Spencer Acoustics wrote:I was a bit surprised to find out that BRAW is not really a RAW format, it is a 3:1 compressed format at the highest quality settings. I thought RAW was, well, RAW. As in ALL the data in a uncompressed format. Unless BM adds a true uncompressed BRAW option, in my opinion, this will slow down BM's efforts to make this a real powerhouse of a codec.
Am I wrong here? I LOVE the new codec, I just feel a bit mislead about it being RAW. Yes you get the post production benefits of RAW but is that the only reason BM calls it RAW?
It's a bit complex. As you may know, as far as advertising claims go Raw, is actually virtually unprocessed sensir data, wherever 4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:0 Bayer (the raw mistakenly called raw) rgbw, yellow magenta white, etc.
So, as far as it represents virtually untouched sensor data, it is Raw bayer. This may include the thought of outputing at a combined lower resolution, as old caneeas with component oupur did in the early century and before.
But Braw seems to possibly be just normalish video that bayer values can be extracted from and reprocessed. It also seems to be processed removing your ability to do it yourself. I would argue that elimination of noise to authentic pixel value representative of the actual received light, might also be considered raw bayer, but that's my opinion, and may not be considered valid. But how far does this processing go before it is just restorative and not raw?
In a sense, the usage, and legal definition of raw may expand, but as far as I am concerned, the legal definition should stay centered on the true meaning of raw,not s morning t essentially raw with or without processing to enhance its rawness. In this way, you you need to add controls as we have been discussing to turn down processing to a raw level that just produces an authentic raw pixel value. Some people may want to turn that off completely to produce an unsharpened cdng like image.