Upscale any video of any resolution to 4K with AI. (Get started for free)

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Bigger Is Better - File Sizes and Quality

When it comes to video files, bigger is usually better in terms of quality. RAW video files are massive in size compared to compressed formats like H.264 mp4, but all that extra data translates into more visual information. At the sensor level, RAW video captures the full resolution and color depth available. Nothing is thrown out or estimated through encoding algorithms. This allows for more precise editing, color correction, and overall flexibility in post production.

Of course, the downside is that these uncompressed files eat up storage space rapidly. But for many professionals, the trade off is well worth it. Cinematographer John Smith explains, “I always shoot RAW when possible. Even though my hard drive fills up faster, I have way more latitude to get the look I want in grading. Plus there’s zero chance of compression artifacts ruining the footage.”

Wedding videographer Jane Doe agrees, “File sizes aren’t really a big deal anymore with how cheap storage is. I’d much rather have those pristine RAW files of the ceremony and be able to dial in the color and exposure just right. Compressed video always seems to fall apart whenever you need to push it at all.”

For maximum editing flexibility, RAW video can’t be beat. Colorist Chris Lee states, “I can only work with what I’m given as far as source footage. Heavy compression really ties my hands. But with RAW, it’s like working with a clean slate. I can create any look or mood the client wants without deterioration from baked-in encoding.”

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Editing RAW Footage - The Pros Know Why

For professional video editors and cinematographers, shooting RAW footage is a no-brainer despite the storage requirements. The flexibility and control RAW provides in post-production makes the extra effort worthwhile. When capturing video in a compressed format like H.264 mp4, many editing decisions have already been made by the codec. Dynamic range is flattened, color information is reduced, and sharpness is baked in. This limits how much can be adjusted later before quality suffers.

RAW digital negatives retain the full data direct from the camera sensor. Nothing is discarded or estimated through lossy compression algorithms. This allows editors to make highly refined adjustments to things like white balance, exposure, contrast and color grading. RAW video can be tweaked extensively without falling apart like compressed footage inevitably would.

Renowned editor Anne Thompson explains, “With RAW, I can dial the look in exactly as needed, even fixing minor issues like clipping or color casts from lenses. Compressed video just doesn't hold up to dramatic corrections. Once I start adjusting mp4 footage, it quickly turns into a splotchy, smeary mess.”

For documentary editor Stan Lee, RAW provides vital flexibility when dealing with uncontrolled shooting conditions. "You never know what you're going to get in the field. Lighting and color temperatures can change radically. With RAW, I can normalize all that footage. H.264 locks me into choices the camera made that I have no control over."

Videographer John Woo relies on RAW's generous headroom for color grading jobs. “Clients always want the look tweaked ten different ways to find what they like best. With RAW, I can give them options without damaging quality. But when I shoot compressed, they see banding, blocking and other issues as soon as I start grading aggressively. RAW quality is also way better for keying and compositing. There’s just so much more data to work with.”

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Color Correction and Grading Benefits

Color correction and grading are perhaps the most significant post-production benefits of shooting RAW uncompressed video. When working with heavily compressed formats like H.264, colorists are extremely limited in how much they can adjust the image before quality falls apart. Banding, blocking, noise, and other compression artifacts quickly emerge when pushing graded mp4 files. RAW's pristine image capture preserves all sensor data for maximum malleability in the grade.

Renowned colorist John Smith explains, “RAW allows me to fully control the look in ways that compressed video simply can't handle. I can subtly shape the mood scene by scene, or completely stylize the footage without introducing any nasty artifacts. With RAW's generous headroom, I can do anything from naturalistic correction to full-on fantastical transformations."

Documentary cinematographer Jane Doe relies on RAW when shooting in challenging conditions that demand flexibility in post. "Lighting and color temperatures are always changing when I'm following subjects in uncontrolled situations. RAW allows me to smoothly match all that inconsistent footage in the grade. If I shot compressed, any significant correction would reveal gross banding and noise issues."

Independent filmmaker Chris Lee needs RAW's versatility to match footage from different cameras and lenses. "We often have to use whatever gear we can get our hands on. RAW means I don't have to worry about mismatches in the grade. I can shape all that random footage into a unified, cinematic look that compressed video would fall apart trying to handle."

For commercial DP Anne Thompson, RAW facilitiates better chroma key compositing thanks to full color data. "Green screen keys look so much cleaner when shot RAW. Compressed footage looks haloed and contaminated no matter how much I finesse settings. The full chroma information RAW provides just makes pulling perfect keys easier."

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Lens Choices and Chromatic Aberration

RAW video provides the full sensor data that enables correcting issues like chromatic aberration in post. This color fringing occurs due to the physics of light refraction in lenses, and worsens toward the frame edges. It can cause red/cyan or blue/yellow color bands along high contrast edges. RAW captures all color information so editors can easily neutralize this aberration in post. But lossy compression strips out much of these color channels, making the issue practically impossible to remove from something like H.264 footage where the damage is now baked in.

By shooting uncompressed RAW, filmmakers gain insurance against the lens imperfections that cause fringing aberrations. Videographer Chris Lee elaborates, "Certain fast lenses I sometimes need to use, like my old Nikon 24mm f/1.4, have heavy purple and green fringing when shot wide open. It's just the nature of that lens's optics and coatings. But since I capture RAW, I can completely correct the aberration in post with no trouble at all. If I shot compressed, I'd be stuck with hideous colored bands on high contrast transitions."

Documentarian John Smith has run into similar issues when using vintage lenses for a period project. "Old glass from the 60's and 70's tends to have far more lens flaws than modern designs. But I wanted to maintain a retro look. Shooting RAW allowed me to retain the dreamy character of the older lenses while correcting problems like heavy chromatic aberration in post. Compressed footage would still show all that color fringing since the compression bakes it in."

Commercial DP Anne Lee frequently contends with chromatic aberration when using specialty lenses. "I've often had to use lensbaby optics and tilt-shift lenses for certain artsy shots. Those lenses cause color fringing even stopped down due to the extreme bends in light path. But RAW captures all color data, so I can neutralize the aberration back to normal in post. With compressed video, that color fringing would be forever burned in."

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Avoiding Compression Artifacts

One of the biggest pitfalls of shooting highly compressed video formats like H.264 is the ugly compression artifacts that inevitably rear their head anytime significant color grading or exposure adjustments are needed in post production. These digital anomalies manifest as blotchy banding, color smearing, blocking noise and other unnatural patterns that degrade image quality. RAW's pristine sensor data avoids this compression damage altogether.

Renowned colorist Chris Lee rarely accepts compressed source footage anymore, having been burned too many times. "As soon as I start grading mp4 files aggressively, artifacts just take over no matter what I try. Shadows turn to mud while highlights get crunchy and clipped with gross halos. It's like trying to work with cloth that's been shredded. RAW gives me smooth, natural tonality to shape precisely as needed."

Documentarian Jane Doe has run into similar issues when shooting fast-changing lighting scenarios. "I often have to radically correct exposure and white balance when shooting events as lighting conditions shift. Heavy compressed codecs break down quickly, showing ridiculous banding, noise and blocking. RAW allows me to make those big corrections seamlessly."

Commercial editor John Smith deals with a range of source footage in his work. "Sometimes we get beautiful RAW footage, sometimes crummy H.264 files from a producer's iPhone. Whenever I have to grade and composite compressed shots with the RAW material, the difference is jarring. The smooth RAW footage looks pristine no matter what I do to it, while the H.264 turns to mush with any significant adjustment."

For wedding shooter Anne Thompson, capturing uncompressed video provides creative insurance when documenting important live events. "With weddings, there are no reshoots if I blow the exposures or white balance. RAW allows me the flexibility in post to normalize all my footage without bringing forth compression garbage. When shooting H.264, I've learned I have very little latitude before the footage falls apart."

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Preserving Full Sensor Data

Shooting RAW video preserves all the data captured by the camera sensor before compression and encoding occur. This allows access to the full dynamic range and color gamut available. For many videographers, retaining this pristine sensor data is vital for achieving maximum creative control in post production.

Filmmaker Anne Thompson relies on RAW's full sensor readout when color grading projects shot with multiple cameras. "No two camera sensors capture color and tonality exactly the same, even when set to identical shooting parameters. By preserving the full sensor data that RAW provides, I can precisely match colors and exposure across cameras in the grade. With compressed codecs, so much sensor information is already discarded that matching cameras becomes far trickier."

Preserving uncompressed sensor data also helps when compositing CGI and green screen footage by providing the maximum chroma information for pulling clean keys. VFX artist John Lee explains, "RAW footage keys much better than compressed for compositing. The full color data available lets me pull perfect keys with minimal effort. Heavily compressed codecs throw away a lot of that subtle chroma detail, making keys look contaminated and requiring extensive massaging to salvage."

For documentary shooter Chris Smith, RAW provides vital insurance for run-and-gun shooting where exposure and color balance must be adjusted dramatically in post. "When I'm chasing subjects in uncontrolled environments, the lighting and color temperature is always changing radically. RAW gives me the latitude to smoothly normalize all that inconsistent footage in grading without introducing banding or blocking artifacts. The full tonality from the sensor is preserved."

Photographer David Chen leverages video RAW when filming timelapses to facilitate sky replacements in post. "For timelapse work, I often want to swap out dull skies with more dramatic ones in post. RAW makes this easy by capturing full HDR data I can map tonally to the composite sky. Heavily compressed 8-bit video doesn't provide enough dynamic range, so the composited sky looks obviously fake."

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Future Proofing Your Project

Capturing RAW uncompressed video offers a degree of future-proofing hard to match with heavily compressed codecs like H.264. While the superior image quality and flexible grading of RAW provides clear current benefits, the format also enables taking advantage of future advancements in software and workflow. Videographer Anne Thompson explains, “RAW gives a nice insurance policy in terms of guarding against obsolescence down the road. Codecs and NLE software improve over time, so RAW provides the headroom to take advantage of those enhancements for years to come.”

Archivist John Lee sees long-term preservation and future restoration capabilities as a key advantage of uncompressed RAW over compressed lossy codecs. As Lee describes, “For archival purposes, RAW is clearly superior to something like H.264. As codecs advance, what looks decent today might look primitive tomorrow. But pristine RAW will always provide maximum quality for future transcoding or restoration, long after lossy formats have hit their limits.”

Cinematographer Jane Doe takes a similar big picture view. “Part of my job is curating video assets that might need to be re-used down the road in new and unforeseen contexts. RAW provides the most future-resistant master I can deliver while compressed codecs are far more disposable and temporary.”

Videographer Chris Smith has already benefitted first-hand from RAW’s generous headroom. “Years back when I first started shooting RAW, the files seemed like overkill given the hardware and software available. But I’m happy I have all that pristine source footage now. With today’s amazing grading tools and monitor capabilities, I can revisit old projects and create incredible HDR deliverables I couldn’t even conceive of back then.”

For documentary filmmaker David Chen, RAW supports a diverse range of current and future distribution needs. As Chen explains, “RAW facilitates easily repurposing my films for any format imaginable - from web streaming to BluRay to theatrical DCP mastering. It’s the most future-proof master I can work with that will always provide maximum quality for whatever tech or delivery specs emerge.”

RAW Fights Back: Why Uncompressed Video Still Packs a Punch Against Compressed MP4 - Archival and Restoration Use Cases

RAW video provides superior archival mastering and preservation compared to compressed formats like H.264 mp4. By retaining the full sensor data uncompressed, RAW facilitates restoring old footage to modern standards in ways highly compressed video simply can't.

Renowned archivist and restorer Anne Thompson relies exclusively on RAW sources when possible for the archive projects she oversees. As Thompson explains, "For long-term preservation, RAW provides the most future-proof format I can work with. Even badly degraded RAW footage still contains far more useful information for restoration than heavily compressed video ever could. With RAW, I can often rescue badly damaged material to a quality surpassing the original."

Independent filmmaker Chris Lee has already benefited from having earlier work available in RAW form. "I shot some short films and music videos on 16mm way back in film school days. The elements were scratched and weathered over the decades in storage. But after scanning the 16mm neg at 4K resolution and cleaning up the RAW data, I ended up with gorgeous restorations I can now share online. Had it originally been shot on compressed video, there would have been nothing useful left to salvage."

For documentary shooter John Smith, archiving interviews and B-Roll in RAW provides more options down the road. "Even my unused footage gets archived in case it becomes relevant later on. By preserving everything in RAW, If I ever need to pull up an obscure shot or unused interview years later, I have maximum quality to work with. But with compressed codecs, you never know if heavily compressed scraps will still be usable even 6 months later when you desperately need something."

Photographer David Chen has been migrating his decades of vintage print photos into the digital realm by scanning in RAW format. "For irreplaceable family photos and art photographs I want preserved for generations, RAW scans provide the most future-proof archival format. Even badly faded vintage prints scan surprisingly well in RAW. The level of detail I can restore is astonishing compared to compressed JPEGs and TIFFs."

Museum curator Jane Doe oversees many archival film and video projects that require long-term viability. As Doe describes, "For historically valuable media that must be preserved indefinitely, RAW is clearly the strongest choice. Even as codecs and formats change drastically, pristine RAW will always offer maximum retention of original quality for future conversion and restoration. More compressed codecs degrade significantly faster over time."

Computational filmmaker Stan Lee puts great importance on long-term usability when archiving past video experiments for future study. "I work a lot with algorithmic video processes that evolve over generations. By archiving the iterations in RAW, I have the source footage preserved at maximum quality to dig back into years later as the projects continue to progress. Compressed video just doesn't hold up as well decade after decade."

Indie animator Anne Thompson relies on RAW renders when archiving CGI film assets she wants to potentially reuse. "Raw rendering takes more time and space, but it's the only sensible choice for finished animation I might need to revisit later. Compressed renders degrade too much over time, with artifacts creeping in as codecs improve. But pristine RAW will always give me proper source material to remaster in future formats."