u/bigBoxMay

Hi all, hoping someone with more experience can weigh in here. Our situation is a bit more involved than the usual "it's just log footage, open it in Premiere" conversation.

We shot a promo and short doc for our biggest client using a three camera Canon setup running Magic Lantern, which is a free open source firmware add-on for Canon DSLRs that unlocks raw video recording. The workflow goes: MLV raw to Cinema DNG export, then color matching across three cameras with slightly different sensors using a vectorscope and an on set color reference chart, all inside DaVinci Resolve Studio. It's not a glamorous pipeline, but we made it work and the client was genuinely happy with the final delivery.

Before anyone says "just shoot on a Sony," I'd like to get ahead of that. We didn't choose the Magic Lantern workflow because we thought it was the industry standard. We chose it because we were starting a documentary business from scratch with very limited capital and didn't want to go into debt on gear before we'd proven the model worked. We repurposed existing Canon bodies that were already Magic Lantern compatible, purchased one new camera body and a lens to complete our three camera setup, added more lenses, picked up the necessary accessories and lighting, and handled editing on a gaming PC we already owned with a DaVinci Resolve Studio license. All in, we were operational for roughly $3,200 to $3,400. We never imagined the raw file pipeline would ever become anyone else's problem. It was purely an internal workflow concern, and we never anticipated having to explain or defend it to a client.

Now they have a new marketing director who wants the raw files because they apparently hired an in house editor. When I asked what editing software they were using, he called it a trade secret and refused to elaborate. Separately, through an acquaintance who happens to work there now, we found out they essentially hired a small UGC creator who is editing on an iPad. We don't know exactly which app, but it's most likely CapCut or Adobe Rush. The marketing director has been extremely uncooperative throughout this entire conversation. When I tried to explain that our raw files require specialized software and a non trivial color science workflow just to make them viewable, let alone usable, his response was essentially "it's 2026, everything is easy to pick up."

I offered a middle ground: we'd deliver color matched, camera synced, export ready files rather than the raw MLVs. He declined and asked for the raws specifically, and for free. We then received a soft threat that they may stop working with us entirely.

There is also a secondary concern that is keeping me up at night. Even if we handed over the files in the most accessible raw format available, which in our case would be a Cinema DNG exported in DaVinci wide gamut, that is essentially the rawest viewable form our workflow produces. Those files would still be completely unmatched across three cameras. Anyone without the technical literacy to understand that would look at that footage and immediately assume we deliberately gave them broken, unusable files to hold them hostage or sabotage the project. That accusation alone, whether it has any merit or not, could spread through their network just as fast as any legitimate complaint would. So even the act of complying carries its own risk.

Writing all of this out has actually forced me to confront the real question here. The only middle ground I can think of is going back into every clip from the documentary, stripping out the grade while preserving the color space transforms and camera matching work, and exporting the whole thing in a format they could theoretically use. That is not technically difficult but it is an enormous and completely unpaid amount of work, and we are talking about terabytes of footage. So the choice we are actually facing is: do we absorb all of that labor for free, with no guarantee it satisfies them or saves the relationship, or do we walk away and risk losing everything anyway? I don't want to be cynical about this but I'm struggling to see a third option, and I'd genuinely appreciate it if someone has found one.

Our contract granted them a perpetual license to use and cut from the finished deliverable. It says nothing about raw file ownership or delivery, and under our jurisdiction we retain the rights to the footage itself unless explicitly transferred.

Technically the contract is on our side, but in practice it doesn't matter much. All of our current referrals flow through this one client, and the companies we work with through them rely far more on their relationship with that client than on anything a social media presence could offer. So even if we pursued legal action and won, they could simply mention it to their network and we'd lose every downstream relationship overnight. We're also under no illusion that we're irreplaceable to them. If they decide this isn't worth the friction, they'll find another videography studio and move on without a second thought. We fully understand this is a weak position to be in, and we're not looking for a lecture on client relationship management. We just want honest advice from people who've been in a similar spot, because the contract protecting us on paper means very little when the other side holds all the practical leverage.

So the core questions I'm wrestling with:

1. Has anyone navigated a situation like this where the client genuinely can't understand why the raw files aren't just "the files"?

2. Is there a way to frame the technical reality that lands with a non technical person who isn't arguing in good faith?

3. For those who've dealt with raw file clauses, is this something you now bake into every contract from day one?

Any advice appreciated, especially from people who've been in the "one big anchor client" position early on.

Hi all, hoping someone with more experience can weigh in here. Our situation is a bit more involved than the usual "it's just log footage, open it in Resolve/Premiere" conversation.

We shot a promo and short doc for our biggest client using a three camera Canon setup running Magic Lantern, which is a free open source firmware add-on for Canon DSLRs that unlocks raw video recording. The workflow goes: MLV raw to Cinema DNG export, then color matching across three cameras with slightly different sensors using a vectorscope and an on set color reference chart, all inside DaVinci Resolve Studio. It's not a glamorous pipeline, but we made it work and the client was genuinely happy with the final delivery.

Before anyone says "just shoot on a Sony," I'd like to get ahead of that. We didn't choose the Magic Lantern workflow because we thought it was the industry standard. We chose it because we were starting a documentary business from scratch with very limited capital and didn't want to go into debt on gear before we'd proven the model worked. We repurposed existing Canon bodies that were already Magic Lantern compatible, purchased one new camera body and a lens to complete our three camera setup, added more lenses, picked up the necessary accessories and lighting, and handled editing on a gaming PC we already owned with a DaVinci Resolve Studio license. All in, we were operational for roughly $3,200 to $3,400. We never imagined the raw file pipeline would ever become anyone else's problem. It was purely an internal workflow concern, and we never anticipated having to explain or defend it to a client.

Now they have a new marketing director who wants the raw files because they apparently hired an in house editor. When I asked what editing software they were using, he called it a trade secret and refused to elaborate. Separately, through an acquaintance who happens to work there now, we found out they essentially hired a small UGC creator who is editing on an iPad. We don't know exactly which app, but it's most likely CapCut or Adobe Rush. The marketing director has been extremely uncooperative throughout this entire conversation. When I tried to explain that our raw files require specialized software and a non trivial color science workflow just to make them viewable, let alone usable, his response was essentially "it's 2026, everything is easy to pick up."

I offered a middle ground: we'd deliver color matched, camera synced, export ready files rather than the raw MLVs. He declined and asked for the raws specifically, and for free. We then received a soft threat that they may stop working with us entirely.

There is also a secondary concern that is keeping me up at night. Even if we handed over the files in the most accessible raw format available, which in our case would be a Cinema DNG exported in DaVinci wide gamut, that is essentially the rawest viewable form our workflow produces. Those files would still be completely unmatched across three cameras. Anyone without the technical literacy to understand that would look at that footage and immediately assume we deliberately gave them broken, unusable files to hold them hostage or sabotage the project. That accusation alone, whether it has any merit or not, could spread through their network just as fast as any legitimate complaint would. So even the act of complying carries its own risk.

Writing all of this out has actually forced me to confront the real question here. The only middle ground I can think of is going back into every clip from the documentary, stripping out the grade while preserving the color space transforms and camera matching work, and exporting the whole thing in a format they could theoretically use. That is not technically difficult but it is an enormous and completely unpaid amount of work, and we are talking about terabytes of footage. So the choice we are actually facing is: do we absorb all of that labor for free, with no guarantee it satisfies them or saves the relationship, or do we walk away and risk losing everything anyway? I don't want to be cynical about this but I'm struggling to see a third option, and I'd genuinely appreciate it if someone has found one.

Our contract granted them a perpetual license to use and cut from the finished deliverable. It says nothing about raw file ownership or delivery, and under our jurisdiction we retain the rights to the footage itself unless explicitly transferred.

Technically the contract is on our side, but in practice it doesn't matter much. All of our current referrals flow through this one client, and the companies we work with through them rely far more on their relationship with that client than on anything a social media presence could offer. So even if we pursued legal action and won, they could simply mention it to their network and we'd lose every downstream relationship overnight. We're also under no illusion that we're irreplaceable to them. If they decide this isn't worth the friction, they'll find another videography studio and move on without a second thought. We fully understand this is a weak position to be in, and we're not looking for a lecture on client relationship management. We just want honest advice from people who've been in a similar spot, because the contract protecting us on paper means very little when the other side holds all the practical leverage.

So the core questions I'm wrestling with:

1. Has anyone navigated a situation like this where the client genuinely can't understand why the raw files aren't just "the files"?

2. Is there a way to frame the technical reality that lands with a non technical person who isn't arguing in good faith?

3. For those who've dealt with raw file clauses, is this something you now bake into every contract from day one?

Any advice appreciated, especially from people who've been in the "one big anchor client" position early on.

Sorry it this is not the right communitty, resolve is a massive part of our workflow here, but I can see why it cam come off as non-related.

Hi all, hoping someone with more experience can weigh in here. Our situation is a bit more involved than the usual "it's just log footage, open it in Premiere" conversation.

We shot a promo and short doc for our biggest client using a three camera Canon setup running Magic Lantern, which is a free open source firmware add-on for Canon DSLRs that unlocks raw video recording. The workflow goes: MLV raw to Cinema DNG export, then color matching across three cameras with slightly different sensors using a vectorscope and an on set color reference chart, all inside DaVinci Resolve Studio. It's not a glamorous pipeline, but we made it work and the client was genuinely happy with the final delivery.

Before anyone says "just shoot on a Sony," I'd like to get ahead of that. We didn't choose the Magic Lantern workflow because we thought it was the industry standard. We chose it because we were starting a documentary business from scratch with very limited capital and didn't want to go into debt on gear before we'd proven the model worked. We repurposed existing Canon bodies that were already Magic Lantern compatible, purchased one new camera body and a lens to complete our three camera setup, added more lenses, picked up the necessary accessories and lighting, and handled editing on a gaming PC we already owned with a DaVinci Resolve Studio license. All in, we were operational for roughly $3,200 to $3,400. We never imagined the raw file pipeline would ever become anyone else's problem. It was purely an internal workflow concern, and we never anticipated having to explain or defend it to a client.

Now they have a new marketing director who wants the raw files because they apparently hired an in house editor. When I asked what editing software they were using, he called it a trade secret and refused to elaborate. Separately, through an acquaintance who happens to work there now, we found out they essentially hired a small UGC creator who is editing on an iPad. We don't know exactly which app, but it's most likely CapCut or Adobe Rush. The marketing director has been extremely uncooperative throughout this entire conversation. When I tried to explain that our raw files require specialized software and a non trivial color science workflow just to make them viewable, let alone usable, his response was essentially "it's 2026, everything is easy to pick up."

I offered a middle ground: we'd deliver color matched, camera synced, export ready files rather than the raw MLVs. He declined and asked for the raws specifically, and for free. We then received a soft threat that they may stop working with us entirely.

There is also a secondary concern that is keeping me up at night. Even if we handed over the files in the most accessible raw format available, which in our case would be a Cinema DNG exported in DaVinci wide gamut, that is essentially the rawest viewable form our workflow produces. Those files would still be completely unmatched across three cameras. Anyone without the technical literacy to understand that would look at that footage and immediately assume we deliberately gave them broken, unusable files to hold them hostage or sabotage the project. That accusation alone, whether it has any merit or not, could spread through their network just as fast as any legitimate complaint would. So even the act of complying carries its own risk.

Writing all of this out has actually forced me to confront the real question here. The only middle ground I can think of is going back into every clip from the documentary, stripping out the grade while preserving the color space transforms and camera matching work, and exporting the whole thing in a format they could theoretically use. That is not technically difficult but it is an enormous and completely unpaid amount of work, and we are talking about terabytes of footage. So the choice we are actually facing is: do we absorb all of that labor for free, with no guarantee it satisfies them or saves the relationship, or do we walk away and risk losing everything anyway? I don't want to be cynical about this but I'm struggling to see a third option, and I'd genuinely appreciate it if someone has found one.

Our contract granted them a perpetual license to use and cut from the finished deliverable. It says nothing about raw file ownership or delivery, and under our jurisdiction we retain the rights to the footage itself unless explicitly transferred.

Technically the contract is on our side, but in practice it doesn't matter much. All of our current referrals flow through this one client, and the companies we work with through them rely far more on their relationship with that client than on anything a social media presence could offer. So even if we pursued legal action and won, they could simply mention it to their network and we'd lose every downstream relationship overnight. We're also under no illusion that we're irreplaceable to them. If they decide this isn't worth the friction, they'll find another videography studio and move on without a second thought. We fully understand this is a weak position to be in, and we're not looking for a lecture on client relationship management. We just want honest advice from people who've been in a similar spot, because the contract protecting us on paper means very little when the other side holds all the practical leverage.

So the core questions I'm wrestling with:

1. Has anyone navigated a situation like this where the client genuinely can't understand why the raw files aren't just "the files"?

2. Is there a way to frame the technical reality that lands with a non technical person who isn't arguing in good faith?

3. For those who've dealt with raw file clauses, is this something you now bake into every contract from day one?

Any advice appreciated, especially from people who've been in the "one big anchor client" position early on.