2TB per hour* and $50g camera - no WB correction needed
.3 TB per hour and $10g camera - choose one of three levels
.05 tb per hour and $1g camera - get it nailed or die.
I agree with morgan on most of what he says, though not his price numbers.
If you ask 10 people their workflow you'll get 10 answers. (regardless of medium or genre)
So much depends on how you work, light and the subject as there is no one answer.
A very good field monitor will tell you as much as scopes, balancing using lighting, will obviously give me a more workable file.
Due to time and budget I'm not surprised that so many times people get caught out on exposure, but I am amazed that people think raw or a flat log will fix anything.
As Morgan says, working tungsten and trying to get to a cool look will make the blue channel go nuts on most cameras.
I know my Reds wouldn't do blue at 1200 ASA when I started with them, though Cinex has improved and now I can get there without too much noticeable noise, or smoothing.
I do know the REDs like warm more than cool, if pushed into low light scenes.
If I see a trailer like the Martian that is very, very warm I know it's probably shot on a RED (though I think the decision of this movie was 3d), though an expert color team can do about anything if it's shot within range.
Prior to the recession I had a amazing color team in Dallas that was in a large 4 story building. Today . . . they're housed in a 6 room office suite, so the diy system of coloring has taken over, though I doubt seriously if the thousands of people running free resolve own a calibrated broadcast monitor.
I know of one young production company that thinks the c-log, or the technicolor log for Canons is actually film color and once they apply it to their camera, they're done.
Seriously. Then I had a client say man that's a cool look so real and desaturated. (shoot me please).
Personally I loathe flat logs in these little 8 bit cameras. It all looks washed out, hell to focus, can't see the highlights properly and are a recipe for failure.
In regards to asa, all I can say is test. I keep my REDs at 800 sometimes go to 1000 or 1200 in a pinch.
I never go to 400 absolutely never, ever, ever go to 200.
If working fast, (without time to check the dit station) I try to have a field monitor and first make it match my evf, then just bump the contrast on the field monitor because if I can keep it in that range I'm safe.
If working ultra fast, I just try to be safe and that's why I like to start with a evf rather than a screen that changes from the angle you view at.
IMO
BC
P.S. But when you think about it few still photographers run broadcast quality, high gamut calibrated monitors. They set down at their Imac and start working a still out of lightroom or ACR.
If they do it well, they learn two things. 1. NO two screens ever match, so obviously when you ship NO 1000 screens are going to get close. 2. Do what works for you and your client and don't worry about it unless you're shooting for the theatre then that's a whole different animal.