¿Will Pocket Cinema Camera 4K include CinemaDNG again?

http://www.ishootshows.com/2012/04/09/u ... otography/

It's "FALSE"...False colour information.

As per these fence and fabric examples in the link above. If you go and look closely at the fabrics or the fence you're not going to be seeing little orange and cyan colours on their edges that are in the photos.

So how is that real sensor information if it's not real in real life.

Those are imaging artifacts. Not real sensor information.

The printed circle on a test chart is smooth and round, not stair stepped like the DNG version is...

It's sensor aliasing, struggling to represent what's really there.

And it's academic anyway as Blackmagic have clearly moved on from wanting to have anything to do with DNG.

JB

For customers who bought the camera because of cDNG, this means the following, Blackmagic Design has lost a professional feature. That's gone.

Well, I have a proposition: There is a published SDK for working with BRAW. So it could be possible to take any test footage in CDNG or in any other raw format, convert it to BRAW and then convert it to CDNG or any other format back. Then either the result is equal to the source byte-by-byte (except possibly some border area) and BRAW is indeed RAW, or it isn't and so BRAW is misrepresented.

No, the SDK is for de-codeing BRaw, not encoding DNG (or other format) to BRaw.

CDNG somewhat accurately represents how the sensor sees the world. We ourselves, don't even see reality, our eyes are tuned to 3 basic overlapping primary ranges normally, 4 and different cone pigment dyes in some people, we don't differentiate every type of matter in a subject holographically in thousands or millions of individual frequencies. So, we see an abstraction of life, as do sensors which often see a different one. It's the reality of how they see, and the PUREST type of data of what they see that you can use to process to look like how WE see. Simple.

About getting hung up on cdng, I've suggested Braw simply gets a mode which is much better instead, which makes it more like what we see, or at least preserves the detail, detail edge and detail contrast that's there. The way Braw works is going to fill in the missing data with approximations anyway, which is OK, as long as the rest, and edge of details, are preserved. As it is, we have a lot of blur, where you can see less resolution and detail on the charts, replaced with blurry "false" detail instead. One can stand back from development, but it is seldom that developers are best in industry, so you have to check what they are doing to see what sense is in it. A second and third set of eyes checking things goes far. I would never have verified the new system as is, I would have asked the questions to see if it could be even more like what we see or preserve enough detailed recoverable Bayer values to be more useful for reprocessing if desired while preserving edge detail (important concept, it's about the edge around every sensor pad value, that the surrounding values accurately represent their proportion of change in detail in their direction, meaning detail then becomes appropriately shaped, so not approximation when there is drastic changes in edge detail. Love to see what Arri does to get their images. I've got a range of mechanisms in mind). People are responding to smaller file sizes, faster processing and levels at the moment, which is alright, but what can be said about a h265 camera too, but you also can get those by transcoding to a faster codec from cdng and auto grading the levels. The problem likely largely wasn't cdng, it's what was being done with it. Resolve could have processed the artifacts out to a higher degree then your camera does.

I refuse to believe BM is not planning significant improvements to Braw (maybe waiting for some licensing to come through, maybe jpeg XR, jpeg XL or an intra h265 like version of prores based on Apple's new camera format). But who knows?

i'm sure that braw will be upgraded, optimized, the sensor tailored codec is not a simple task.

to my knowledge only CIneform could convert other raw in CineformRaw, which is born to reiceve raw data from other raw. Other raws are thought to record directly sensor data not a data stream.
ask why the few recorder for raw use cdng or proresraw or... what raw?

cdng could be an alternative be cause it was born to grab raw x and convert in dng, but dng itself is orfan from adobe from many years, they abandoned develop years ago.

to be honest? i will hope that blackmagic call David Newman, creator of Cineform, and hire him, solve his contract with gopro where he couldnt develop cineform (gopro kill it) and add his knowledge to bmd engeneere to develope more b raw.
he build first di in 2001, he build first raw codec interplatform in 2005, he have a good knowledge about raw encoding and transcoding raw data. He could speed up a lot the developing.

i'm sure that braw will be upgraded, optimized, the sensor tailored codec is not a simple task.

to my knowledge only CIneform could convert other raw in CineformRaw, which is born to reiceve raw data from other raw. Other raws are thought to record directly sensor data not a data stream.
ask why the few recorder for raw use cdng or proresraw or... what raw?

cdng could be an alternative be cause it was born to grab raw x and convert in dng, but dng itself is orfan from adobe from many years, they abandoned develop years ago.

to be honest? i will hope that blackmagic call David Newman, creator of Cineform, and hire him, solve his contract with gopro where he couldnt develop cineform (gopro kill it) and add his knowledge to bmd engeneere to develope more b raw.
he build first di in 2001, he build first raw codec interplatform in 2005, he have a good knowledge about raw encoding and transcoding raw data. He could speed up a lot the developing.

Don't forget the American patent system, it blocks everything.

I know David from that time. Basically, they further developed cineform into a standardised codec used on gopro but you still needed $20 a unit patent to use raw on cineform, so the new codec maybe at least that much (cheap, come in BM, even for a micro). Red uses cineform technology I've heard, then things went quiet. They showed graphic art of a tablet like cineform recorder, and I remember talk of foga development. However, Red came out. We had guys scurrying around in the back ground dreaming, doing tje slow and painful camera FPGA development. I think Red came smd bailed them out, they did disappeared at that time. A guy who was to develop a simple software solution, who didn't after such a long time, also got up crowing how he's camera was now a reality, then poof gone. Even though others did basically virtually all the work, and the camera spec and format followed my proposed spec, and a very rich man funded most of it to after he came on board, how is it 'his' camera? It would be rather like if Steve jobs claimed most of the original Apple work, but he wasn't the Steve Jobs of the story. I'm more a Steve, insert Apple name, than some of these guys were of that story. If its got very very little of your dna in it, its not really yours. Steve could give shsoe to a vision, that put his DNA in things, even if he did little of the actual development, his direction gave it shape. Rather like some camera modular systems, which are not my practical vision. I deal in ultimate versions of things, things you can throw at a wall and they 'stick' rather than waste too much money (including customers). So, I'm very reluctant to get on board high profit products. Though a certain rich person did say he was certain he had a position for me. You forgive, but if divergence in intent keeps happening, you walk with integrity. Separately (a different person), Grant in probably a more practical version of me, I see practical as an art form to help people. BM does the sort of good value quality I prefer, butntje name, otherwise I would have followed Rai Oz over there before the launch of the China camera. Hat off to BM, great job, but there is so much more to come, and to deal with the computational cinema Apocalypse building up, and under cut zcam etc in the meantime via better design.

i'm sure that braw will be upgraded, optimized, the sensor tailored codec is not a simple task.

to my knowledge only CIneform could convert other raw in CineformRaw, which is born to reiceve raw data from other raw. Other raws are thought to record directly sensor data not a data stream.
ask why the few recorder for raw use cdng or proresraw or... what raw?

cdng could be an alternative be cause it was born to grab raw x and convert in dng, but dng itself is orfan from adobe from many years, they abandoned develop years ago.

to be honest? i will hope that blackmagic call David Newman, creator of Cineform, and hire him, solve his contract with gopro where he couldnt develop cineform (gopro kill it) and add his knowledge to bmd engeneere to develope more b raw.
he build first di in 2001, he build first raw codec interplatform in 2005, he have a good knowledge about raw encoding and transcoding raw data. He could speed up a lot the developing.

Don't forget the American patent system, it blocks everything.

Or red payed Newman or they must be blocked, Newman release cineformraw years before first red camera with redcode. I told about cineformraw exactly to avoid patents, which is actually avaible and freely implementable, 20$ like told from Wayne.

Cineform inc project also a raw recorder with cineformraw years before Red patent.

It was released at very expansive price since 10.000 $ in Italy, later the price of all go down thanks facility like Blackmagic Design, Atomos and similar, but in that period there isn’t so many solution to record raw.

First Red was announced at nab 2006 but until to 2007 it was considered vapourware, in 2007 they show Crossing the line, a short of Peter Jackson where he test it in 2007 the beta cam.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Would love to see Cineform RAW in camera's (KineRAW = CineformRAW). The way I understand it, is that the RED patent(US-only) is about compressed RAW recording (hence the deal between Atmos and RED about ProResRAW). Till now only SONY fought back and won against RED, SONY patents can sue any camera out of business.

Nobody understands how RED got that patent. The US-patent system is about giving the advantage to US companies and they have and use aircraft carriers to enforce those patents. A lot will change in the coming years.

I’ll just park this here.

https://www.eff.org/issues/stupid-patent-month

JB

Would love to see Cineform RAW in camera's (KineRAW = CineformRAW). The way I understand it, is that the RED patent(US-only) is about compressed RAW recording (hence the deal between Atmos and RED about ProResRAW). Till now only SONY fought back and won against RED, SONY patents can sue any camera out of business.

Nobody understands how RED got that patent. The US-patent system is about giving the advantage to US companies and they have and use aircraft carriers to enforce those patents. A lot will change in the coming years.

From what I heard it covered raw recording above 2k. How do you get a patent in that. IRS like saying I hold copyright to "*****" because I hold copyright to "****". It's just an obvious increase in a quantity, not creative, not patentable. I remember that Sony countersued and had an out of court settlement with Red. After that Sony and Aptina had a sensor technology portfolio cross licensing deal, and Red and Sony images looked similar in raw. Red has it's own silicon fab ovens, and I think that they were there.

Hey John, thanks for that.

Do you want Red:s patent for the next 50 years, read this:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/04/h ... s-survived

Bonkers, they can get around the 20 years patent cut off barrier, and simply do stuff like filing for flying to mars and collect off of Elon Musk, with no actual invention, and all prior art to invalidate has to be before the original patent, even with the new things introduced.

Actually, Elon and others need to get out there and do something. Because we have isolated people doing this, but if it becomes a fashion, then we will be covered in them. If these businesses have to deal with a hundred or thousands of these people, it's going to hurt in the future.

What these guys might not have done is class action individually for harassment, extortion (despite what the patent law says, civilly its a different jurisdiction and any license signed under duress could he regarded as an unfair contract and be invalidated, plus anything they can, and damages. The judge could ban from such conduct even if they can't invalidate the patent, the patent owner might be banned from using it or making money on it, because the judge can see its actually invalid and either directly or indirectly doesn't meet the standard, or unjustly meets the standard. So, civilly, the judge never touches the patent itself, but the conduct of those using it.