There are professionals who shoot RAW and make a living doing so. Whats the difference between the other cameras RAW and the 5d3's?
Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.
Give it a real try and you will NOT say that.
It depends what you mean by a real try... On a typical day I might shoot 150 clips. Processing each one of those using the current methods for getting raw video out the 5dm3 would be 1) a massive pain in the ass 2) so time consuming that it isn't worthwhile for anyone actually making professional work.
At the moment it's amazing for hobbyists (or other people for whom time doesn't equal money) - but unusable for anyone who makes videos for a living.
The ONE step of dragging your RAW clips to raw2dng???
One can only assume that you've never shot anything using a RAW camcorder or don't understand the ML workflow...
Nothing else requires you to 1st compile a dng sequence into a clip (as you point out) and then compile the DNG files into a sequence (using something like AEX) - a process which is massively computationally intensive (and yes i do have an unlocked and overclocked i7 workstation with 32gb of RAM and a CUDA graphics card) and enormously time consuming.
Using a BMC you can go straight to Resolve, perform a quick grade and render your footage as something edit friendly (dnxhd or similar). No processing RAW to DNG. No turning stills into a sequence. And BM are learning from their mistake with their 1st gen camera that uncompressed RAW is a massive resource hog that no-one wants to deal with.
How much time do you currently spend, on footage from you shoots in post? I'm talking total time from editing, to color correction to color grading....sound...etc?
Just curious, I mean, for most people it isnt' like they shoot, and BAM, have a finished product out the door in 1-2 hours later.
I usually take a good bit of time auditioning takes, sync'ing or dubbing sound, layering on effects, titles...hell, just figuring out the music for things takes time, etc.
As an editor the vast majority of my time is spent... Editing (shock horror). Color correction and grading are the same thing and actually take very little time (even using something like resolve to make a load of secondary corrections - which is more work than a lot of work actually needs). Titles likewise (unless you're talking about some fiendishly complex motion graphics).
When clients pay for my time as an editor they want to have stories told in a compelling way. They're happy to get some work done on grading, motion graphics etc, but that isn't where the majority of an editor's time should be spent, and adding a few days to a project to manually compile the RAW stills into the 600 clips that become a 30 minute documentary is a waste of time.
If you need RAW for your high-budget work rent a Red camera for your shoot. If you want RAW but cant cough up the cash for a Red for your indie work buy a BMC (amazingly cheap for what it does, but has some big limitations outside of fiction work imo). If you're a hobbyist with loads of free time (or just someone who doesn't shoot very much) use the ML RAW.
Phillip Bloom has quite a good post about why the vast majority of people don't need RAW or 4K at the moment http://philipbloom.net/2013/05/28/4kraw/
he's pretty much spot on.
magic lantarn seems to hae a to high contrast and altered saturation kicking the red to purple in some samples and at high iso the canon clearly winst even tho its grayer its more realistic and has less distracting noise.
the raw just doesnt seem t be raw but edited and if you edit the canon video it will look better at high iso
You cant output RAW video... Anything you see online will be graded and exported before being compressed for streaming on Vimeo/Youtube