BMPCC 4K Braw -- random observations

-- Q5 is the noisiest, followed by 12:1. Noise diminishes from 8:1 and down, though the differences won't be noticed in most cases, or at all in normal viewing.

-- it can vary shot to shot, but generally, Q0 and 3:1 are about as sharp as Prores HQ. All other braw compression ratios are slightly softer than Prores, on an increasing scale.

-- regardless of compression ratio, braw and Prores show "haloing" effects -- a kind of chromatic bloom when high contrast areas are substantially enlarged. Will not be visible with normal viewing.

-- real detail or not, cDNG (set to 0 sharpness) is sharper than either Prores HQ or braw at its lowest compression ratios. cDNG is also free of the haloing effect, noted above.

-- both Braw and Prores HQ yield levels of detail which some may deem "non-cinematic". Whether any sharpening is being applied in-camera is an interesting question.

If anyone has conflicting findings, would be interested to hear.

If you’re able to share images, I’d be very interested to see examples of the details you are noticing.

I just shot ProRes HQ and BRAW 12:1 in 4K back to back. And I couldn’t tell a difference. But then again it was too different shoots, not very scientific. That said, I’m super impressed with how much more control I have with BRAW in post, and the file sizes and recording speed/media benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In most cases, these differences will only be apparent upon close inspection of identical shots. Under normal circumstances, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between 12:1 and Prores.

I will, however, take issue with your other claim: namely, that braw is more flexible in post than Prores. Apart from the convenience of the braw WB slider, I don't believe this to be true, though I'm willing to be convinced.

-

-- real detail or not, cDNG (set to 0 sharpness) is sharper than either Prores HQ or braw at its lowest compression ratios. cDNG is also free of the haloing effect, noted above.

-- both Braw and Prores HQ yield levels of detail which some may deem "non-cinematic". Whether any sharpening is being applied in-camera is an interesting question.

If it is any consolidation, both - Braw and ProRes out of a BM camera (CDNG anyway) - is still "sharper" / more detail, than Red material. Never heard anybody bitching about RED, not being "sharp" enough.

If it is any consolidation, both - Braw and ProRes out of a BM camera (CDNG anyway) - is still "sharper" / more detail, than Red material. Never heard anybody bitching about RED, not being "sharp" enough.

I think it was you who pointed out that some of the same people complaining that the BMPCC 4K was too sharp for cinema were then horrified that braw was "soft", at 6x magnification(?)

To my eyes, even full sensor HD is too damn sharp, braw or Prores... Which is why I wish BMD would answer, once and for all, whether the footage is getting sharpened in the camera and, if so, kindly put in a switch to turn it off.

If it is any consolidation, both - Braw and ProRes out of a BM camera (CDNG anyway) - is still "sharper" / more detail, than Red material. Never heard anybody bitching about RED, not being "sharp" enough.

I think it was you who pointed out that some of the same people complaining that the BMPCC 4K was too sharp for cinema were then horrified that braw was "soft", at 6x magnification(?)

To my eyes, even full sensor HD is too damn sharp, braw or Prores... Which is why I wish BMD would answer, once and for all, whether the footage is getting sharpened in the camera and, if so, kindly put in a switch to turn it off.

Thus why I don't care about what the online community thinks is cinematic or not cinematic or whether something is too sharp or not sharp enough. You can have the exact same images from the exact same camera and have people complaining from either side. I honestly at this point feel it's a matter of having too much time on hand to scrutinize every little thing when at the end if the day it won't amount to a hill of beans in real life. Much Ado about nothing if you ask me. Braw does exactly what it is intended to do and personally I find the switch from prores to braw a win-win. Fantastic codec.

In most cases, these differences will only be apparent upon close inspection of identical shots. Under normal circumstances, I doubt anyone could tell the difference between 12:1 and Prores.

I will, however, take issue with your other claim: namely, that braw is more flexible in post than Prores. Apart from the convenience of the braw WB slider, I don't believe this to be true, though I'm willing to be convinced.

Not just the WB slider but the ISO 'curve' is not 'baked in' with BRAW. I just can't see any reason to use ProRes anymore.

-- Q5 is the noisiest, followed by 12:1. Noise diminishes from 8:1 and down, though the differences won't be noticed in most cases, or at all in normal viewing.

Come to the same conclusion. It wasn’t that obvious in the early versions on the ursaPro. I find the Q5 almost useless in static scenes on the pocket. Seem like the VBR try to make the files as small as possible instead of keeping the quality. Its better shooting 12:1 for static scenes in that regard. I find the 8:1 as a sweet spot when it comes to quality and size.

-

-- real detail or not, cDNG (set to 0 sharpness) is sharper than either Prores HQ or braw at its lowest compression ratios. cDNG is also free of the haloing effect, noted above.

-- both Braw and Prores HQ yield levels of detail which some may deem "non-cinematic". Whether any sharpening is being applied in-camera is an interesting question.

If it is any consolidation, both - Braw and ProRes out of a BM camera (CDNG anyway) - is still "sharper" / more detail, than Red material. Never heard anybody bitching about RED, not being "sharp" enough.

Maybe now people will start saying RED is soft
Before Alexas RED was the choice. You always need another point of reference. Then point of reference shifts and story starts again.

If it is any consolidation, both - Braw and ProRes out of a BM camera (CDNG anyway) - is still "sharper" / more detail, than Red material. Never heard anybody bitching about RED, not being "sharp" enough.

I think it was you who pointed out that some of the same people complaining that the BMPCC 4K was too sharp for cinema were then horrified that braw was "soft", at 6x magnification(?)

To my eyes, even full sensor HD is too damn sharp, braw or Prores... Which is why I wish BMD would answer, once and for all, whether the footage is getting sharpened in the camera and, if so, kindly put in a switch to turn it off.

There is most likely some default sharpening in about every camera out there. I think it's time to try to replace Bayer sensor with something new to get even nicer footage.

There are probably about 10 threads with the same information in them. At this point it's been dissected so much that it really comes down to personal preference. Maybe going forward we can consolidate these threads a little?

Those "haloing" effects is the main problem in BRAW. That was clear visible In first green screen 4.6K footage samples around Color Checker pads. I expected they will fix it in Pocket4K BRAW version but seems they don't.