DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

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

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 5:45 am

joe12south wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote: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.


Using semantics to prove misinformation Joe? Does the tree really fall if their is no one in the forest to hear it. At least me and Bart Simpson know his to clap with one hand. Noo, stop trying to suck me back in Joe! :)

Of course you know I am only referring 8k display at a good field of view where it matches the (presumably) emissive display resolution reduction of the human eye, when which is a very good field of view. I've been studying product design related technologies for over three decades. Its still resolution, even 'dots per inch'. But surprisingly difficult to find proper definitions on line in the past, so I had to do my own experiments.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 5206
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 5:53 am

To separate the two subjects this thread has been split into, I'd like to explain my reasons for comparing the shots from the UM46P to the Sony. I didn't really want to advertise 8K since I don't own a computer manufacturing plant. I just wanted to show how small the margin is between DNG and Braw in comparison. You still need to remember that the Sony A7RII has no OLPF. This is far less important for stills than for movies since any pan or similar motion will make the moiré more obvious.

Secondly, the resolution of that Sony needs very good glass (which Zeiss C/Y is). But Zeiss didn't aim for maximum resolution limit, but for good micro-contrast, which shows in such stills. Plus, I could have graded the UM46P images closer to the Sony ones, and contrast plus saturation contributes a lot to perceived sharpness. I didn't really try to match them.

For moving images in 8K you'd not only find spatial resolution challenges but also temporal. If you would be sitting close enough to see a difference, you'd also need a minimum of 60 fps to avoid judder. Maybe more, since I see judder when watching 4K close enough at 50 fps.
Resolve Studio and Fusion Studio under MacOS Mojave 10.14.6
iMac 2017 Radeon Pro 580 8 GB VRAM and 32 GB RAM
Mac mini 16 GB RAM plus eGFX Breakway Radeon RX 580
Offline

jponfilm

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:43 am
  • Real Name: Justin Phillip

Re: DNG vs. BM RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 6:33 am

Frank Glencairn wrote:
devinpickering wrote:C

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..


I don't have a problem matching my DNG and BRAW material.
Can you post the material, I would like to give it a try.

Meanwhile you may read my article on that issue:

https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/20 ... er-at-all/





Frank, this article was amazing. I have posted it on five different BMPCC4K facebook groups! Excellent stuff. I for one am all for BRAW, I literally am just thrilled to have the camera! HAHA, the update came the day after the BMPCC4K landed on my door step and i didn't even notice the second half of Grant Petty's sentence that everyone was in an uproar about. HAHA, i just got out of bed, updated the firmware and went and filmed some waterfalls! HAHA Love this article and love BlackMagic. :)
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. BM RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 9:27 am

Image

Andrew Kolakowski wrote: 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).


:D
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5912
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 9:49 am

Who makes them, not BM?
I assume they represent "the other side" related to Blackmagic :)
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 9:59 am

I don't agree with the Nyquist theorem application to matrix image sensors. I think it is a misapplication of something used to describe a pulse, where you need the trough and the pulse to sense it. Pixels on matrix image usually are above the wavelength of light in size horizontal to it, so wave nature usually is not the target. Instead. Each pixel represents a discrete 'pulse' if you would like, of data. But, to represent physical lines on a chart, you need to represent the spaces in between, so by convention it is called x Libes of resolution which is half the physical pixel resolution, more or less. In pixel terms, the line and the space in between are detail, not just the line. But I think, with all the other resolution limiting lens and olpf/Bayer confusing detail reducing effects, people have conflated the two. So, 4k on a good camera, is going to produce pixel level alternations in rise and fall (detail). The human eye, also sees misalignment with the image detail, increasing the resolution it detects (see). With good visijn, I have seen down to that level, and its rather twisted and strange, like what you see on film grain. Hence, I don't expect 8k to look wonderfully clear. But some people are talking far beyond that to record the characteristics of the image through the image path and presumably deliver more accuracy sr 8k.

I get a visceral connection with detail contrast on screen. It is one of the factors of image to master, like the rest of them. Everybody should seek out artistic images until they find styles that they would really like to use. I mentioned the 35mm still kens dof adaptor test images as they were probably the best I've seen, and what I aimed to use. They were extraordinary.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Mar 12, 2019 10:06 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Who makes them, not BM?
I assume they represent "the other side" related to Blackmagic :)


Well, I presume they are cheap now because they are out of production.

But my preferred fairy camera looks more like this (without the wings):

Image

Pity I couldn't find a picture of a fairy looking down and taking a picture of your quote with a pocket digital. :D
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Johannes Jonsson

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 2:35 pm
  • Location: Iceland

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 9:29 am

I read through all this thread and in my opinion it is not at all about blowing up to 300%.
It is not about bout writing skills or directing skills or editing skills or lighting skills?
It is not about SDK being free.
It is not about how well you can match DNG and BRAW.
It is not about who end up watching and what they have to say about it.
It does not matter if Hollywood uses Prores.
It does not matter that braw has smaller file sizes.
It is not about BRAW being a bad codec, because it is a fine codec.
And it is not only the $1.300 Pocket 4k loosing DNG, there are other cams like UMP.

I have the Pocket 4k and I also have the UMP 4.6k and what I am running into is that those clients that are asking for Lossless cDNG, when I mention something else like BRAW ProresRAW or whatever I just gets one big NO 99% of the time. If I can not shoot and deliver original shots in Lossless DNG I will not get the job, they want Lossless DNG and it is not in my place to tell them they should use something else. It tis theirs to tell, they pay the bill, that is simple

I have even done some demos for some of them that were willing to take a look into it using UMP 4.6k by shooting both Lossless DNG and BRAW Q0 and 3:1. The answer was no, use DNG.

I also did a test when shooting one chroma key job by shooting in both lossless DNG and BRAW Q0 and 3:1 in a studio, Lighting and everything else were exactly the same, shoot the DNG and switched to BRAW and did the same shot. I delivered both to them to test because there VFX guy were interested to take a look. They had problem with getting the actresses blond hair clean keyed in here closeups, also something problematic around here face, so no.

Don´t take me wrong I love BRAW and love having the option on my camera to use on many of my projects but if I can not have both I will stay with DNG because 99% my RAW clients want DNG RAW and as I say before they are paying the bill.

I do respect BM decision because of the patent issue. They needed to do something about it. I think or at least hope BM will improve BRAW so it can replace DNG all the way
Last edited by Johannes Jonsson on Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Johannes
Offline
User avatar

Dmitry Shijan

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:15 pm
  • Location: UA

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 10:14 am

Wish BM just extend BRAW functionality somehow and add true RGB BRAW for best quality and better chroma keying. For my opinion currently the man problem of BRAW that it is YCbCr codec and so it produce halos around solid colors edges. Probably it may affect overall sharpness look as well.
All my custom made accessories for BMMCC/BMMSC now available here https://lavky.com/radioproektor/
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 10:46 am

Pay the license and put cdng back in, and improve it along braw lines with meta data and in a container file to get similar speed to braw.

Heaps of things matter, and that is coming out in what the vfx guys did, and others. Accuracy is what you work off of to get better quality, unless you want to name a certain style in (a particular lens etc).

It is unfortunate if they insist on dng. Let's hope BM can improve Braw into cdng territory and they change their mind. Of course, BM could make a conversion routine from Braw, maybe even during recording if that can avoid the patent terms (not actually recording in raw, but converting from one format to another, even with the current format recorded in memory to the other format in memory, then transfered to disk.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

jsmith

  • Posts: 80
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:50 pm
  • Real Name: Jaymes Poudrier

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 12:57 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.


Just save the new clips with the project file. If you join the clips into one BRAW file then you'll have to recut them again to make any changes that don't affect the entire file. If you archive the clips with the project file then everything follows it and so you can immediately make changes to each clip (and you'll be able to see what settings were used previously).
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit (1903) | Processor:i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz | Memory: 32GB RAM |
Video Card: AMD Radeon VII | VRAM: 16GB | Playback: Intensity Pro 4k
Resolve Version: 16.0.0B.033 | GPU Driver: Adrenaline 2019 19.5.2 [[Updated:6/17/2019]]
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11964
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 3:14 pm

Fine post, Johannes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Justin Jackson

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:50 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 5:16 pm

Can someone correct me if I am wrong.. I thought the whole patent thing from the various readings here and elsewhere, was related to RED and their use of compression on Lossless raw? So the only thing if I understand it right that should be an issue is using any of the compression CDNG formats. Pure lossless CDNG should be fine, should it not? Though, I assume that even lossless was using some compression to try to get smaller file sizes?
Custom DIY AMD1950x 16-core/32-thread, liquid cooled, 64GB 3600Mhz RAM, 950Pro-512GB NVMe os/apps, 2x500GB 850 Evo RAID 0 SATA3, Zotac 1070 8GB video, USB 3.1Gen2 RAID0 2x4TB, 2x2TB Crucial MX500 SSD SATA3.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 6:16 pm

Yes, Lossless is compressed, unless it is uncompressed.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Jim Giberti

  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:03 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 6:57 pm

Australian Image wrote:12:1 gives a slight less noise picture and a bit more detail than Q5.


Strange. In exstensive testing we've seen exactly the opposite - 12:1 ishas the most noise and Q5 has demonstrably more detail. I'm talking about looking for issues, in 300% stills, and shooting challenging detailed scenes and portraits.

Q5 on our cameras is the sweetspot for day to day production.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3050
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 7:43 pm

Jim Giberti wrote:Strange. In exstensive testing we've seen exactly the opposite - 12:1 ishas the most noise and Q5 has demonstrably more detail. I'm talking about looking for issues, in 300% stills, and shooting challenging detailed scenes and portraits.


I think it can vary, depending on subject. Q5 is noisier than 12:1 in my testing, most of the time. But not always. Same with detail -- which one wins can depend on the subject, though they're close, overall.

These distinctions are all but invisible, when viewed normally, whether it's Q0 or 12:1. Even trying to distinguish UHD from HD on an HD display, with the UHD cropped without resizing and the HD at 2x zoom, is difficult.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5912
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 9:03 pm

Justin Jackson wrote:Can someone correct me if I am wrong.. I thought the whole patent thing from the various readings here and elsewhere, was related to RED and their use of compression on Lossless raw? So the only thing if I understand it right that should be an issue is using any of the compression CDNG formats. Pure lossless CDNG should be fine, should it not? Though, I assume that even lossless was using some compression to try to get smaller file sizes?


It's not about lossless compression, but about any compression and from this interesting talk this compression doesn't even have to happen inside camera. RED patent is crazy strong.



Atomos is paying RED, so they can record ProRes RAW without any worry.
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

Jim Giberti

  • Posts: 261
  • Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:03 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 9:03 pm

exactly.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 9:09 pm

I wouldn't say strong.

Companies are known to just roll over and pay, because once a patent is granted, it can be crazy expensive to overturn I think. Why a group of companies could afford to do such a thing.

I had this problem. There was a major patent that may have been granted to somebody who had accessed my files. I couldn't get the money to object in time (family is pathetic) before it went to next stage, then it was pretty expensive territory I understand. They are so stupid it took years of limping along to get that far, that if I just waited out their patent I could still patent heaps more on top by that stage, but as is, a costly spanner in the works.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline
User avatar

Johannes Jonsson

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 2:35 pm
  • Location: Iceland

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 9:22 pm

rick.lang wrote:Fine post, Johannes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you Rick
Johannes
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 9:47 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
Justin Jackson wrote:Can someone correct me if I am wrong.. I thought the whole patent thing from the various readings here and elsewhere, was related to RED and their use of compression on Lossless raw? So the only thing if I understand it right that should be an issue is using any of the compression CDNG formats. Pure lossless CDNG should be fine, should it not? Though, I assume that even lossless was using some compression to try to get smaller file sizes?


It's not about lossless compression, but about any compression and from this interesting talk this compression doesn't even have to happen inside camera. RED patent is crazy strong.



Atomos is paying RED, so they can record ProRes RAW without any worry.


What is this guy on about? Red hadn't even.verm firmed in "2000" he talks about, much less delivering big sensors or compressed raw. David Newman was already doing it before they cane along, publicslly revealing the technique. He talks about the allied forces and good citizens against others, I think he needs a history check, and also to look at the symbols and military themes of the others back in ww2. Most distasteful. If he think like thus, why us he paying a license, and dies he really know if it is a strong "portfolio". I wonder if Red bought and transfered patents over to their name to get a portfolio from before they started operations of that nature. Also, if he thinks these are from 2000, the patent period is 20 years. So, some of these patents might be expiring. This just raises questions.

Is there ant place that tracks these sorts of compression patents,nor only places lme doom9 forums?

I planned to go beyond Bayer, but lacking the money to do it, I was planning on Bayer compression as a cheap compromise before all this broke lose. But using bayer recovery it doesn't matter so much, except there is going be a efficacy penalty.

The problem with patents, is if the patent holders squeezes their eyes and think they could get somewhere, and comes after you, you are in for a world of expensive pain, before they prove anything, if thru can at all. You only need people gullible to agree with them, and the case goes against you. From the beginning of the patent system, the painful flaw of the patent system was identified.

True human beings, and patriots, need to stand up against the patent systems abusiveness.

I would trust opinion of somebody like Grant over this.

P.s. From the way he's talking, I suspect he wants to get into the camera business.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Oyvind Fiksdal

  • Posts: 258
  • Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 10:12 pm

Johannes, even though I agree to most of what you are saying… Those clients of yours, are quite nifty when it comes to quality. I can’t even see them excepting low compressed red code. It’s hard to drop cDNG, when switching back and forth with most other codecs. But I get it. They pay the bill… so it really don’t matter.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5912
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostMon Apr 08, 2019 10:56 pm

Wayne Steven wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
Justin Jackson wrote:Can someone correct me if I am wrong.. I thought the whole patent thing from the various readings here and elsewhere, was related to RED and their use of compression on Lossless raw? So the only thing if I understand it right that should be an issue is using any of the compression CDNG formats. Pure lossless CDNG should be fine, should it not? Though, I assume that even lossless was using some compression to try to get smaller file sizes?


It's not about lossless compression, but about any compression and from this interesting talk this compression doesn't even have to happen inside camera. RED patent is crazy strong.



Atomos is paying RED, so they can record ProRes RAW without any worry.


What is this guy on about? Red hadn't even.verm firmed in "2000" he talks about, much less delivering big sensors or compressed raw. David Newman was already doing it before they cane along, publicslly revealing the technique. He talks about the allied forces and good citizens against others, I think he needs a history check, and also to look at the symbols and military themes of the others back in ww2. Most distasteful. If he think like thus, why us he paying a license, and dies he really know if it is a strong "portfolio". I wonder if Red bought and transfered patents over to their name to get a portfolio from before they started operations of that nature. Also, if he thinks these are from 2000, the patent period is 20 years. So, some of these patents might be expiring. This just raises questions.

Is there ant place that tracks these sorts of compression patents,nor only places lme doom9 forums?

I planned to go beyond Bayer, but lacking the money to do it, I was planning on Bayer compression as a cheap compromise before all this broke lose. But using bayer recovery it doesn't matter so much, except there is going be a efficacy penalty.

The problem with patents, is if the patent holders squeezes their eyes and think they could get somewhere, and comes after you, you are in for a world of expensive pain, before they prove anything, if thru can at all. You only need people gullible to agree with them, and the case goes against you. From the beginning of the patent system, the painful flaw of the patent system was identified.

True human beings, and patriots, need to stand up against the patent systems abusiveness.

I would trust opinion of somebody like Grant over this.

P.s. From the way he's talking, I suspect he wants to get into the camera business.


Fact that David was doing this before RED is meaningless (if he didn't protect his work).
All what counts is that as for today RED holds very strong patent around RAW compression and whoever will touch it they will knock to his door (already proven few times).
Offline

Justin Jackson

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:50 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 4:16 am

So is the Atomos guy basically saying BRAW is in trouble because it is a compressed RAW format and RED owns the patent on ALL compressed RAW formats? I cant imagine that BRAW would have been brought out if there were potential patent issues, especially with the removal of CDNG.
Custom DIY AMD1950x 16-core/32-thread, liquid cooled, 64GB 3600Mhz RAM, 950Pro-512GB NVMe os/apps, 2x500GB 850 Evo RAID 0 SATA3, Zotac 1070 8GB video, USB 3.1Gen2 RAID0 2x4TB, 2x2TB Crucial MX500 SSD SATA3.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 8:36 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
Wayne Steven wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:It's not about lossless compression, but about any compression and from this interesting talk this compression doesn't even have to happen inside camera. RED patent is crazy strong.



Atomos is paying RED, so they can record ProRes RAW without any worry.


What is this guy on about? Red hadn't even.verm firmed in "2000" he talks about, much less delivering big sensors or compressed raw. David Newman was already doing it before they cane along, publicslly revealing the technique. He talks about the allied forces and good citizens against others, I think he needs a history check, and also to look at the symbols and military themes of the others back in ww2. Most distasteful. If he think like thus, why us he paying a license, and dies he really know if it is a strong "portfolio". I wonder if Red bought and transfered patents over to their name to get a portfolio from before they started operations of that nature. Also, if he thinks these are from 2000, the patent period is 20 years. So, some of these patents might be expiring. This just raises questions.

Is there ant place that tracks these sorts of compression patents,nor only places lme doom9 forums?

I planned to go beyond Bayer, but lacking the money to do it, I was planning on Bayer compression as a cheap compromise before all this broke lose. But using bayer recovery it doesn't matter so much, except there is going be a efficacy penalty.

The problem with patents, is if the patent holders squeezes their eyes and think they could get somewhere, and comes after you, you are in for a world of expensive pain, before they prove anything, if thru can at all. You only need people gullible to agree with them, and the case goes against you. From the beginning of the patent system, the painful flaw of the patent system was identified.

True human beings, and patriots, need to stand up against the patent systems abusiveness.

I would trust opinion of somebody like Grant over this.

P.s. From the way he's talking, I suspect he wants to get into the camera business.


Fact that David was doing this before RED is meaningless (if he didn't protect his work).
All what counts is that as for today RED holds very strong patent around RAW compression and whoever will touch it they will knock to his door (already proven few times).


Not really, his doing would be proof of prior art and unpatentability of a subsequent separate root general raw Bayer patent. Thus, it would be weakened, but it would cost money to overturn, which would give it some strength. But this is all conjecture. "If" "but" "would" and not absolute statements. I'm just very unappreciative of the general reach of the patent.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5912
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 8:43 am

You need to listen what he said.
BRAW is technically not RAW as it's partially debayered, so it means RED patent doesn't apply anymore. BM would check this for sure.
He said Atomos paid fees to RED instead of trying to bypass RED patent (like BM which decided to go with some 'hacked' RAW). He knows what he's talking about even if it doesn't sound this way.
Offline

deezid

  • Posts: 244
  • Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:38 am
  • Real Name: Dennis Schmitz

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 10:35 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:You need to listen what he said.
BRAW is technically not RAW as it's partially debayered, so it means RED patent doesn't apply anymore. BM would check this for sure.
He said Atomos paid fees to RED instead of trying to bypass RED patent (like BM which decided to go with some 'hacked' RAW). He knows what he's talking about even if it doesn't sound this way.


I agree and kinda wished BMD went the same route... :oops:


...or at least provide an option to turn off any internal processing so Braw comes at least closer to actual raw...
Download my 55M Advanced Luts for the Pocket 4K and 6K here:
www.55media.net/55m-p4k-color
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5912
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 12:27 pm

Maybe it would be simpler, but it would cost them money (eg. 50$ for every camera sold).

What they have done is fine. They just need to tweak strength of the pre-processing.

I would try to do something slightly different. Use very simple debayering +encode. This would give preview without any additional processing, so "normal" eg. YUV based file, but with 100% recoverable RAW data. On your machine you would have draft preview straight away or you could go back to RAW and do proper debayering. It would cost you probably more processing than BRAW, but with good compression it shouldn't be a problem.
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11964
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 1:26 pm

In the US and Canada I remember patents of this source were 17 years so if the patent was granted in 2000, they’re too late to charge fees or win a court case. Now there was a recent increase to patents but I’m not recalling all the changes and to which type of patents it applied.

For example if your are a writer, your works are protected for 75 years. Might be the same limit for written music (so anyone can use Beethoven’s music) but you can’t use an orchestral recording of that music as it’s protected from the date of the performance. Drugs I think now get longer than 17 years, maybe 25 years, but does that length apply to a technology patent?

Drug companies are special as they can drop more than a billion dollars creating a new medicine and getting it approved. Technology patents are almost always feeding off prior art to some extent and can cost the price of a postage stamp so they have lower protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by rick.lang on Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Lang
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 5912
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 1:35 pm

Yes, some patents expire in eg 15 years.
All patents regarding MP3, Dolby Digital and MPEG2 for example are expired now (at least this is what I read).
There are rules how long they last. There are companies which do nothing except buying patents and then enforcing them.
This is for MPEG2:

https://www.mpegla.com/programs/mpeg-2/patent-list/
Offline

Dune00z

  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:40 pm
  • Real Name: Duane Eues

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 1:57 pm

rick.lang wrote:In the US and Canada I remember patents of this source were 17 years so if the patent was granted in 2000, they’re too late to charge fees or win a court case. Now there was a recent increase to patents but I’m not recalling all the changes and to which type of patents it applied.

For example if your are a writer, your works are protected for 75 years. Might be the same limit for written music (so anyone can use Beethoven’s music) but you can’t use an orchestral recording of that music as it’s protected from the date of the performance. Drugs I think now get longer than 17 years, maybe 25 years, but does that length apply to a technology patent?

Drug companies are special as they can drop mire than a billion dollars creating a new medicine and getting it approved. Technology patents are almost always feeding off prior art to some extent and can cost the price of a postage stamp so they have lower protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I work with research scientists and my wife is a neuroscientist. I do not aim to derail this but, Drug companies feed off of the research done by thousands of scientists around the world finding out all the pathways to follow or not follow. Those pathways that make something druggable are often found initially by non-industry scientists which is often paid for by grants and government spending. Drug companies are often the very last ones to the party and rush to market (throw tons of money and scientists at the last second using some under-funded research firm's data who can't compete) to make a profit and rely on the research done by non-profit or university researchers to make their drugs. Often tax money goes to the research, but then the people also have to pay a drug company for the drug because somehow the drug company is the only one that "made it".

Its like if you were playing a basketball game and starting players did a majority of the work, then a guy comes off the bench and scores the game winning point at the last second and only HE (or she) gets the trophy and accolades. This is generally the pharmaceutical industry patents in a nutshell.

The tech industry often does the same... getting ideas from each other, often from small parties that can't compete with a large firm, and all of a sudden only one person or one firm "did it." But, I digress...

The patent issue in the film/TV industry has been and remains one of the largest road block to progress. It happened with Edison, why not with Red?
Offline
User avatar

rick.lang

  • Posts: 11964
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:41 pm
  • Location: Victoria BC Canada

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 2:06 pm

Thanks for sharing your insights. When I read posts like this, I want to sign up for that voyage to colonize Mars. The best thing about it being a one way ticket is that you have maybe one chance in a hundred of leaving the world as we know it behind. Worth it. A bit like reliving your childhood... well at least up to age 6 afterwards integrity is on a slippery slope downhill. Okay, back to our regular programming!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rick Lang
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 2:09 pm

Patents went 20 years a while ago. I do t know about how long ago i. America though.
Last edited by Wayne Steven on Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Dune00z

  • Posts: 280
  • Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:40 pm
  • Real Name: Duane Eues

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 2:11 pm

rick.lang wrote:Thanks for sharing your insights. When I read posts like this, I want to sign up for that voyage to colonize Mars. The best thing about it being a one way ticket is that you have maybe one chance in a hundred of leaving the world as we know it behind. Worth it. A bit like reliving your childhood... well at least up to age 6 afterwards integrity is on a slippery slope downhill. Okay, back to our regular programming!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Same thing like when some above the line personality takes all the credit for the greatness of a film or product (totally collaborative works). I say there's too much ME in this world and not enough WE. Maybe Mars will be different, but I visited Recall this one time to get an idea of what Mars was like and it wasn't pretty.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 2:19 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Maybe it would be simpler, but it would cost them money (eg. 50$ for every camera sold).

What they have done is fine. They just need to tweak strength of the pre-processing.

I would try to do something slightly different. Use very simple debayering +encode. This would give preview without any additional processing, so "normal" eg. YUV based file, but with 100% recoverable RAW data. On your machine you would have draft preview straight away or you could go back to RAW and do proper debayering. It would cost you probably more processing than BRAW, but with good compression it shouldn't be a problem.


Remember David (cineform) mentioned a $20 patent to licence raw Bayer for cineform, which sounds far better value than Braw. I would try to argue them down to $5 a unit in bulk, paid up front.

Cineform used to be an issue with GPU acceleration, but Nvidia has done work accelerating redcode, which should be similar, giving you advantage in using cineform. People weres saying why NIR cineform before the braw announcement, maybe thats still possible, even inna Braw way, Braw+. But I'm really talking about cineform's replacement codec.

People have mentioned Bayer compression on jpegxs. If true, such a thing might include a Bayer sub licence.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

Wayne Steven

  • Posts: 2396
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 3:58 am
  • Location: Earth

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Apr 09, 2019 2:30 pm

Dune00z wrote:
rick.lang wrote:Thanks for sharing your insights. When I read posts like this, I want to sign up for that voyage to colonize Mars. The best thing about it being a one way ticket is that you have maybe one chance in a hundred of leaving the world as we know it behind. Worth it. A bit like reliving your childhood... well at least up to age 6 afterwards integrity is on a slippery slope downhill. Okay, back to our regular programming!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Same thing like when some above the line personality takes all the credit for the greatness of a film or product (totally collaborative works). I say there's too much ME in this world and not enough WE. Maybe Mars will be different, but I visited Recall this one time to get an idea of what Mars was like and it wasn't pretty.


Certainly a lot of weeing going around by people out there who aren't good, and if you have talent a lot of weeing on you too.

I certainly wish things were that easy, a lot of better things could have been done, but people act like crazy cats.

There are people far out there with their fingers on the pulse, but unless they work for somebody like Steve Jobs, their truly revolutionary "ideas" may have very little opportunity. The A grade people forced to work under c grade talents, hobbled, instead of working out tne path forwards. I certainly find it hard to trust anybody to work with again.
Often people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them.
Offline

skyAV000

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:43 pm
  • Real Name: Schuyler Hupp

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 1:58 pm

This is an interesting topic! I was pretty much on board to purchase an Ursa Mini Pro G2, but not now, not so much. Though the alternatives, like a second hand Red or Arri package are more expensive, I was ready to give the Ursa g2 a try as an entry level camera for narrative and possible commercial work. Though I am not particularly enamored by the endless quest for sharpness, I am very much on board for recording as much information as practical to give one choices in post, and to allow one to capture dynamic range and color information. As with sharpness, I am also not necessarily all that interested in shadow detail either, but again, having the choice in post and the information to work with is key to getting the best quality and especially when it comes to making creative choices or alterations beyond simple image capture. For me, it's not about specs, but what the actual images look like under various conditions, and clearly, the CDNG images are far superior to the current alternatives. Hopefully BlackMagic will get this CDNG thing sorted out. No doubt BRAW is a wonderful development, but it's not for everyone, and not necessarily appropriate for every project.
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3050
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 5:19 pm

skyAV000 wrote:and clearly, the CDNG images are far superior to the current alternatives.


"Clearly"? According to whom? Based on what analysis? Can you see the difference between CNDG and braw without magnification -- except perhaps for the aliasing/moire which occurs more commonly with CNDG?

As "to give one choices in post", what makes think you won't have them with braw? Or Prores, for that matter? What has led you to conclude that formats other than CNDG will constrain the final result? Or that the DR range is less with braw and Prores than CNDG?

And finally, are your color grading skills equal to extracting every ounce of real or imagined advantage of CNDG, even allowing that the typical viewer won't be able to tell the difference?

The best "creative choice" may be the one which doesn't overwhelm the editor with tetrabytes of useless information. This is moviemaking, not circuit board design.
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 6:38 pm

skyAV000 wrote: As with sharpness, I am also not necessarily all that interested in shadow detail either, but again, having the choice in post and the information to work with is key to getting the best quality and especially when it comes to making creative choices or alterations beyond simple image capture. For me, it's not about specs, but what the actual images look like under various conditions, and clearly, the CDNG images are far superior to the current alternatives. Hopefully BlackMagic will get this CDNG thing sorted out. No doubt BRAW is a wonderful development, but it's not for everyone, and not necessarily appropriate for every project.


You might be interested in my "Comparison BRAW vs DNG (UMP G1)":
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91802
And I have written a long assessment of the difference I found and what to look out for and when it doesn't make a difference.
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

spencer_moshian

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:54 am
  • Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
  • Real Name: Spencer Morris

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 6:39 pm

John Paines wrote:
skyAV000 wrote:and clearly, the CDNG images are far superior to the current alternatives.


"Clearly"? According to whom? Based on what analysis? Can you see the difference between CNDG and braw without magnification -- except perhaps for the aliasing/moire which occurs more commonly with CNDG?


I watched comparison videos of BRAW and CDNG on an iPhone 8+ and could see the difference. Would be nice to have BRAW eventually meet the level of resolution and clarity the CDNG has.
SW › Windows 10.0.18362 | Resolve Studio 16.1.1.005 | NVIDIA Studio 431.86
HW › Ryzen 7 3800X | Strix X570-E | GTX 1080 | 64GB DDR4 3.2GHz | Scarlett 2i2
Storage › QNAP TVS-872XT > 10G > ASUS XG-C100C | PostgreSQL 9.3.13.3 running on QNAP NAS
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3050
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 6:43 pm

spencer_moshian wrote:I watched comparison videos of BRAW and CDNG on an iPhone 8+ and could see the difference. Would be nice to have BRAW eventually meet the level of resolution and clarity the CDNG has.



I'm sorry, but you're dreaming. It's hard enough to see differences on large professional monitors, zoomed in.

You may have seen differences between clips, but they likely had nothing to do with codecs.
Offline
User avatar

spencer_moshian

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:54 am
  • Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
  • Real Name: Spencer Morris

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 8:31 pm

John Paines wrote:
spencer_moshian wrote:I watched comparison videos of BRAW and CDNG on an iPhone 8+ and could see the difference. Would be nice to have BRAW eventually meet the level of resolution and clarity the CDNG has.



I'm sorry, but you're dreaming. It's hard enough to see differences on large professional monitors, zoomed in.

You may have seen differences between clips, but they likely had nothing to do with codecs.


John, I saw what I saw. I'm very excited to use the camera on gigs soon, regardless of codec. I think it is interesting that there is a difference in CDNG and BRAW, however small, and bringing any of that extra quality to BRAW would be great, but won't stop me or hold me back in the mean time.
SW › Windows 10.0.18362 | Resolve Studio 16.1.1.005 | NVIDIA Studio 431.86
HW › Ryzen 7 3800X | Strix X570-E | GTX 1080 | 64GB DDR4 3.2GHz | Scarlett 2i2
Storage › QNAP TVS-872XT > 10G > ASUS XG-C100C | PostgreSQL 9.3.13.3 running on QNAP NAS
Offline

youlikeny

  • Posts: 149
  • Joined: Fri May 10, 2019 9:45 pm
  • Real Name: Alessandro Penazzi

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 8:40 pm

You probably saw two different clips shot or processed in some slightly different ways... There is no way to see the difference between a CDNG and BRAW file on an iPhone... And by the way, there must have been some additional compression anyway because I'm pretty sure iPhone can't playback braw or CDNGs...
Offline

Chris Shivers

  • Posts: 266
  • Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:12 am

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 8:54 pm

spencer_moshian wrote:
John Paines wrote:
spencer_moshian wrote:I watched comparison videos of BRAW and CDNG on an iPhone 8+ and could see the difference. Would be nice to have BRAW eventually meet the level of resolution and clarity the CDNG has.



I'm sorry, but you're dreaming. It's hard enough to see differences on large professional monitors, zoomed in.

You may have seen differences between clips, but they likely had nothing to do with codecs.


John, I saw what I saw. I'm very excited to use the camera on gigs soon, regardless of codec. I think it is interesting that there is a difference in CDNG and BRAW, however small, and bringing any of that extra quality to BRAW would be great, but won't stop me or hold me back in the mean time.


Yea there’s no way for you to see the differences between CDNG and BRaw on an iPhone. On the desktop you have to zoom in 300% in order to see the difference
Offline
User avatar

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 8:59 pm

spencer_moshian wrote:John, I saw what I saw. I'm very excited to use the camera on gigs soon, regardless of codec. I think it is interesting that there is a difference in CDNG and BRAW, however small, and bringing any of that extra quality to BRAW would be great, but won't stop me or hold me back in the mean time.


I am sorry, but in the thread I posted before I have done extensive testing with samples you can compare down the the pixel level. There is zero chance you would be able to see the difference on an iPhone screen. That's only possible if you have watched a very flawed comparison. Care to link your source?
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

Robert Niessner

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:51 am
  • Location: Graz, Austria

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 9:05 pm

Chris Shivers wrote:Yea there’s no way for you to see the differences between CDNG and BRaw on an iPhone. On the desktop you have to zoom in 300% in order to see the difference


Well, that isn't exactly true either. I was able to see the difference at a 1:1 pixel view on my 34" 21:9 monitor, but only because I exactly knew what to look for and at a short viewing distance, like a meter away.
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

spencer_moshian

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:54 am
  • Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
  • Real Name: Spencer Morris

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 9:25 pm



My mistake. I watched this a while ago and had remembered it being BRAW, however it is ProRes422HQ vs CDNG. That said, is there a sharpness difference between ProRes422HQ and BRAW? I can see that the ProRes looks mushy and less sharp in that video on my iPhone when the clips are not zoomed. The zooms really reveal what’s going on. Unless you guys think he somehow sharpened the CDNG by mistake? I’ll do my own testing soon with some charts.
SW › Windows 10.0.18362 | Resolve Studio 16.1.1.005 | NVIDIA Studio 431.86
HW › Ryzen 7 3800X | Strix X570-E | GTX 1080 | 64GB DDR4 3.2GHz | Scarlett 2i2
Storage › QNAP TVS-872XT > 10G > ASUS XG-C100C | PostgreSQL 9.3.13.3 running on QNAP NAS
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3050
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 9:32 pm

That youtube "test" is ludicrous. I didn't get very far, but it appears they're comparing Prores Log to rec. 709 normalized CNDG and calling both "ungraded"! This is no comparison at all. Under controlled conditions, you'll never be able to tell the difference between Prores and CDNG/braw skin tones.

Everything said here about braw v. CDNG is more or less true of Prores v. CNDG and braw v. Prores. Differences are subtle, and typically invisible to the naked eye under normal viewing conditions, even on large screens.

It's pointless to know, but braw at its highest compression ratios (12:1, 8:1, 5:1, Q5) is *softer* than Prores HQ. But you'll never see the difference. It's not worth worrying about.
Offline
User avatar

spencer_moshian

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:54 am
  • Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
  • Real Name: Spencer Morris

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 9:42 pm

At 0:46 you see the ungraded and then the comparisons, but I get your point that it’s subtle re: BRAW vs ProRes and the compression ratios
SW › Windows 10.0.18362 | Resolve Studio 16.1.1.005 | NVIDIA Studio 431.86
HW › Ryzen 7 3800X | Strix X570-E | GTX 1080 | 64GB DDR4 3.2GHz | Scarlett 2i2
Storage › QNAP TVS-872XT > 10G > ASUS XG-C100C | PostgreSQL 9.3.13.3 running on QNAP NAS
Offline

John Paines

  • Posts: 3050
  • Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:04 pm

Re: DNG vs. Blackmagic RAW - help

PostTue Jun 25, 2019 9:49 pm

Okay, I forced myself to watch more of it. They do get around to grading both shots -- you can't compare log shots, for quality! -- but it's still meaningless.

Differences will be leveled by his delivery compression, youtube compression, and variations in grading and lighting. You can't judge anything this way.
PreviousNext

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: David Williams, Phil999 and 66 guests