DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

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

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11660
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 7:44 pm

Looking at Frank’s codec comparison, I’m struck by how well BRAW Q0 compares to uncompressed CinemaDNG. There are differences and I’d never say uncompressed raw shouldn’t be an option as it doesn’t get caught in the patent dispute presumably. But until that happens, if you want to be close to what you can’t have, I’m thinking Q0 is preferable to CDNG 3:1, ProRes 444, and BRAW 3:1. I can see why Frank is shooting Q0.

Hope I’m quoting this song lyric correctly:
“If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with!”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5712
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostFri Mar 08, 2019 7:53 pm

Q0 represent best quality for BM RAW, so it has to be decent. It's at about same level of compression as 3:1 DNG. It actually should be better as it can go up to 2:1 and can adapt to frame difficulty.
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 809
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 4:56 am

Dudes, you have 4.6K and 4K sensors, they produce at least 4 times more resolution that that out eye can see on the screen in real world situation. What resolution loss are you are talking about? More resolution for wallpaper photo prints?
Probably if you put on OLPF filter and compare DNG and BRAW you will see no difference in resolution at all. Those "fine details" from DNG is nothing more than resolution cheating. You see partial single channel color pixels mess that sometimes produce some amount of additional resolution but same time produce crazy rainbow moire, increase pixel level chroma noise and even affect the look of the motion. BRAW also produces some amount of moire/aliasing, so it is not a 100% OLPF filter replacement.

My opinion that BRAW sharpness loss discussion may be actual for camera with 1080p sensor, but not for 4k.
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 7:07 am

Amen, bro, as I have already demonstrated in 4.6K:

Braw Q0 without OLPF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s24mxreh57xy6fx/Braw_ohne_OLPF.png?dl=0

DNG with Rawlite OLPF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/32k69wow5peauvl/DNG_mit_OLPF.png?dl=0
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 809
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 7:10 am

BTW, Uli is it possible to test Braw Q0 vs DNG both with installed OLPF?
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 7:21 am

I don't have the test chart around where I'm now, neither decent lighting, sorry.

But I'll try to set up something tomorrow.
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

Chris Shivers

  • Posts: 249
  • Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:12 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 4:19 pm

devinpickering wrote:
Justin Jackson wrote:devin. What are we losing though? That is what I am not understanding. We can all agree what we gain.. file sizes are down, speed is very fast to copy/edit with, 12bit vs 10bit Prores, etc. But in a typical 4K image, that is almost certainly going to be turned in to h.264 before any eyeballs other than a few, see it... what are you losing? Dont get me wrong, I want the absolute utmost awesome image quality we can get. I was looking at buying a 4TB drive (possibly) to handle 60fps RAW. And I dont even need 720p h.264 quality for my audience. I just want it.. just in case. But BRAW satisfies just fine.

Are you and others saying, because of some of the detail missing, color correction will be bad, overall image quality is going to be less, etc.. to everyone that watches the youtube/bluray/bigscreen version of the video? Cause I dont see that. Short of doing 400x blown up VFX work, which still looks good to me, what are you losing on a day to day workflow?

It seems you and others (and not trying to say it in a mean way.. just pointing out that there are two camps) are nitpicking about something that is irrelevant in most video recording anyway. I mean, if you record 30 different scenes for a tv show, are all those 30 scenes in BRAW going to be ruined because you lost the quality that CDNG had? Are you really recording that many TBs of CDNG for everything you do such that a lot of it couldnt be done with BRAW (or even ProRes)? That is what I am baffled about. To my eye, blown up, it looks damn good. The superman image does seem a bit blurry on the BRAW version, but as others have done, there are a lot of example images that look nearly identical in both formats, and certainly enough to use for any purpose where not a single person is going to be like "OMG.. the detail is missing.. what did you record with". I just dont fully comprehend why this is such an issue I guess. Is it that oh man, they took something we had that was a hair better away from us.. so now we cant use the camera any more.. they took control from us? Or is it that you actually record everything in RAW, have a massive workstation to work with it all, and BRAW like ProRes and DNxHR just sickens you?



I honestly hate this argument. I hear it all the time. "Who cares everyone is going to end up watching it on their phones anyway". Well, no actually. I'm trying to make movies, that end up on a big screen in a theater as a matter of fact. If that's the logic then who the hell cares what you shoot it on, let's just shoot all our movies on a hi-8 then, if it doesn't matter. I'm not saying you can't tell stories with any camera, that's not my point and I'd never argue that. I would love to use any camera to tell a story if that was the challenge.

I think my point is pretty simple - let's just say, as an example - that I don't have a grip truck. And no gaffer. But I'm faced with a very difficult or extreme shot, where my foreground is underexposed and my backround is overexposed, in that specific situation, I would like to shoot in the most uncompressed RAW format available, to work with that difficult exposure in the color grade, and I hate to say the term 'fix it in post because that's almost always indicative of lazy cinematography, but there are times, when I would like to either enhance light, or take it away according to how I feel it might help push the story. And if I might be doing something where it calls for that codec, I'd like to use it!

So I'm merely trying to understand what BRAW is capable of in the most extreme situations - it's not about will the audience see the difference in sharpness or detail, of course they won't, but it's something that's there, there IS a difference. And I really do love the BRAW codec, it's great! But I also really like what David Cherniak wrote earlier - which is "The consensus of those who are fully delighted with it for capture is that it's so good that we don't care about what's missing" - let's not be so happy with this that we're just ignoring anything that might not be great or something that they need to work on.

I also just wanna thank everyone for adding in their opinions on here, what a great community! After hearing your thoughts I went back into the color nodes and indeed have found more latitude in the shadow and highlight recovery areas within the color tabs themsleves like you suggested - and it's 'better' but not 'prefect' as it is with CDNG. And that's okay. I know we don't have a choice. I also understand and just hope - that BM will keep pushing this codec as far as it can go in the future. I'm sure we'll see updates and new functionality, I hope they keep working on it to make it even better. I really think they've created something VERY special and efficient, BM needed this very badly, but I just hope they keep pushing it further.


Remember in Hollywood one of the most used cameras is not even 4K, they use pro res, and I’m pretty sure it’s not the sharpest since it looks filmic. The best cinematographers are not worried about sharpness. Especially if it’s as little as CDNG vs BRaw
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 6:27 pm

I have no information about Hollywood but one of the most used camera with the best ever filmic look footage in Mosfilm was Arri 35BL (not less than 6K camera). All this have been changed by technical revolution.)) I have opportunity to see from time to time S35 filmcopies from 60-70th (let say b/w clean high end new copies ) on big wide cinema screen. I would say, - Feel the difference. May be not all at the moment remember that 4K is well below this standard and BMRAW and ProRes are well below CDNG (at list from clean resolution point of view). Refer to main resolution test (here) between CDNG and compressed codec it is close to difference between top pro fix Leitz or Zeiss lens and f4 third party soft zoom. That is the matter of fact. And this do not depend upon what you see on your iphone or decktop 22" screen.

I think that technical data available from your film + lens + camera is very important thing for post production flexibility.
Attachments
Tarkowski.jpg
Tarkowski.jpg (55.31 KiB) Viewed 6124 times
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 6:56 pm

That appears to be Mr. Tarkovsky in the picture above, and if you look at his films today, in the best format available outside Mosfilm vaults, typically bluray, one thing which *doesn't* stand out is detail, compared to the digital cameras in use today.

The "difference" you may feel is not related to the number of lines resolved. Or maybe it is, but in the opposite direction: less is better.
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 7:36 pm

I mentioned technical standards of this industry of 70th here. 30 years ago we were able to see all this films on film at 6K not at 2k "modern" standards. I speak about big screen cinema only.

On big wide screen you are able to see every silver grain of high end low asa (3-4ed) fine grain special copy film.

So, technical data of footage directly from your camera, film resolution and latitude are very important. I think that BM understand the limitations from this point of view of new filmware and correct simply new RAW resolution of recorded data to uncompressed standards.
Offline

Que Thompson

  • Posts: 357
  • Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:19 pm

DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 9:34 pm

In a Ursa Pro video I distinctly remembering that BRAW had more detail than CDNG. I’ll have to find the video... I think it probably needed to be dialed back for the pocket.

Found it:
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 9:46 pm

Valery Axenov wrote:On big wide screen you are able to see every silver grain of high end low asa (3-4ed) fine grain special copy film.


I've seen all of Tarkovsky's features on the "big wide screen", some in new 35mm release prints.

In no case did the prints have the apparent detail commonly available in HD acquisition with 2K projectors or blurays at home. This is not surprising, since the typical 35mm theater is lucky to resolve 700 lines, assuming the picture is in focus. And it's often much less than that.

Until digital projection, this is how everyone saw movies, and it's the basis of film aesthetics -- not what a negative looks like under a microscope.

vlcsnap-8221-03-03-05h21m54s571.jpg
vlcsnap-8221-03-03-05h21m54s571.jpg (280.75 KiB) Viewed 6102 times
Offline

David Cherniack

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 10:41 pm

John Paines wrote:
Valery Axenov wrote:On big wide screen you are able to see every silver grain of high end low asa (3-4ed) fine grain special copy film.


I've seen all of Tarkovsky's features on the "big wide screen", some in new 35mm release prints.

In no case did the prints have the apparent detail commonly available in HD acquisition with 2K projectors or blurays at home. This is not surprising, since the typical 35mm theater is lucky to resolve 700 lines, assuming the picture is in focus. And it's often much less than that.

Until digital projection, this is how everyone saw movies, and it's the basis of film aesthetics -- not what a negative looks like under a microscope.

vlcsnap-8221-03-03-05h21m54s571.jpg


This discussion is lurching a touch toward the absurd. Some films require lots of detail because the details in wide shot play, (Roma, for instance, and, I blush to mention it in the same breath, my latest doc where landscapes and paintings play with all the detail that can be mustered) and some films do not. Really. To argue that detail is never essential to good filmmaking is just about as weird as it gets.
David
Resolve Studio 16 latest build
Windows 10 Pro
Decklink Mini Monitor 4k Desktop Video
Intel i9 7960x @ 4.3GHz
Thermaltake Floe Riing 360 Water Cooler
Asus x299 Prime Deluxe
64GB 3333 Corsair Dominator ram
2 EVGA 1080ti Cards
Areca Thunderbolt 3 Raid
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 11:08 pm

What's absurd is claiming that what was never available in the past is suddenly necessary, simply because it's available.

The film pictured above is a good example. It's epic in scale, full of vistas and panoramas. Did it "require" 4K or 8K projected resolution? Well, if it did, too bad, because nobody has ever seen the movie with anything like that kind of detail.

Filmmakers with money and resources worry about scripts, actors and financing. Filmmakers and would-be filmmakers with cameras, but no money and few resources, worry about detail and resolution.
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSat Mar 09, 2019 11:14 pm

John Paines wrote:Filmmakers with money and resources worry about scripts, actors and financing. Filmmakers and would-be filmmakers with cameras, but no money and few resources, worry about detail and resolution.


Well said. Spot on, of course; that's the real reason that there aren't any Hollywood folks worrying about it, and why the pros who have access to braw now aren't bothering to chime in -- they know better.

Even the dirt cheap Pocket 4K offers far more technical capability than what most classic films had access to, even with the compression settings set to "I NEED MORE SPACE!"
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Alienware M15 Hexacore i7/32GB/2070 Max-Q
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 12:12 am

What I see from resolution test here CDNG codec is much better from this point of view. And cinema deals not only with all time moving objects some time it works as still camera. So fine details is important, if we speak about pro cinema camera and standards.

What you have seen as new filmcopy in real life may be not direct high end copy from Mosfilm mastercopy of the film itself. Real high end copy (last I have seen on big screen (russian) Hamlet by Kozincev (from 60th) directly from Mosfilm studio). So it was really breath taking quality of bw film and great latitude of image, fine grain. No digital clinics. Absolutely different feeling.

in post scriptum Tarkovsky shoot real films and care about many many details inside of this process. And shoot Stalker twice because of this details. Many others not shooting films but making production for sale which is only look like films. That's the matter of fact. That's why some of them use ProRes444 and do not care about anything. That's the truth of real life.))
Offline

David Cherniack

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 12:45 am

John Paines wrote:What's absurd is claiming that what was never available in the past is suddenly necessary, simply because it's available.


No one here claimed it's necessary, John. It`s simply a choice based on what is available. What was available in the past to filmmakers dictated their choices. Would Tarkovsky have loved 4k for the long tracking shot in Andrej Rublev? Maybe, but it's rather pointless to speculate. He did it with the equipment and emulsion that was available. while Cuaron used all the detail of 4k in the long tracking shot in Roma when Cleo gets off the bus. In fact one could argue that part of the brilliance of Roma is the masterful use of detail in the wide shots. Really, all I have to say on this DNG vs. BRAW topic is that I'm happy to have the choice that I can go back to cDNG when I need to. And happy to use BRAW when I don't...though I hope BM gives me the option for uncompressed cDNG in the next update.
David
Resolve Studio 16 latest build
Windows 10 Pro
Decklink Mini Monitor 4k Desktop Video
Intel i9 7960x @ 4.3GHz
Thermaltake Floe Riing 360 Water Cooler
Asus x299 Prime Deluxe
64GB 3333 Corsair Dominator ram
2 EVGA 1080ti Cards
Areca Thunderbolt 3 Raid
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 2:16 am

There were serious tests by SMPTE regarding the resolution of optochemical film in theaters (not only on the neg). Under the best possible conditions, they claimed 900 lines. That is well within the limits of HD if we are taking the Shannon/Nyquist limit into account.

Did any of you ever look at a single film frame in a slide projector? It is pretty grainy, actually. What makes us perceive better resolution while we watch it as a movie is temporal integration by our personal supercomputer, since the grain is constantly changing position while the details don't (not counting registration error in the camera plus projector).

And please don't reference resolution to black and white, which is far superior, both in optochemical and in digital technology. Did you ever use a black and white Red without Bayer filter, aka monochrome? The quality is stunning, both in resolution and tonality!
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

Benjamin de Menil

  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 3:27 am

Those arguing that detail doesn't matter should take it to another thread. The OP asked if others are having the same experience with loss of detail. How about keeping the discussion to that, and not moralizing on if detail is necessary.
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2558
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 10:35 am

Valery Axenov wrote:I mentioned technical standards of this industry of 70th here. 30 years ago we were able to see all this films on film at 6K not at 2k "modern" standards. I speak about big screen cinema only.

On big wide screen you are able to see every silver grain of high end low asa (3-4ed) fine grain special copy film.


If you really think that you ever have been able to see 6k from 35mm on a release print in the cinema, then you are wishful dreaming. The sharpest projection I have ever seen was 1992 during my USA trip on the gigantic screen of the IMAX Cinema near the Grand Canyon. I've never seen such a sharp projection of analog film again - the IMAX screens over here in my country were laughable compared to that one in the USA.

We had an interesting thread started in 2011 and revived lately over there at reduser:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread ... -IMAX-film

And with some links to more in depth information.
Robert Niessner
LAUFBILDkommission
Graz / Austria
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackmagic Camera Blog (German):
http://laufbildkommission.wordpress.com

Read the blog in English via Google Translate:
http://tinyurl.com/pjf6a3m
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 5:05 pm

David Cherniack wrote:BRAW topic is that I'm happy to have the choice that I can go back to cDNG when I need to.

My completely sincere question is: When would you need it?

I ask because I've been testing myself and contemplating this for a few days now and I honestly can't think of a single real world scenario in which I'd materially benefit from shooting DNG. The most common argument I hear revolves around VFX work, but as someone who's been using computers to make images for 35+ years, that argument holds no water for me.

I could really stretch and maybe find some scenario in which I might want a folder full of uncompressed DNGs, but none in which I need them.
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Offline

David Cherniack

  • Posts: 395
  • Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 6:05 pm

joe12south wrote:
David Cherniack wrote:BRAW topic is that I'm happy to have the choice that I can go back to cDNG when I need to.

My completely sincere question is: When would you need it?

I ask because I've been testing myself and contemplating this for a few days now and I honestly can't think of a single real world scenario in which I'd materially benefit from shooting DNG. The most common argument I hear revolves around VFX work, but as someone who's been using computers to make images for 35+ years, that argument holds no water for me.

I could really stretch and maybe find some scenario in which I might want a folder full of uncompressed DNGs, but none in which I need them.


Space is not an issue for me. Nor is editing performance. My concern is 4k fg comp elements. My VFx supervisor, who is a senior compositor on large Hwd productions (he also teaches Nuke at Gnomon), is happy with cDNG. If he tells me that BRAW is the equal of cDNG for our 4k multi-layered comps, I won't concern myself with the loss of fine detail that I perceive. His is the only opinion that matters to me.
David
Resolve Studio 16 latest build
Windows 10 Pro
Decklink Mini Monitor 4k Desktop Video
Intel i9 7960x @ 4.3GHz
Thermaltake Floe Riing 360 Water Cooler
Asus x299 Prime Deluxe
64GB 3333 Corsair Dominator ram
2 EVGA 1080ti Cards
Areca Thunderbolt 3 Raid
Offline
User avatar

Valery Axenov

  • Posts: 163
  • Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:49 am
  • Real Name: Valery Axenov

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostSun Mar 10, 2019 8:13 pm

Robert Niessner wrote:
If you really think that you ever have been able to see 6k from 35mm on a release print in the cinema, then you are wishful dreaming. The sharpest projection I have ever seen was 1992 during my USA trip on the gigantic screen of the IMAX Cinema near the Grand Canyon. I've never seen such a sharp projection of analog film again - the IMAX screens over here in my country were laughable compared to that one in the USA.

We had an interesting thread started in 2011 and revived lately over there at reduser:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread ... -IMAX-film

And with some links to more in depth information.


)) Here in Russia I know nothing about US IMAX.)) But I would say for sure that if you take the best cDNG RAW file from BMPCC4K and ask your local minilab to print it (12 megapixels file old point&shoot camera standard). You will get the best of 8x10" (max 11x14") final print. I'm able to print in darkroom from 35mm negative (b/w Ilford HP5 400asa not PanF 50(!)) at list 50x60cm (20x24") salable exhibition quality silver gelatin photographic print (and even with point light source DeVere/Leitz - twice bigger). And your brain will accept it as sharp fine art print. The same one what you see on big wide screen in cinema. That's the difference.) With color positive it may a bit different situation (I'm not a specialist, but I have seen big prints (20x24") from Vision3 directly from mastercopy and Arri35 camera with Zeiss lens and it was great quality and color reproduction).

Speaking honestly what I have seen last time (bw wide clean anamorfot filmcopy directly from Mosfilm) was absolutely great quality and feeling (not 2k modern digital projection).

I understand the real situation of digital world. Hope only that BM will find the possibility to return back fine resolution codec to filmware. Simply to have better position on the market than RED.
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: DNG vs. BM RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 2:15 am

Kays Alatrakchi wrote:
joe12south wrote:Seriously, though, the writing is on the wall for uncompressed RAW. REDCODE, ProRes RAW, BRAW...the industry is moving in one direction.


Thankfully. The sheer file size of the footage can be a huge issue. I remember shooting a short film and basically staying up all night to offload the footage from a BMD 2.5K camera.

Smaller is better!

I hate when people say this because it simply is not true! CDNG and BRAW files are the same size! The only difference is the amount of compression you get with the BRAW setting in the camera. It's literally in Blackmagic's literature.
Rob

Mac Pro 5,1
OS 10.13.6
2 x 3.46 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
1 TB Samsung SSD Startup Disk APFS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8191 MB
Cache Disk: 500 GB Samsung
Editing Disk: 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2
Davinci Resolve Studio 16.0.0.044
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: DNG vs. BM RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 2:32 am

devinpickering wrote:Cinema DNG Settings and Image example: shadow and highlight recovery set to the max position on the slider, bringing all the info back no problem..

https://ibb.co/k5j2MbJ

Blackmagic RAW Settings and Image Example: lifted the shadows and tried to squash the highlights but nowhere near the info here... not even close

https://ibb.co/5Rwfff6


I'm pretty sure it was Cinema DNG 3:1 and BRAW 3:1

What am I missing here? Am I the only one who's seen this disparity in the functionality?? I feel like a crazy person cause I haven't heard anyone talk about this yet..

Devin,

You're not missing anything. This is unfortunate. I use CDNG almost exclusively. I have tested BRAW extensively. The only true benefit to BRAW is that it is easier on the computer. That's it. Now, that is a big thing because you can now edit RAW (BRAW) on a laptop in the field.

All the other statements about BRAW are marketing falsehoods like smaller files, the same latitude, same quality. If people would actually read Blackmagic's own literature, they would see this. Blackmagic did a great job of making it "seem" like BRAW gave you smaller file sizes, but they don't. You just get bigger compression ratios with reduction in quality with BRAW.



Go to 5:36 on this above video for an explanation using Blackmagic's own literature.

I am not upgrading my camera's firmware. PM me because I think I still have the old firmware on my computer, if you don't. It may still be available from Blackmagic.

But if this is a patent issue, they have to remove it. I like BRAW and use it when I'm doing non-critical work. But when I'm doing a job for money, I use CDNG.

Hopefully Blackmagic is working hard to improve the BRAW codec to make it equivalent. I believe you can get the same highlight retention from BRAW. We just need to tools in Resolve to make that happen.

Good luck my friend.
Rob

Mac Pro 5,1
OS 10.13.6
2 x 3.46 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
1 TB Samsung SSD Startup Disk APFS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8191 MB
Cache Disk: 500 GB Samsung
Editing Disk: 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2
Davinci Resolve Studio 16.0.0.044
Offline
User avatar

robertmanningjr

  • Posts: 127
  • Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:24 am
  • Location: New York City

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 2:55 am

John Paines wrote:
devinpickering wrote:It's not about being able to grade an image in a nice way, I'm talking about how much data there is in the highlights and shadows, and the ability to recover or tweak those areas in the grade period.


Exactly; that's what you want to demonstrate. Or anything goes -- everyone claims whatever he wants and belongs to one cult or another. Beyond raw highlight recovery, which is useless if all 3 channels are clipped, where's the proof of this claim, where it's perceptually/cinematically significant and available to the mostly non-professional colorists who use this camera?

Everyday, real-world, significant and easily perceived/achieved differences, with this camera, and the typical operator -- not the difference between Prores and Arriraw on an Arri 65 as manipulated by an army of post-production specialists.


Devin posted his initial images and as a filmmaker, I want the CDNG image. The problem with the responses to Devin's initial question is that no one is answering his question. Is there more flexibility for shadow and highlight recovery with BRAW and can he lift the shadows and recover those highlights with BRAW?

I don't want to speak for the guy, but I don't think he cares about ProRes or Arriraw or anything else other than the codecs in the camera he owns. I don't think he cares about non-professionals. He is a professional trying to get the image from BRAW that he was able to get with CDNG.
Rob

Mac Pro 5,1
OS 10.13.6
2 x 3.46 GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon
32 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
1 TB Samsung SSD Startup Disk APFS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8191 MB
Cache Disk: 500 GB Samsung
Editing Disk: 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2
Davinci Resolve Studio 16.0.0.044
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 2:57 am

robertmanningjr wrote:The problem with the responses to Devin's initial question is that no one is answering his question. Is there more flexibility for shadow and highlight recovery with BRAW and can he lift the shadows and recover those highlights with BRAW?



devinpickering wrote:Guys I think we’re getting a bit off topic here - i’d like to hear some more options or ideas about how the level of shadow detail and highlight recovery in cinema DNG differs from the amount of flexibility in BRAW.



devinepickering: as your grading abilities are unknown, the samples you posted are of no help -- nobody can sensibly comment on those shots. If you want corroboration (or refutation) of your claims, you need to link to the original ungraded raw files, for download -- assuming they're exposed identically, which is likely to be difficult outdoors with a firmware change between them. You might also want to supply the best grade you can achieve with the one you deem better, and explain exactly where you think braw falls short.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11660
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 4:58 am

@robertmanningjr
Enjoyed your video. Agree with your apples-to-apples argument. I do think though that most people were excited at both the operational ease as you pointed out and the “smaller file sizes” for BRAW. There are two reasons that file sizes will truly be smaller for most people using BRAW.

Even with apples-to-apples, CinemaDNG is a sequence of individual files written one frame at a time; the data blocks used are 128KB. Inevitably every frame (file) on your storage media is going to be wasting some space. When you’re recording for an hour or two the wasted space adds up. A significant reason BRAW performs better than CDNG is that the clip is one file and the OS is not opening and closing 100K files in a very long clip; that BRAW clip (file) is one open and close.

Tests have shown that BRAW Q5 or 5:1 or 8:1 may be perfectly acceptable whereas BMD has said they only felt they could go to CDNG 4:1 and still maintain the raw was visually lossless. It’s completely stunning that Q5 can go all the way down to the equivalent of 20:1 compression (27MB/s) for a simple enough scene and has a high 7:1 compression (bitrate of 74MB/s for a complex scene; hope that’s right from memory). So BRAW is doing a decent job at compression at levels where the CDNG failed according to BMD.

So there is some proof that the misleading statements have an element of truth to them. Writing and reading 100,000 files takes much more space and effort than handling one or a few files. If CDNG 4:1 quality can be matched by BRAW 8:1 in an actual motion picture (not pixel peeking a single frame), that’s another large saving.

It’s these things that are exciting in addition to the benefits you mentioned.
Rick Lang
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11660
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 5:33 am

In Resolve Deliver you can save a master archive which only includes what you used in the edited video I believe. Need to read about it as I personally haven’t saved a master archive. I just save my deliverables.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 6:07 am

Trim in Media Management does exactly what you are asking for.
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

Glenn Venghaus

  • Posts: 1111
  • Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 9:56 pm
  • Location: Amsterdam , The Netherlands

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 6:57 am

Braw as delivery/archive format would amazing . Pleaseeeeeeeeee
Beatstep & APC-40 Resolve Edition Custom Controllers https://posttools.tachyon-consulting.com
Test rig : Dual Xeon | UNRAID VM OSX10.13.6 | 48 vcore | 2xGTX980ti | 64GB | DRS 16.x
V: Decklink-SDI > HDlink > Eizo + Scopebox
A: 5.1RME-FireFace
Offline
User avatar

Tommaso Alvisi

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:53 am
  • Location: ITALY

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 8:42 am

Australian Image wrote:That doesn't quite look like what I was after. What I meant was that once I've fully edited a sequence of clips into a final video, it would be nice to save that final video as a BRAW with a sidecar file that reflects all the editing that's been done.

This is what I've been doing with still image RAW (non-destructive) files for a long time.


Trim in Media Management of the selected Timeline + EDL/XML/Project export gives you exactly this...
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 9:23 am

Ironically, the whole problem with cDNG vs BRAW is that we are able to compare.

For instance, Prores is accepted as faster and easier than raw and used in many professional productions. Few ramble about it being to soft even at the lower compression. Braw is more or less the same with benefits from the raw univers, which gives the later an edge. Still, comparing BRAW to a well shot cDNG is a harsh comparison when it comes detail and sharpens. cDNG contains more information and detail, but the question is if you have missed it if it was never there to begin with. The softness is quite common with many raw codecs. cDNG is more out of the ordinary in that regard, especially when you don’t have olpf filter in front.

It was the same discussion when Nikon gave out two d800. One with olpf and another without. The one without olpf was naturally sharper and contained more detail. But would anyone care about that extra IQ if Nikon only released one with olpf? Doubtful. It is still a megapixel monster regardless.

4K digital BRAW from the pocket4k contains massive detail. Statigng it’s worse than projected 35mm analog film is false imo. And you can emulate any film stock from BRAW, if you have the skill to do so.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 12:17 pm

The Media Manager can export just the parts you have edited into your timeline (with handles if needed) and it's the only way to keep your recordings in the Braw format. There is no way to save your timeline as one whole clip in Braw (yet?).
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2239
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 12:35 pm

Dmitry Shijan wrote:Dudes, you have 4.6K and 4K sensors, they produce at least 4 times more resolution that that out eye can see on the screen in real world situation.



That's one quarter what the human eye can discern by scientific testing.

I was going say ahhg, my head feels like exploring, not another one of these threads before. :)

Carry on. I'm just fortunate to avoid this one.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 1:16 pm

So, I found the time for a few tests of uncompressed DNG vs Braw Q0 and then some 8K (well, close at 7,952 pixel) from a Sony A7RII. The BM camera used is the Ursa Mini 46 Pro, equipped with an OLPF by Rawlite which cleans it from moiré.
For the money, I have used a Zeiss 60mm Macro, stopped down to 5.6 and varied the distance of the Sony to get a comparable shooting angle. The BM shots were exported from a 4.6K timeline, so no scaling involved. All shots are center-cropped – BTW, did you know that Photoshop refuses to open shots of banknotes? Well, Affinity Photo didn't complain about my cropping.

This is DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qwezrok5b365v ... y.png?dl=0
and this BRAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/98xt9eevwch34 ... y.png?dl=0
and '8K': https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4j8r4d3hqdcx ... y.png?dl=0

To shoot something like a natural scene, I used my local environment. The UM46P was used with a Zeiss 35mm f1.4, stopped down to 5.6. The Sony was used with a Zeiss 50mm F1.4 to compensate for the larger sensor and also stopped down to 5.6. All center-cropped.

DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/izcjpagnmsud5 ... k.png?dl=0
BRAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2rfytxso5t458 ... k.png?dl=0
'8K': https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tn1l5efer0l5 ... k.png?dl=0

IMHO, the tiny difference in resolution (yes, I see some) is not worth a lengthy discussion. All of those who claim much better sharpness in DNG may be mislead by false detail beyond the Nyquist limit.
If you really need more, get an 8K machine…
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 1:56 pm

robertmanningjr wrote:The problem with the responses to Devin's initial question is that no one is answering his question. Is there more flexibility for shadow and highlight recovery with BRAW and can he lift the shadows and recover those highlights with BRAW?


Already answered. The features are not missing, either moved from the RAW panel or changed. (Per BMD's very own CaptainHook.) If you like to manipulate shadows and highlights via a slider, use the ones found at the bottom of 3-way corrector.

(None of my business, but you'd be well served to master curves, instead.)
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 2:04 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:
Dmitry Shijan wrote:Dudes, you have 4.6K and 4K sensors, they produce at least 4 times more resolution that that out eye can see on the screen in real world situation.



That's one quarter what the human eye can discern by scientific testing.

I was going say ahhg, my head feels like exploring, not another one of these threads before. :)

Carry on. I'm just fortunate to avoid this one.


Resolving power absent size and viewing distance is impossible to quantity. It's meaningless. Nobody can see 1080P or 4K or any arbitrary resolution. We can revolve a certain number of pixels per inch, which is, of course, relative to size vs distance. My eye's resolve a 40ppi billboard across the street and a 244ppi phone in my hand at roughly the same level of detail.
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 2:08 pm

joe12south wrote:Already answered. The features are not missing, either moved from the RAW panel or changed. (Per BMD's very own CaptainHook.) If you like to manipulate shadows and highlights via a slider, use the ones found at the bottom of 3-way corrector.


I don't think that's the question. He seems to what to know about ultimate reality -- are highlights and shadows as "recoverable" in braw as cDNG, not which slider to use.

Highlight recovery aside in cases of one or two channel clipping, this question was never answered satisfactory with cDNG v. Prores, so I wouldn't have high hopes for the current instance either. What you do see is folks claiming a vast DR advantage for cDNG, followed (upon questioning) by the suggestion that skeptics can find evidence on youtube.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 3:09 pm

Uli, thank you for the test.

CDNG definitely contain better IQ, but not by a large margin. Can you do a similar test with q5? If we really want to save space, than I believe that’s a better bargaining point for many users. Q0 can theoretical be the same size as cDNG, but usually is not because of VBR. If you have a fast enough pc, than it seem less understandable to use q0 instead of cDNG 4:1.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 3:28 pm

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:CDNG definitely contain better IQ, but not by a large margin. Can you do a similar test with q5?


I'm not sure what the meaning of "IQ" is in that sentence (how define image quality?), but here's a very simple rule of thumb: Q0 offers about the same level of detail/texture as Prores HQ. Q5, viewed at several times normal magnification, does not. cDNG will be sharper than either, real detail or not.

Viewed normally, the four are indistinguishable.
Last edited by John Paines on Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5712
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. BM RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 3:31 pm

robertmanningjr wrote:....
All the other statements about BRAW are marketing falsehoods like smaller files, the same latitude, same quality. If people would actually read Blackmagic's own literature, they would see this. Blackmagic did a great job of making it "seem" like BRAW gave you smaller file sizes, but they don't. You just get bigger compression ratios with reduction in quality with BRAW.



This is very true as BM RAW in terms of compression engine doesn't represent anything special at all. Very standard DCT based compression, like most codecs out there (some 15 years old).
It lets people work faster though, so everyone (well almost) is happy which is good. The best part of it is that BM made possible for people to have RAW recoding in fairy cheap cameras, which is big thing as it use to be restricted and seen and as high-end option (for whatever reason).
RAW recording is very good for camera as it does save you bandwidth, compared to already debayered video.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11660
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 5:31 pm

Uli, this test comparison of CDNG, BRAW Q0, and ~8K looks like a blatant advertisement for shooting 8K. I looked at each at 100% and the 8K also at 50%. Clearly the most impressive for that type of highly detailed scene is the 8K viewer at 50%. I think that’s what Wayne has been saying in the threads where he says capture 8K to deliver 4K. In those type of scenes, he has a strong argument supported by your comparison. Bring it on!

Now putting 8K on an actress might not be such a good idea and many times the Q0 would be preferred. Of course you can add filters at the point of capture to make that 8K look like 2K when you want that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5712
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 5:52 pm

Yep, this is all due to Bayer pattern, sensor noise, lenses imperfection etc.
This is why only now, when we can fairly easily shoot 4K (well- so called 4K) all HD programmes started looking much better and "properly". Loads of early HD content wasn't really HD (and we had many examples where it barely looked better than SD), same way as a lot of 4K content now is still not really 4K. You need good oversampled sensor to provide final quoted resolution.

Do we need such a high resolution or not is another matter. It just shows you haw far some cameras are from resolving quoted resolution. Before we jump to 8K first make good sensors which can deliver proper 4K content as this will be already crazy sharp. Those BM RAW files are no near there, which this Sony grab proves easily. It makes BM RAW look SD :) I wonder what is the real resolved resolution in BM RAW shot.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 2863
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 8:03 pm

Australian Image wrote:That's what I thought, I'd have to edit/trim first (or afterwards) in media manager and save those files. That becomes very labour intensive. It's a pity that what's trimmed in the timeline can't transfer to the media pool files (as an option anyway).


You don't trim files in the media manager. The media manager goes through any given timeline clip by clip, and creates new braw clips for each clip based on its edited length in the timeline, with or without handles which you specify. And you can choose to link the current timeline to the new clips, or stay linked to the original, longer ones.
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 8:09 pm

Australian Image wrote:My brain hurts. So it looks like I'm going to have to delve deeper into this.

Why do you need to export whole timelines to BRAW?
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Online

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5712
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 8:38 pm

Not with BM RAW as it's not pure RAW when it hits your machine. You may not be able to improve it at all compared eg. to cDNG RAW.
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 8:42 pm

Australian Image wrote:
joe12south wrote:
Australian Image wrote:My brain hurts. So it looks like I'm going to have to delve deeper into this.

Why do you need to export whole timelines to BRAW?


I'm just shooting the breeze here, but if I could save a finished timeline as a BRAW, it would mean a smaller overall file to save for potential future use. Not having to save all the crap edited out would mean smaller files.

The reason I wanted to do this is much like saving RAW photo files. As RAW editors improve, you can often get even more out of images with the improved editors. I've done this several times and been very surprised at the results.

Think of all those old movies that are refreshed with new technology. I know that what I'm doing isn't at the same level but if nothing else, as I improve, I can go back and review the old footage and maybe do changes.

Would be nice-ish, I guess. Because BRAW is camera-dependent, it might not be practical. (I don't know that, just guessing since it has to be tweaked for each camera per BMD.)
At least for now, rendering out to ProRes or Cineform are the best codecs for this use-case.
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Mar 11, 2019 9:32 pm

John Paines wrote:
I'm not sure what the meaning of "IQ" is in that sentence (how define image quality?), but here's a very simple rule of thumb: Q0 offers about the same level of detail/texture as Prores HQ. Q5, viewed at several times normal magnification, does not. cDNG will be sharper than either, real detail or not.

Viewed normally, the four are indistinguishable.


From normally view, like none crop, I find cDNG more clinical because of higher density of fine detail. Not a good thing for a final image imo. So, I tend to soft it. Agree that Prores HQ looks quite similar to Q0. Reason I’m asking for a similar comparison is that I don’t have an 8k camera and would like to see how it holds up. Maybe even 12:1 would be a good test. In static scenes, 12:1 gives a slight less noise picture and a bit more detail than Q5.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 4964
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 3:06 am

Australian Image wrote:The reason I wanted to do this is much like saving RAW photo files. As RAW editors improve, you can often get even more out of images with the improved editors. I've done this several times and been very surprised at the results.

Think of all those old movies that are refreshed with new technology. I know that what I'm doing isn't at the same level but if nothing else, as I improve, I can go back and review the old footage and maybe do changes.


Then Media Management is what you are asking for. You just edit your clips into a timeline, be it a rough cut or a picture lock or anything in between. Then you trim with Media Management, which is fully automatic, and relink your files. Done. One caveat, though: if you have any overlapping clips in different places, define subclips for them or only the first use will be copied. I have been bitten by this and made it a habit by now, maybe this has been fixed in the current version.

But the whole process only makes sense if you have very high shooting ratios, like event or other kinds of wildlife. With well-planned feature or studio work, it is not worth the effort at today's storage prices.

You may be right about future improvements to Braw. I still remember the early days of Red's color science, and with later software versions early material from the Red One did improve a lot.
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
PreviousNext

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AndreeMarkefors, MScDre and 33 guests