Anyone shooting Prores RAW?

Not sure why this is so hard to understand. Sure, if there is additional quality perceived, promoting a certain camera/codec (like the RED collection) makes some sense. Having shot with quite a varying amount of different qualities, and color correcting, stabilising, cloning out specific issues, etc, not only do I see firsthand the problems, but I also get to see a 1:1 comparison between compressed and RAW ... or compressed and less compressed, etc. It's staggering. The end result? Whatever you shot might be astoundingly better looking but if it's ducks in a pond, it's not exactly going to sell simply because it was captured on a system using ProResRAW .... the inference (however vague) is that someone using such a system makes better shots in the first place, as opposed to someone with a point and shoot.

Hey everybody thanks for the replies. I'll probably get the upgrade and hardware for my FS-5. Mizamook, that's true. I think the hardest part of shooting is getting something interesting.

Also, I've really enjoyed your work since I saw your Pond5 Artist Profile. :)

I understand the need for intermediate (sometimes called "mezzanine") codecs, and I understand that you (Mizamook) use it to preserve quality while processing your files. Good on you -- you're one of the honest ones. It's just that human nature is such that, if some people come to understand that there is a benefit to a certain upload format, they will upload in that format regardless of the initial quality of their source material.

As for me, I try to upload directly from the camera chip with no processing at all. But a large portion of my stuff is wildlife and nature, so there's not lots to process there.

Woolfolk, hey thanks for the commiseration and the kind comment. Are you getting Atomos recorder then? I'm kind of "locked" into the investment with the Odyssey 7Q+, so I'm a little sad about that. I'd much rather have that sexy Fs-5 than this klunky FS700!

Pvreditor: OK, yeah, not knowing you were coming from an angle of potential abusers of an otherwise good thing .. (I can be naive or oblivious to "bad people" since it is beyond comprehension ... maybe I need to be more evil?) But when I think about what you say, I consider that indeed, I do put up ProResHQ versions of every file (there was about a year where I was mastering to PRHQ, and uploading h.264, but that nightmare is over) even if it comes from the lowly piece of junk like Mavic Pro. (anyone want to buy it .. real cheap?) Reason being is that I would spend HOURS on each clip working with Neat and color and compositing, and cloning, etc., and it does not matter what the source is ... nor do I hide it. IN fact, with the delay in sales reporting, if a customer bought a file thinking they were getting some high end camera sourced file just because it was ProRes? They are being naive, perhaps ... and also were they not happy they would "return" it. (another source for abuse, but on the other end, no?). Also, anyone willing to take the time and effort to transcode a cell phone video to ProResHQ and spend the time and bandwidth to upload it .. .this kind of shyster would not last long, would they .. before they naturally gravitated toward actually providing a better product. No .. I don't think this is an issue at all.

Since one cannot transcode to ProResRAW (trying to meander back on topic) it is a moot point, at least for this thread.

Perhaps one way I look at is is that the 10 minutes to 10 hours of work I do on each clip is part of the service I provide ... personally ... I create not a newsworthy, untouched documentary of (whatever) but rather a clip that is a visual media product. I want it to be as edit-ready as possible. Without feedback from buyers (other than the money) I cannot know whether they appreciate the mezzanine codec, or the color work, or the fretting about stabilization, or whatever... or if they would have purchased the clip regardless. It is an absolute truth that the source file (shot RAW, flat, or on a GoPro) has NOTHING to do with the end result viability of the clip as a money making stock thing. Which surprises me, yes, but does not change my desire to create clips to the best of my ability, and to take the time to do it, regardless.

I shoot nature and wildlife. But I shoot flat, always, or nearly so, and have to do some color work at least on everything. For better or worse. Again, I've made considerable money on clips I look back on with shame. But to fix them? I doubt they would sell as well!

I should go process some videos ...