Blackmagic RAW

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Stephen Fitzgerald

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:00 am
  • Real Name: Stephen Fitzgerald

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostWed Sep 19, 2018 11:42 pm

Thank you Tony, we all really need communication like this. It's still a vague understanding of which cameras exactly, when Grant said all Ursa cameras I'm sure he meant ALL URSA cameras. Looking forward to the updates as they are released. I wont ask about this anymore, I think BMD understands how much of a customer concern this is.
Offline

Tony Rivera

Blackmagic Design

  • Posts: 3273
  • Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:52 pm
  • Real Name: Tony Rivera

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostWed Sep 19, 2018 11:59 pm

The hope is to bring this to other cameras but at this point in time, we're focused on the beta for the URSA Mini Pro and then the Pocket Cinema Camera 4K.
Support: http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support
Info: http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/company

Follow us on Instagram:
@blackmagicnewsofficial
Offline
User avatar

Stephen Press

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:38 pm
  • Location: New Zealand

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 am

Thanks.
"A cameraman with out a camera is just a man"
Offline

Ryan Payne

  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:48 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 2:40 am

Cheers, helps to get a clear official voice in on what to expect for the future.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 4:06 am

Thanks guys.

Rakesh. I think it's reasonable not to expect them to do more than possible during an update. So, if they can do it, great, and f they can't that's ok.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 4:23 am

Tony. The next step up in quality from Bayer (forgetting the random filter pattern and variations of Bayer) is 4:4:4 and various 5-7+ colour schemes, which better define pixel and colour accuracy, like the Sigma foveon sensor and Canon 5 color later version. As we move to higher resolution computational photography Bayer will not be as adequate. A number of companies have worked on these layered colour filter sensors. So, will BRaw support 4:4:4 or greater in future?

--
Before anybody jumps in, the term raw covers more than Bayer sensors.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 9:02 am

Scratch is almost ready for BM RAW (final touches left):

Image
Offline

Chris Huf

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 11:10 am

I have no illusions if my cam is ever supported, BUT:

would it be possible to convert clips recorded in dng to braw with a desktop
application ?

Not sure if this would be even possible from a technical perspective..just thinking out loud
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9557
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 1:58 pm

Wayne, sounds a little like my Canon printers: one for high volume everyday use is CMYK just four inks. My other printer used for making prints has 10 inks. With the tendency to make photosites smaller and the desire to make colour natural and better, it makes sense. Of course it may mean even more intense calculations in the end to produce a pixel in an image. That’s one upgrade that won’t be backwards compatible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 2:58 pm

Lol. Yes. I've been working on a way to get hundreds of depth zones to get better colours on a cheap sensor, which is great for calculating truer colours in post, but you only need 5-7 I would think, to get better, then saved as 4:4:4 or less in final print.
Offline

Leon Benzakein

  • Posts: 865
  • Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 3:13 pm

What happened to the 4K RAW on the BM Micro Studio Camera?

Is this a way of making it happen?
Is a recorder to follow?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=68476
Television: Lighting/Cameraman, O.B. Camera Operator, Grip, Lamp Operator
Film: Grip, Lamp Operator
Theater: Lighting Designer, Light board Operator, Stage Electrician, Stage Management
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 3:38 pm

michaeldhead wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:Has anybody got any frames of the different recording modes filmed back to back, in order to judge the quality difference between the modes debayered please?

Some people are claiming 12:1 is very good, but I would like to compare how good compared to 3:1 and between. Q0 and Q5, which is likely what I would want to use.



These are not mine - courtesy Nate Porter on the Blackmagic Forums:

I just did some quick tests. I haven't examined the footage yet but I did record a ton of different codec types in front of a green screen. Sorry they are short clips, but I didn't have much time to do it. Also this is by no means a great green screen test, but hopefully it is sufficient for learning about the codec and what it can handle under better circumstances.

File types I recorded
BRAW 3:1
BRAW 5:1
BRAW 8:1
BRAW 12:1
BRAW Q0
BRAW Q5
DNG 3:1
DNG 4:1
DNG Lossless
Prores 422 HQ
Prores 444
Prores XQ

Here is a link to the google drive folder https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...PY?usp=sharing

I'd love to know what information you can gather from these samples.


From these green screen samples i noticed that all BRAW files have some kind of color halo at color patches edges. It seems because BRAW is kind of Y’CbCr codec and DNG is true RGB.
Also less noise, less moire but same time less sharpness. Probably not a problem when you downscale 4K to HD, but for Pocket or Micro with native HD resolution and OLPF filter BRAW may be too soft with too compressed chroma.

Hope to hear further tech info from BM team,

Image
Image
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 6:50 pm

It may be compression artefacts on high contrast areas- typical.
People say it's less noisy etc than DNG. Well- because it will be de-noised and softened due to compression (specially 12:1 option) a bit. More moire etc. is not DNG fault- it's camera/processing fault. DNG RAW (uncompressed or lossless) is 1:1 representation if the RAW data, so it's more "true" than any of the BM RAW modes. BM has just done bit more pre-processing in camera (better debayering at least according to them), so you get less noise, moire etc. In most cases this is good (we get more organic look), but there maybe cases when you prefer this pixel sharp "real" RAW, so then you need to use DNG.
You believe to much in BM pr :)
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 20, 2018 7:20 pm

Chris Huf wrote:I have no illusions if my cam is ever supported, BUT:

would it be possible to convert clips recorded in dng to braw with a desktop
application ?

Not sure if this would be even possible from a technical perspective..just thinking out loud


It's possible, but only BM can make it happen as encoding of BM RAW is not public.
Offline

Dan Smith

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:55 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 9:33 am

This is great. A true innovation. Please, please, please can we see this brought to the URSA mini 4.6K. It would be a great way to past over the fact that I'm on my third unit after 3 RMAs :D :D :D
Offline

Mike Flynn

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 3:22 pm

Can anyone say what elements in the frame influence the size of the file when using Q0/Q5? Is it motion that determines it? Contrast and color?

Thanks :)
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 3:26 pm

Already answered. Try searching.
Offline

Mike Flynn

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 3:27 pm

I did - I must suck at search :(
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 3:29 pm

It's basically how busy is the frame (motion difference between frames doesn't apply as it's I frame codec) and mainly how much noise is there.
Offline

Mike Flynn

  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:04 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 6:13 pm

Thanks Andrew.
Offline

Mark Grgurev

  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:22 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 6:50 pm

Mike Flynn wrote:Can anyone say what elements in the frame influence the size of the file when using Q0/Q5? Is it motion that determines it? Contrast and color?

Thanks :)


It's detail especially stuff with a lot of high frequency detail like trees. Things with bokeh and motion blur will compress better.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 9:41 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote: In most cases this is good (we get more organic look), but there maybe cases when you prefer this pixel sharp "real" RAW, so then you need to use DNG.
You believe to much in BM pr :)

This is spot on.

No doubt that DNG is sharper by a huge margin over any of the BRAW ratios. Even Cinema dng 4:1 beat the BRAW Q0/3:1 down in the mud (aka blurriness/detail loss). Interestingly we are told that Q0 and 3:1 should be good for heavy FX work… I don’t believe that now after testing. DNG is still king in that department.

BRAW’s true power lays in the higher compression ratios, moving picture. What most of us want is an efficient codec that makes us work faster with GREAT result. I truly believe BRAW can be a winner in this case. Prores XQ seem a tad better IQ’wise… but falls short in the bit per minute department. And the IQ is not that much better.

My conclusion so far, as far as the beta goes. If you want to use BRAW than go for the higher compression’s ratios like 12:1 or Q5. It’s like managing small H264 files from a DSLR, but get image quality from another league.
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostFri Sep 21, 2018 11:54 pm

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:No doubt that DNG is sharper by a huge margin over any of the BRAW ratios. Even Cinema dng 4:1 beat the BRAW Q0/3:1 down in the mud (aka blurriness/detail loss). Interestingly we are told that Q0 and 3:1 should be good for heavy FX work… I don’t believe that now after testing. DNG is still king in that department.


I'm not sure that's true in all cases. Both BRAW and ProResXQ use the new debayer while cDNG does not. Zoom in using the sizing tab and try pulling a clean key on one of chips in the color chart, put it in highlight mode and then look at the results in the vectorscope. What you are interpreting as "less sharp" in the new debayer also yields a cleaner color separation. So, depending on what type of processing you're trying to accomplish in post, the cleaner color separation may be more useful. When I'm color grading, pulling a cleaner less noisy key on skin tones is going to be more useful than a teeny tiny bit of apparent edge sharpness in cDNG (which comes along with a large dose of chroma noise).

Key
Key.png
Key.png (30.61 KiB) Viewed 5180 times

cDNG Vectorscope
cDND Lossless.png
cDND Lossless.png (28.98 KiB) Viewed 5180 times

BRAW Q0 Vectorscope
BRAW Q0.png
BRAW Q0.png (28.42 KiB) Viewed 5180 times
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 9557
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 12:56 am

Very interesting observation when you compare codecs with the vectorscope. Thanks, Jamie. All part of learning the strengths and weaknesses of the tools. Gonna take time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 1:45 am

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote: In most cases this is good (we get more organic look), but there maybe cases when you prefer this pixel sharp "real" RAW, so then you need to use DNG.
You believe to much in BM pr :)

This is spot on.

No doubt that DNG is sharper by a huge margin over any of the BRAW ratios. Even Cinema dng 4:1 beat the BRAW Q0/3:1 down in the mud (aka blurriness/detail loss). Interestingly we are told that Q0 and 3:1 should be good for heavy FX work… I don’t believe that now after testing. DNG is still king in that department.

BRAW’s true power lays in the higher compression ratios, moving picture. What most of us want is an efficient codec that makes us work faster with GREAT result. I truly believe BRAW can be a winner in this case. Prores XQ seem a tad better IQ’wise… but falls short in the bit per minute department. And the IQ is not that much better.

My conclusion so far, as far as the beta goes. If you want to use BRAW than go for the higher compression’s ratios like 12:1 or Q5. It’s like managing small H264 files from a DSLR, but get image quality from another league.


Well, so it is an alternative to ProRes. But it is dissapointing. The 3:1 is enough to be lossless on a modern codec, a good portion of the time, to nearly all of the time. But when I heard people claiming how good 12:1 was to 3:1, I knew something was up. With the sort of codec techniques out there 12:1 should have a visible difference. Noise removal may raise lossless to 6:1 at times, but that's still half the datarate as 12:1. Apparently, I was one of the few fans of noise removal in compression years ago, getting into a discussion with David Newman about it. The trick is temporal noise removal (and some in circuit techniques) which used to be something people hadn't heard of (my history with the concept probably goes back to the 90's before I heard of anybody else doing it). But when done wrong it lowers quality.

Maybe BM will tweak the codec to overcome the quality difference to DNG. Maybe even by a second mode of operation by a menu selection.

If I was working for BM, I could probably significantly increase the quality going on my previous codec technology work.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Amer Shanabli

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:14 pm
  • Location: Romania

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 9:04 am

Hi all,

I make some test and i discovered some things about new codec "Blackmagic RAW" (BRAW vs ProResXQ vs cDNG):


1. Blackmagic RAW lose +0.5 > +1 stop DR (cDNG have "Highlight Recovery")

2. Blackmagic RAW is little bit cleaner vs ProRes & cDNG (but cDNG little sharper)


I like the new features of Blackmagic RAW (less like losing +1 stop DR of cDNG "highlight recovery", BRAW its something like ProRes but with some "raw adjustments".


CinemaDNG vs Blackmagic RAW vs Apple ProResXQ - HL Recovery Test:

1. CinemaDNG - HL Recover !.jpg
1. CinemaDNG - HL Recover !
1. CinemaDNG - HL Recover !.jpg (846.79 KiB) Viewed 5083 times


2. Blackmagic RAW vs cDNG- HL Recover !.jpg
2. Blackmagic RAW vs cDNG- HL Recover !
2. Blackmagic RAW vs cDNG- HL Recover !.jpg (830.56 KiB) Viewed 5083 times


3. ProResXQ vs cDNG- HL Recover !.jpg
3. ProResXQ vs cDNG- HL Recover !
3. ProResXQ vs cDNG- HL Recover !.jpg (829.5 KiB) Viewed 5083 times



Thank you.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 11:19 am

Good on you Amer. Keep it up guys. The more we understand BRaw, the more BM can improve it.

BRaw, should be as good as DNG, and 3:1 mostly lossless. No halos or anything in lossless.

Examination of the different modes would help too.

What is BRaw?
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 12:01 pm

All these "artefacts" at 3:1/Q0 suggest BM RAW compression is very simple and not very efficient :(
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 1:34 pm

What i really can't understand is why over this long time we don't see any progress in Resolve DNG debayering. If similar softer moire-free/cross hatchng-free debayer can be done in Resolve users can add noise reduction manually and this gives best possible quality without compromises
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 1:57 pm

Andrew, exactly. For a codec using modern techniques (sort of thing we were told) it should have less issues than DNG at the same compression ratio.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 3:24 pm

Jamie LeJeune wrote:I'm not sure that's true in all cases. Both BRAW and ProResXQ use the new debayer while cDNG does not. Zoom in using the sizing tab and try pulling a clean key on one of chips in the color chart, put it in highlight mode and then look at the results in the vectorscope.


Yes, I agree. BRAW, like prores, is easier to key on the fly in most cases. That’s one of the beauties with those codecs. Im really impressed with BRAW in this case. But I’m talking about extensive FX work where pixel sharpness is important with no compression artifacts. I disagree it’s only a tad sharper. DNG it’s much sharper with better IQ, IMO. That doesn’t mean the BRAW codec is bad. Far from it. I for one will use BRAW as a sub to Prores, not DNG.

Referring to the same test.
Attachments
DNG4_1_300.jpg
DNG 4:1 300% NR 2 Luma, 7 Chroma
DNG4_1_300.jpg (24.33 KiB) Viewed 5038 times
BRAW3_1_300_.jpg
BRAW 3:1 300% No NR
BRAW3_1_300_.jpg (20.42 KiB) Viewed 5038 times
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 4:55 pm

Hmmm...don't like it. Quite heavily de-noised "RAW" which I can't control.
What BM should do is at least adjust de-noising strength based on BM RAW quality, so 3:1/Q0 should have only very mild de-noising.
Offline

Amer Shanabli

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:14 pm
  • Location: Romania

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 8:43 pm

Hello again,

I make a new test with Blackmagic RAW files and i descover a method / trick to recover that +0.5 > +1 stop of lose highlights when overexpose ... somthing like "Highlight Recovery" from CinemaDNG files.

Cineva DNG - Highlight Recovery vs Blackmagic RAW - Highlight Recovery Trick by Amer:

Cinema DNG - HL Recovery.jpg
Cinema DNG - HL Recovery
Cinema DNG - HL Recovery.jpg (907.97 KiB) Viewed 4975 times


Blackmagic RAW - HL Recovery Trick by Amer.jpg
Blackmagic RAW - HL Recovery Trick by Amer vs cDNG
Blackmagic RAW - HL Recovery Trick by Amer.jpg (861.87 KiB) Viewed 4975 times




Thank you.
Offline

Mark Grgurev

  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:22 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 8:53 pm

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:I for one will use BRAW as a sub to Prores, not DNG.


Same here. I love that BRAW is an option but if I were going to decide between 3:1 BRAW and 4:1 CDNG, I'd go with CDNG.

Here's another example that illustrates the difference in detail between the codecs.

Image

Sure there's more false color in the CDNG but look at that shirt detail.
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSat Sep 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Not sure if Super Scale will work with 4.6K footage but can you add some fixes to DNG and compare to BRAW ? Maybe shoot at HD?

Add 2x Super Scale in Clip Attributes, sharpness Low (or medium), Noise reduction medium.
Set project to 1080
Set project scale settings to "Scale entry image to fit"

You can also combine this trick with with current Cross Hatching fix, but you need to apply 0.5px shift to "Input Sizing", before Super Scale Low Pass filter.

Image
Image
Image

Super Scale only with Medium NR, no separate Cross Hatching fix:
Image
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 12:50 am

Mark Grgurev wrote:
Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:I for one will use BRAW as a sub to Prores, not DNG.


Same here. I love that BRAW is an option but if I were going to decide between 3:1 BRAW and 4:1 CDNG, I'd go with CDNG.

Here's another example that illustrates the difference in detail between the codecs.

Image

Sure there's more false color in the CDNG but look at that shirt detail.


Did you touch the shirt or lighting before the DNG Mark? There seems to be more natural dynamic range in the DNG one, look at the contouring.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 1:20 am

I'm actually going say this first. I'm shocked at how wrong this is going, 3:1 BRaw should be at least as good as 4:1 DNG. But the issue you get with Raw, is it's a lower quality solution you get issues with. To get rid of false colour and/or noise, from the differences between.tje two codecs, you get rid of some detail too.

Oyvind, if you are doing FX, then you really need something like the Sigma foveon x3 layered colour filter sensor technology with maximal fill factor. That will give you true enough 4:4:4 without much gap between the pixels. Unfortunately, I don't know of a credible one for video, and even the Sigma one has compromised with lower resolution for the deeper layers deriving green and red primaries now. Sigma has patented a sensor, and a number of companies (Sony and Canon included) are working on their own version. The 7D mk2 I think is supposed to have one, but I don't think it has high fill factor (and thinking of the patent, the lower ones might be less). I have advocated BM should do a camera with the Sigma tech in the past, as they don't have a cinema camera and do deals. They could have done a Sigma Blackmagic Pocket, and instantly gone through the Sigma retail distribution network around the world with many good retailers picking it up. Now, the technology is probably just about out of original patent, and available, but the newer versions of the tech (like that patent) are probably what to aim for.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 3676
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 6:45 am

While the Foveon sensor is a nice idea, in practice it’s not worth much. Color separation is much worse than even Bayer-pattern (which is already worse than prism).
Im not theoretisizing here, I actually use one of their stills cameras, but only for infrared photography.

Sorry for derailing the thread (even more).
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 12:50 pm

Great lost that post. Bayer is far worse, it has to use extensive processing to get accuracy. There are a number of colour seperation techniques worked on by different manufacturers. They use calculations to get accuracy in the Foveon, and from my calculations they can get rather good accuracy (but maybe they don't use that technique). Now, knowing that in any statement many things have to considered to get accuracy (like getting colour accuracy here) there are options.

How old is that camera Uli? Things have improved, except that one red and green per four blue values, which I do not like. Sony is working on vertical colour seperation sensors too, so low light and red noise issues are probably going be gone. But the lack of an anti-alaising filter is an issue. I wonder if there is a third party one, like mosaic does. Is there any other issue Uli?

Now, back on topic. BM should put 4:4:4 in BRaw to future proof, and drop Bayer for vertical colour sensors.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 3676
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 1:34 pm

Color differentiation is really bad on Sigmas Foveon. But I don’t care, since I only use it for infrared with visible light blocked. Aliasing is not much of an issue, since ordinary lenses are not super-sharp in that range anyway.
I hope that Sony comes up with a better vertical separation sensor. Maybe we can see it in a future BM :D
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 2:25 pm

Mark Grgurev wrote:
Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:I for one will use BRAW as a sub to Prores, not DNG.


Same here. I love that BRAW is an option but if I were going to decide between 3:1 BRAW and 4:1 CDNG, I'd go with CDNG.

Here's another example that illustrates the difference in detail between the codecs.

Image

Sure there's more false color in the CDNG but look at that shirt detail.


Just looks like BM RAW has way to strong noise reduction. Details are lost and some of them are "good details" for sure. This should be easy to fix though. I'm more worried about way to big macroblocking at 3:1.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostSun Sep 23, 2018 2:29 pm

Uli Plank wrote:. I hope that Sony comes up with a better vertical separation sensor. Maybe we can see it in a future BM :D


Here, here!
Offline
User avatar

Jamie LeJeune

  • Posts: 956
  • Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:33 am
  • Location: San Francisco

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostMon Sep 24, 2018 12:16 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote: Just looks like BM RAW has way to strong noise reduction. Details are lost and some of them are "good details" for sure. This should be easy to fix though. I'm more worried about way to big macroblocking at 3:1.

Do you have examples of macro blocking artifacts in BRAW files? I've pushed and pulled the BRAW files past the breaking point, but haven't run into visible macro blocking.

While objectively cDNG may be sharper (and noisier) compared with BRAW, the subjective question of which one looks better when put through real world production and post to create art is perhaps the more relevant issue. Considering that cameras from every manufacturer except BMD use a relatively strong OLPF, and even then many of the top DPs are often using vintage s35 glass and/or diffusion filtration to put in front of those already filtered sensors to further soften the image, I'd say the fact that BMD's new debayer errs on the softer side relative to cDNG is not a bad thing. I think the images recorded in BRAW, especially images of human faces (which is a huge portion of what we see on screen in cinema) look better than images recorded in cDNG.
www.cinedocs.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4601572/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostMon Sep 24, 2018 12:34 am

Do we want comparisons to h265 as far as detail goes? If sharp features are not sharp, how can we claim accuracy. I mean, I'm ok, in the hopeful sense the images will hopefully eventually look at least the same without noise and colour issues as DNG. So, it is a bit to go in development over coming years.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostMon Sep 24, 2018 12:43 am

BTW, the images might be indicative of a large broad debayering routine deriving pixel accuracy from groups of maybe 16 or more pixels (a natural anti-alaising and spatial noise reduction feature) or spatial noise reduction. If the image is not moving and you get the reductions above, it might indicate these, however, if the image is moving at all, temporal noise reduction could also cause issues (temporal needs tracking to reduce that)
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 4348
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostMon Sep 24, 2018 9:43 am

Jamie LeJeune wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote: Just looks like BM RAW has way to strong noise reduction. Details are lost and some of them are "good details" for sure. This should be easy to fix though. I'm more worried about way to big macroblocking at 3:1.


While objectively cDNG may be sharper (and noisier) compared with BRAW, the subjective question of which one looks better when put through real world production and post to create art is perhaps the more relevant issue. Considering that cameras from every manufacturer except BMD use a relatively strong OLPF, and even then many of the top DPs are often using vintage s35 glass and/or diffusion filtration to put in front of those already filtered sensors to further soften the image, I'd say the fact that BMD's new debayer errs on the softer side relative to cDNG is not a bad thing. I think the images recorded in BRAW, especially images of human faces (which is a huge portion of what we see on screen in cinema) look better than images recorded in cDNG.



Do you like these results:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79208&p=441459#p441186

I'm not so sure. Massive details loss in BRAW. Pixel sharp image is one thing, but overly soft picture is another.
I want to have choice and control over de-noising. For over-processed recordings I can use my phone :)
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 1260
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostTue Sep 25, 2018 2:18 am

Or pretty much what I said elsewhere, without the code (however I would have thought they would use something more modern than jpeg).
Offline

Vess Stoytchev

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:10 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostTue Sep 25, 2018 5:26 am

Hi guys,

I tried braw myself with the UMP. Gotta say that I am thinking on using it for the future. I've had zero problems with the 4.6K files in post. Here is a size comparison. All clips are 5 secods in duration (5 and 2-4 frames depending on my precision with the rec button). I also shot some stock footage in Q5 and the results are great. But as stated in the 12:1 thread, 12:1 is "awesome". This codec is an absolute win. Thanks BM! :)

Link to still frames from those 5 second clips. Saved in .tif from Resolve.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BZKNF ... wj43U_eUDO
Attachments
Untitled-1.png
Untitled-1.png (45.88 KiB) Viewed 4409 times
Offline

Victor Blondel

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 27, 2018 2:58 pm

Just tested Blackmagic RAW on my Ursa Mini Pro...

really disappointed when I discovered that anything lower that 4,6K is cropped. Even if I understand the idea of using the whole sensor, I thought a reinterpolation would have been possible

I was really enjoying the idea that this Blackmagic RAW could make RAW affordable and usable for people like me : documentary shooters who shoots A LOT of footage.

But even if the bitrate is equivalent to prores, I'd never shoot in 4,6K for a full documentary as it would take too much space...even 4K is too cropped, don't even mention HD
------
Victor Blondel
www.victorblondel.fr
Offline

Zak Ray

  • Posts: 95
  • Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:11 pm

Re: Blackmagic RAW

PostThu Sep 27, 2018 3:25 pm

Victor Blondel wrote:really disappointed when I discovered that anything lower that 4,6K is cropped. Even if I understand the idea of using the whole sensor, I thought a reinterpolation would have been possible

But even if the bitrate is equivalent to prores, I'd never shoot in 4,6K for a full documentary as it would take too much space...even 4K is too cropped, don't even mention HD


Generally I agree with this sentiment, and it's one of the reasons I don't like shooting on Red cameras-- in order to shoot the full S35 area, you're shooting at a huge 7.5K resolution.

But I don't think you're appreciating how small the BRAW files really are. 1 hour of ProRes HQ 1080 is 79GB. 1 hour of BRAW 4.6K Q5 is 38GB. You're saving space AND getting 12 bit color.
Ursa Mini 4.6K / Nvidia GTX-1080 / Intel i7-6850K / 32GB RAM
PreviousNext

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Australian Image, Chad Wick, Taj Jackson and 20 guests