BRAW is actually Macro-Blocking RAW

Obviously disappointed in the picture of the BMPCC4K. Technically, it's not RAW when there is Macro-Blocking present. 8-bit spatial noise reduction is present in the RAW and it cannot be turned-off in camera.

Called Blackmagic US and spent 20 minutes on hold to talk to no one today. Who puts someone on hold that can actively make their product better? It would be nice to know that I'm not selling the BMPCC4K prematurely. Then again, I wrote about this issue nearly 3-months ago.

For what it's worth, this isn't something that should have presented itself in any form when talking about RAW. It's completely disrespectful to the industry, in my opinion. Not that it can't be dealt with in the future via a firmware, but in the meantime, it just doesn't come across all that well for the future.

I'm at peace with operating other cameras. But, at the same time, it's obviously better to be productive and to continue to grow with the same camera, over-and-over, rather than move on. I do hope that this post helps others. Good luck!

It's partially de-bayered compressed RAW, the more you compress, the more artifects you get (macro-blocking with DCT). Try Q0 for the best quality.

You can't just throw out hyperbolic claims without actual images to back it up. Share some test BRAW clips where those issues are visible in the image and explain your workflow so that others can replicate your results.

[Tony Rivera]

Called Blackmagic US and spent 20 minutes on hold to talk to no one today. Who puts someone on hold that can actively make their product better?

There are times where the call volume can creep up and if the wait was that long, we apologize as we are working to get through the calls in a timely fashion. If for whatever reason you run into this sort of wait again, you are more than welcome to contact us via email at any point in the day. On the support page, you will see contact information for your region at the bottom of that page.

You can't just throw out hyperbolic claims without actual images to back it up. Share some test BRAW clips where those issues are visible in the image and explain your workflow so that others can replicate your results.

We seen this from the start, there were tests images and people even posted here. Give it a break Jamie, stop jumping on people.

Obviously disappointed in the picture of the BMPCC4K. Technically, it's not RAW when there is Macro-Blocking present. 8-bit spatial noise reduction is present in the RAW and it cannot be turned-off in camera.

Called Blackmagic US and spent 20 minutes on hold to talk to no one today. Who puts someone on hold that can actively make their product better? It would be nice to know that I'm not selling the BMPCC4K prematurely. Then again, I wrote about this issue nearly 3-months ago.

For what it's worth, this isn't something that should have presented itself in any form when talking about RAW. It's completely disrespectful to the industry, in my opinion. Not that it can't be dealt with in the future via a firmware, but in the meantime, it just doesn't come across all that well for the future.

I'm at peace with operating other cameras. But, at the same time, it's obviously better to be productive and to continue to grow with the same camera, over-and-over, rather than move on. I do hope that this post helps others. Good luck!

Like me. It's an known problem, caused by people's over expectation of Braw quality for the datarate given. NO modern professional cinema codec should macro block. I don't know if it goes away completely at highest data rate either.

..

And the empirical examples of 8bit artifacts in BRAW are where exactly?

Im very skeptical in taking OPs claims literally.
I think something else is wrong here. As is often the case.

Hmm, you are right there Jamie. You would think it would be 10 or 12 bit spatial noise reduction. But spatial noise reduction has been discussed in the past, I think the conclusion was it might have been from aggressive compression strategy (culling of contrast difference and of the functions). I really wish they would use temporal reduction instead and more datarate or new compression technique to get the top mode back in cdng range (and before anybody starts complaining about false detail, that is the real detail you get without an olpf with Bayer and not enough sebsir pad fill factor. Blurring it out with spatial techniques is not restoring real detail). I too am reminded of 8 bit prosumer stuff when I see this. This is their choice, and people are going for lovely levels that even 9 mbit TV channels can be like. Pro is more than that.

There *is* another tread on this issue, with examples, but it was just as inconclusive:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=93737&start=50

Artifacts appear in [all] stressed footage and the same thing was present in DNG samples. Beyond that, what was actually established/concluded? And why repeat it now?

Actually, are there any features shot on Braw. It would be useful to go to one to get am appreciation of how this all looks

.
Thanks John. There was another thread with samples of extreme macroblocking on a bridal prep shoot I think, that had over stuff. There was about two of these threads that went into it better. The disappearing lines on the bank note (seen that on smartphone footage tests) and merging of a strung net into a solid were major ones. Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fud over in England can have a look at that, Maybe they'll have a go at us again. (yeah, really pro, say how good it looks and ignore all the problems where it falls down).

..

If BM had called it BRES and not BRAW no one would have false expectations that it was a 'RAW' codec. (Anybody from BM like to deny or confirm it's a lossy compressed 12bit YUV 4.4.4 codec?)
Now such a codec is very good, I'm not complaining, I use it, I don't want to go back to ProRes 10bit 4.2.2, I don't want to go back to any H264/H265 camera codecs or for that matter want CDNG but I'm not fooled into thinking it's a 'RAW' codec.....

Obviously disappointed in the picture of the BMPCC4K. Technically, it's not RAW when there is Macro-Blocking present. 8-bit spatial noise reduction is present in the RAW and it cannot be turned-off in camera.

Called Blackmagic US and spent 20 minutes on hold to talk to no one today. Who puts someone on hold that can actively make their product better? It would be nice to know that I'm not selling the BMPCC4K prematurely. Then again, I wrote about this issue nearly 3-months ago.

For what it's worth, this isn't something that should have presented itself in any form when talking about RAW. It's completely disrespectful to the industry, in my opinion. Not that it can't be dealt with in the future via a firmware, but in the meantime, it just doesn't come across all that well for the future.

I'm at peace with operating other cameras. But, at the same time, it's obviously better to be productive and to continue to grow with the same camera, over-and-over, rather than move on. I do hope that this post helps others. Good luck!

I don't think you're going to get far talking to an end user support person in a phone support center somewhere.

The camera development team is in Australia. Your issue is beyond the scope of what they would ordinarily deal with.

They're reading this forum.

You're more likely to get somewhere posting actual examples with raw footage on these forums than talking to someone on the phone.

So post up some shots and give us all some examples of where you see those shortcomings.

I would also say for me, there's three qualifiers for RAW.

Can you change the WB ?
Can you change the ISO ?
Can you re-process it (demosaic)

We know the first two for sure. The third one ? I think is less clear because they talk about a "partial de-mosaic"

I don't know that it's less different to ProRes RAW or ZRAW, remembering that another company makes it very difficult to do any true compression on RAW.

And yes, just like the hysterically titled "Insane moire on the 6K" thread that turned out to be entirely user error, it's understandable that one would want to test a claim, instead of making one and then ghosting out when you're shown to just be doing it wrong.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=98282

If anything, that thread shows how great the P6K is at NOT having moire even in the very very worst case scenario of wearing a shirt that looks like it's designed based on using zone plates for generating moire patterns.


JB

When I sent in a simple way to do raw compression into support many years ago, I think it was actually Grant who replied. But I could not find that email again to check (maybe Grant would be kind enough to resend it? ).


That's OK, it was actually a difference compression scheme by a guy who now works at Red, and probably has red all my public compression posts. Maybe you could do bayer compression that way without violating patents, he declared it publicly.

Let's see. You record one frame uncompressed, you then record the difference between that and the last frame etc until you finish your group of pictures. So, GOP would be 4-10 long working on 1/6th a second footage loss in an accident. On some with temporal noise removal, that could be over 2.5:1. Now, there are other methods to go further.

.
Apparently the zcam footage is more detailed, like cdng, using temporal compression.

.
But what abut doing something different to by pass the packing patents of Red, inefficient manner?

..

..

Apparently the zcam footage is more detailed, like cdng, using temporal compression.

Emm.. Steve. Are you advocating the ZRAW codec as superior to BRAW?

Apparently the zcam footage is more detailed, like cdng, using temporal compression.

Emm.. Steve. Are you advocating the ZRAW codec as superior to BRAW?

He's just making noise, again.
https://www.cinema5d.com/z-cam-zraw-vs-blackmagic-raw-which-one-is-better-our-lab-test/

I would also say for me, there's three qualifiers for RAW.

Can you change the WB ?
Can you change the ISO ?
Can you re-process it (demosaic)




JB

You can change the WB with any codec
ISO is just a mid curve adjustment and not a true ISO (apart from the 2 gain stages which are fixed)
Is any Demosaicing going on outside of the camera?

You can change the WB with any codec

I dunno. Yeah you can warm or cool as a coarse adjustment, but to actually put in a white point in Kelvin or a tint isn't the same. It generally has to be "mapped" to be accurate from the camera. I mean I can eyeball the white point on a histo or sample a grey card from the shot. But it's not the same as typing in 5600K +10 tint and having it be correct.

ISO is just a mid curve adjustment and not a true ISO (apart from the 2 gain stages which are fixed)

Of course, that's what grading is. But what the manufacturer specifies as their curve is different to one a user puts on.

Is any Demosaicing going on outside of the camera?

Well when they say "partial" I wonder where the rest of it happens if it's only "partial"

JB

Apparently the zcam footage is more detailed, like cdng, using temporal compression.

Emm.. Steve. Are you advocating the ZRAW codec as superior to BRAW?

Who, me! Why would anybody think that better detail contrast preservation or temporal denoising possibly look better? Pretty soon Santa clause could be real as well.

noise, again.
https://www.cinema5d.com/z-cam-zraw-vs-blackmagic-raw-which-one-is-better-our-lab-test/

That link doesn't matter much, that's more non hdr sensor hardware based comparison, I think. Here is what they posted there from Z:

“The key point for RAW is the details of the image. … The RAW test should always include detail test. Our ZRAW is designed to achieve a visually lossless image of a complex scene. We suggest that you shoot complex scenes to check the resolution of the ZRAW. … This would explain why you need larger ZRAW files. … If you don’t care about extreme details but care more about noise then ProRes is a much better choice. …ZRAW itself should have a lot more noise than a YUV based format as the noise came from the sensor. YUV based files including ProRes and H265 have the image signal processor involved so it will have a different level of noise reduction which cannot be performed at Bayer level. … In camera noise reduction / curves / color correction are some major components of the image signal processor … We don’t add 2D noise reduction and chroma noise reduction in ZRAW VideoSuite and our Z CAM DeNoiser adopts full optical flow based 3D noise reduction which does not hurt details. We would consider adding more denoise related features to our image processing pipeline in the future. … Since your test is noise based so we recommend using our denoise software Z CAM DeNoiser to process the video and test again. We could reduce more noise in the camera but some professionals don’t like it and that’s why we introduce ZRAW”

I think you can see, that extra 50% is maybe enough space to get detail in and get rid of macro blocking. Pretty much what I advocated for Braw.

It matters what 'right' noise you make.

..

So far, not a single sample. Not even a printscreen.
And you guys keep discussing the sex of the angels. Yeah, keep it. Very smart.

What are you on about? You make a lot of barely there comments to poke at others. There has been examples and plenty of discussions in the past. I think, in this particular incidence, after having done this for too many people in the past, you might take the old word of advice in forums and look it up yourself.

All that's been demonstrated so far is that these artifacts are a product of stressing the clip beyond the breaking point and/or high compression.

This issue gets raised every few weeks, often by the original participants, as if it's news. Or maybe expecting a different reception the second or third time around.

Apparently the zcam footage is more detailed, like cdng, using temporal compression.

Emm.. Steve. Are you advocating the ZRAW codec as superior to BRAW?

Who, me! Why would anybody think that better detail contrast preservation or temporal denoising possibly look better? Pretty soon Santa clause could be real as well.

So based on this and the quote from the producer of the codec...You got stocks in z cam? That would make sense actually. This is like believing everything the car salesman tell you. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

All that's been demonstrated so far is that these artifacts are a product of stressing the clip beyond the breaking point and/or high compression.

That is rather the point. It is one of the areas of potential improvement to have a better Braw. But fans often want to have a Brawl rather than reason, "yes, this is super freaky sexy better". They might get what they would deserve if only people like them ran things

So based on this and the quote from the producer of the codec...You got stocks in z cam? That would make sense actually. This is like believing everything the car salesman tell you. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

No, it's like talking to the actual designer of a product and agreeing, that does sound like a good way of doing it, and the car is producing enough force on the dynamo (file size) to indicate that it is doing that horsepower. Drops microphone and leaves the room.

Now I have written to zcam in the past to suggest solutions, and thanks for those things guys. Well, I pretty much think I did write about raw, Braw I don't remember. But no, I have no affiliation with them, no stocks, and things are not in my current sim product wise. It's a better deal here for me, if a micro comes. I want smaller than pocket or z. At the moment the brain thing is making me shake very much at times trying to hold a very small cup of tea up. So, even a micro with a small zoom might be a challenge at times. My camera needs keep dropping.

I however, encourage them in their genuine competition.


Unfortunately, those 8k camera phone people are taking their time to deliver the 8k 30 fps feature, and their professional features, which might just be to make a camera phone which you, as a professional, don't feel like throwing up against a wall and shooting the thing.

..

..

. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

It's a futile exercise. He won't. You'll just make yourself more frustrated.

I just have it set to ignore.

JB

. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

It's a futile exercise. He won't. You'll just make yourself more frustrated.

I just have it set to ignore.

JB

Wisest decision.
+1

Yes, there was no getting through to anyone on the US number. Was told specifically that a supervisor would call back. That never happened: even when this division was confronted with the notion that their product needs help and is being mis-sold to the general public. "Can't even open the front door to show them the outside world."

The macro-blocking can be seen in footage with clouds. Areas where the texture falls off. Areas where true sensor-noise resides. The macro-blocking / spatial noise becomes as prominent as cloud texture. It could also possibly be related to black-shading? Easiest to reveal when playing back faster than real-time; if you're specifically looking to see how the codec breaks apart.

Respectfully, the GH5 10-bit 4:2:2 150mb/s demonstrates none of these same issues; even when un-questionably graded harder / further than M-B RAW.

Here are a small set of "Grab Stills" directly from Resolve. The bottom right area of the screen is what we're looking at: a macro-blocking texture / black-shading texture.

https://we.tl/t-DvEpm9o2KA

You need to link to actual unprocessed footage.

. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

It's a futile exercise. He won't. You'll just make yourself more frustrated.

I just have it set to ignore.

JB

Yes unfortunately, you are right. I was actually hoping there, for a second, to get a couple of zraw info. It’s an interesting codec and I want to learn more about it. But I did see my chances as slim or none. Still, worth a try...

How do you block topics?

I also agree that BRAW need some in-camera adjustable setting to control noise reduction strength. In addition Luma Noise Reduction macro blocking effect, there is also Chroma Noise Reduction that produces halo (color glow) effect around edges of solid colored objects.

there is also Chroma Noise Reduction that produces halo (color glow) effect around edges of solid colored objects.

Is it that or is this the result of RGB-->YUV transforms ?

JB

I almost sure it is not due RGB-->YUV transforms.
I done some tests and the effect looks exact same as basic simple SNR added to Chroma channel only in Resolve. This sort of Chroma NR helps to reduce moire artifacts, probably that's why they add it to BRAW.

I also agree that BRAW need some in-camera adjustable setting to control noise reduction strength. In addition Luma Noise Reduction macro blocking effect, there is also Chroma Noise Reduction that produces halo (color glow) effect around edges of solid colored objects.

I agree to this. I think most of us want to see BRAW improve. And BM should know that many,
maybe most in our community, want it to become better. That’s not saying BRAW is unusable, and if some of us are saying BRAW have made our life easier.. that’s not saying it’s perfect either. It’s not perfect by any means. Many of us believe Cdng provide better IQ, but we can also see the power of BRAW and it’s efficiency. Can’t get both worlds I guess. Hopefully there’s no tripwire caused by “you know who” and we see some nice improvements in the time to come. There is definitely a good reason to shoot 6k braw for 4K delivery, it makes sense when you look at the results. But I’m not a resolution geek. I’m more about the mood, and BRAW can deliver at that department.

So far BRAW has been stellar to me. Maybe you guys can be more detailed giving samples and more info on your issues.
Up until now we are only getting claims supported by nothing.

So far BRAW has been stellar to me. Maybe you guys can be more detailed giving samples and more info on your issues.
Up until now we are only getting claims supported by nothing.

Exactly.

So far BRAW has been stellar to me. Maybe you guys can be more detailed giving samples and more info on your issues.
Up until now we are only getting claims supported by nothing.

I don’t know if you are pointing in my direction. To be clear. I’m not taking part of this macro-blocking raw thing. I really don’t know what that is.

On the other hand, I am convinced that cDNG keep more detail than BRAW. But that’s another topic that has been beaten to death, and seem highly subjective. Still, the detail/sharpness is not a must for me. BRAW (as is), from a artistic point of view, delivers. That’s most important.

..

..

Levis (positively) thanks for the examples.

I would be careful of using the word mis-sold. I believe that Braw is a Bayer based codec to add to John's list, just not to the extent of others. Yes, being able to extract the Bayer pattern from it would be good. Maybe BM can add a feature to do that in Resolve in the future to suite some people. To me, it's not really needed.

. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

It's a futile exercise. He won't. You'll just make yourself more frustrated.

I just have it set to ignore.

JB

John, you are doing it again. Let the children get off their lazy behinds and search the past and use forum search, or you find it for them yourself. They are vapor blowing around hot air in discussions against positive people expecting them to do everything for them when they have no problems doing it themselves. Does that sound like people that need mothering? I normally help people, but there are some people who get a thrill from make life burdensome for others. They could actually spend some time doing some work instead. They come along here and spend a $1000 in time producing $100,000 in damages to other people. Storm clouds with no rain.

. It just don’t make any sense. Pretty please, with sugar on top. Show us some evidence this time. Just one.

It's a futile exercise. He won't. You'll just make yourself more frustrated.

I just have it set to ignore.

JB

Wisest decision.
+1

But you don't, you go from thread to thread hassling people. Like you just did on my other thread, trying to wreck and derail. Now, the other people here being attacked, they deserve some ... peace and quite from you guys. Who are you guys to demand anything, you are not constructive, just negative against people positively objecting or working through things. Is that realistic?

How do you block topics?

Maybe leaving the forum.

So far BRAW has been stellar to me. Maybe you guys can be more detailed giving samples and more info on your issues.
Up until now we are only getting claims supported by nothing.

Again, go and look, we are not your slaves. We discussing what we have already seen, what has been posted and discussed in the past, you have no right to dive bomb in and demand we spend time trying to find it for you again. The OP, also has given you easy instructions to iorn a file on your machine and find it, which you should have done within seconds. I spoke to a guy the other night who couldn't believe something existed unless he saw it, as well as in some particular fashion which meant he couldn't view available evidence, la la land with him. Very self centered conceited I think. So, his argument would apply to anything he hasn't seen, including his brain and gravity, and even his own reflection as not direct evidence (he wasn't one of these metaphysical types either, who doubt pain and their own existence). Falls down into a purely negative fantasy argument. Now, I might have rk leave it there for a while. Got to help a friend texting go off the deep end.

..

..

So far BRAW has been stellar to me. Maybe you guys can be more detailed giving samples and more info on your issues.
Up until now we are only getting claims supported by nothing.

Again, go and look, we are not your slaves. We discussing what we have already seen, what has been posted and discussed in the past, you have no right to dive bomb in and demand we spend time trying to find it for you again.

Wayne, apologies if I've missed it somewhere, but have you ever posted images you've produced with Blackmagic cameras to illustrate any of your statements on this or the other forum? I've been reading this space since I first purchased my BMCC back in 2013 and I can't recall seeing any examples. As a working professional making a living with these cameras for years, including a number of current productions shot on Blackmagic Raw, I'd be really curious to see your work so I can try to better understand some of your criticism in context.

Thank you,

Fabián

That's not the issue, but about certain people's constant bad attitude on others, may I add you to the list for trying to subvert away from what really is going on?? I'm trying to bring things back to the topic by reminding these people of their rubbish and to stop it. They come along and do this stuff too much, we would have had a nice conversation by now and possibly finished, but certain people get their negative ego boost by busting into such conversations and poisoning them, thinking they are little black nights on horses. I got news, the black might isn't the hero.