Andrew Kolakowski wrote:John Brawley wrote:
People always think it's RAW on the media, but you can't really access the true raw data.
Not really true. In some formats (Arri, ProResRAW or any other "open" RAW) SDKs allow you to access RAW pixels (before any meaningful processing which could affects them). This allows you to process it with eg. own amazing debayering instead of one provided by SDKs (Resolve does it for Arri RAW for example allowing you to choose which you prefer- Arri or Resolve own algorithm).
In BRAW you can also recover RAW (after BM "covers" them to avoid RED patent), but you need to do some small processing (Fast CinemaDNG does it). Problem is that actual noise reduction seems to be done in camera before encoding, so this cannot be skipped (which is a shame).
Andrew, is there any tests to compare hie much better the Arri debayer is at anything?
I don't know about resolution/sharpness, but they should be pretty good.
An BM engineer said that they don't apply a noise filter in cameea, quoted in that Braw cdng thread.
BTW, fast CDNG, tell is more, how fast?
------
Far out, how come nobody has made a credit card sized raw camera. Was waiting for the Sinclair credit card camera over 10 years back, I wonder if he might like to do a "raw" one?
Anyway, back to the internals of raw. I starting to think about doing a post in if you can setup a custom interpretation of format in resolve. Response curve and interpreting a video feed as an embedded Bayer pattern preserved in the matching pixel locations, like braw does presumably. So I could ask somebody if they would like to have a crack at it.