVC HD or 150Mbps HEVC UHD. RAW should only be used for photos.When I shoot in RAW, it makes a big difference actually
Actually, RAW is beneficial in video for the same reasons as in photos. If you video is underexposed or overexposed, having more bits of color information will allow you to tweak it in post. 8 bits per color channel, as found in standard video and photo, just isn't enough to make those adjustments, as information may have been discarded that can't be recovered later.In video there is almost no reason to use more than 150Mbps AVC HD or 150Mbps HEVC UHD. RAW should only be used for photos.
Fixing in post is rarely a good thing, it's better to get it right in the camera first time. But the reality is that most people won't be opening Resolve to grade the shots and very few people I know (I work as a video specialist for a major international broadcaster) would shoot RAW. You can do enough with AVC and the economy makes it worthwhile.Actually, RAW is beneficial in video for the same reasons as in photos. If you video is underexposed or overexposed, having more bits of color information will allow you to tweak it in post. 8 bits per color channel, as found in standard video and photo, just isn't enough to make those adjustments, as information may have been discarded that can't be recovered later.
As a pro, I'm sure you can get the exposure right or close enough in the first place that you don't ever have to adjust by +/- 3-5 stops . But if that's ever the case, you won't be able to adjust it without RAW. Perhaps it's more likely the non-pro user is going to need it to do this than pro user.Fixing in post is rarely a good thing, it's better to get it right in the camera first time. But the reality is that most people won't be opening Resolve to grade the shots and very few people I know (I work as a video specialist for a major international broadcaster) would shoot RAW. You can do enough with AVC and the economy makes it worthwhile.
In professional use you almost never use auto exposure, that's only for circumstances where you have little control over what's happening and that's a risk you take. Even in high end cinematography it's common to use J2K instead of RAW.As a pro, I'm sure you can get the exposure right or close enough in the first place that you don't ever have to adjust by +/- 3-5 stops . But if that's ever the case, you won't be able to adjust it without RAW. Perhaps it's more likely the non-pro user is going to need it to do this than pro user.
I have certainly seen cameras do strange things with auto-exposure over the years. I shoot all my photos in RAW for this reason. I shoot a lot at night and/or indoors, and I make a lot of adjustments in post on those shots I use Lightroom to do adjustments for photos. If I had a camera that supported RAW, I'm not sure what software I would use. But I really wish I had RAW footage for many videos I have shot before.
.
sometimes a 43 inch is too big to sit on a regular desk. also no DP input for most of the tv. also the tv stand is not adjustable in numerous degree of freedom like this monitor stand.4k 43 inch TV for $220...
you only get 60 hz...
Chris
for multiple windows/browsers open on a single display 40-43 inch monitor is perfect. It’s literally four 20-21” 1080p monitors “glued” together. I use four 1080p application’s, one in each quadrant for most of my work. Much more efficient than a multiple monitor setup.sometimes a 43 inch is too big to sit on a regular desk. also no DP input for most of the tv. also the tv stand is not adjustable in numerous degree of freedom like this monitor stand.
I am using one of these right and i can tell you that a 43 inch 4k tv is not a substitution for a lot of scenario.