jack0429 wrote:John Griffin wrote:User selectable options may not be possible as the ‘issues’ you are seeing are highly likely a consequence of the in-camera processing and data compression in the BRAW process. You are not going to get a true ‘ RAW’ i.e the warts and all sensor data until RED’s patent is successfully challenged. The issue would also go away if BM’s P4k mk2 has a >12mp sensor and in-camera sub sampling in BRAW.
Zraw also does in partial camera demosiac just like braw with a 1:1 8mp pixel readout, however without the noise reduction and resharpening, so I think it's possible. Especially because it seems like it's always the low contrasting textures such as far away texts and faces where braw lacks it's detail, which is exactly what a noise reduction algorithm tends to smooth over. But if this is not the case, then I just hope blackmagic does whatever they need to do to increase the resolution of braw.
Jack you are right in many things you say. There are people here who will not admit you are right instead of them. You are wasting your breath.
From what I remember zraw uses optical path denoising, which is what I've asked for with Braw. Sure, it doesn't give you as much apparent/pretend denoising with loss of detail.
It's 100% you can turn certain things down or off, but fir those from compression alone, I've asked for 100% better compression or 50% less compression ratio. Knowing about the data discussion into how Braw works, anybody with a calculator can work out the problem, Braw has overheads that make the compression a lot higher compared to real raw Bayer.
Like you, I'm fine with Braw, as possible my as they make improvements we are suggesting. It's ok otherwise.
There are some who base the world on their experience rather than most "types" of people experience, to get the overwhelming majority of the audience's human experience. Sure we don't cater for the color blind too much, that is a small minority aberration where they are not going experience things perfectly, we cater for capability were the further up we go, the more people who perceive premium quality. I literally get annoyed seeing the flyscreen like lines in-between the pixels on my 4k TV, no pixel peeping, and I still advocate 4k as a compromise. It's a relief when my eyesight goes down a bit and I stop seeing the lines. See them in the premium screen at the movies too. But there are people out there without active ability to even see the difference between 2k and 4k. But it's entirely illogicaly a waste of time for those people to bully and dictate that others can't see it, or it doesn't matter. It's like me expecting them to be able to see the lines in-between 4k pixels, or 4k pixels, it does not matter, they have their capability, but see only part; f the audience but they get convinced their capability is the limit and will argue like they can remove the spots off a cow doing it, which dues not work. So, a significant portion of people will not even see fullhd, less will see 4k and less, but significant portion, will benefit from 8k premium, but 4k is close. Put all these groups together band give them 4k-8k and you have ban overwhelming majority. If there are 1 in a million freaks of nature who see 16k, does it matter? Are you going to spend a little bmore money shooting 16k+ extra premium quality for 0.0001% of the audience. No (hopefully)! So, you stepped into an old minefield here, of people whom can only see so much detail.
The pixel rendering ability comparison between the 4k and the Alexa is valid and 100% logical logic. It is about Braw giving less detail pet pixel (once reframed) compared to something else that has not been put through Braw. Nothing wrong with that, except it meant you could win an argument with it. Cameras without optical low pass filters gave better detail, all other things being the same, and cameras with optical low pass tend to give less prominment detail/softness from blurring, but trying to emulate that blur through simplified processing, isn't as good or as accurate. Your real enemy is Bayer. A proper sensor format would make Braw work great.
Now, what Uli said is true, that the sensor sees through the Bayer pattern, details with missing primaries, producing gaps and alasing crawl, what; said, the true natural image that it sees with its ability. You don't use something that smoothers it over as a good solution. It's rather like smoothering the mother in law over with a tub of wheat glue because you don't like the look of her (the correct procedure is to be gentle and treat her to beauty treatments
). You do much better getting great software to do the job in post rather than having the camera do it simply in camera reducing the real data fidelity that you could use in post. That's why you get 6k or 8k Bayer to do 4k, to improve a lot of things. Without that, it's resolve's job to improve cdngs in a better way than Braw does. I am very much for a minimal olpf on the cameras at least. Red has user swappable ones, BM should invest in two (light and heavier) and reduce smoothing in Braw. Struth, the solutions to many of these problems in people's minds, are so easy for a company like BM, but they just wont do it.
Sat May 02, 2020 8:30 am
