Why not charge Zcam users a licensing fee for internal braw

Wouldn't it make sense to give zcam owners and other camera users the option to buy a license te he able to record BRAW internal, instead of over HDMI to a video assist?

I would happily pay a licensing fee.

Perfect sense for an end user but not necessarily for the company. External Braw sells Video Assists, internal Braw will sell cameras, and not necessarily Blackmagic's. I think that once they let Braw out of the box then BMs own camera sales will suffer. BM has a good thing going with Braw and its integration with Resolve. 12-13 stops of DR and high quality codecs are the norm at this point. With Braw available on other cams what is BM offering that others aren't?

I imagine it's the same reason that Red doesn't readily license internal raw. The number crunchers have probably decided that the license fees won't offset the hardware loss. Canon probably gets a piece because their volume high enough that it makes sense, Atomos makes monitors so there is no competition.

There is a reason that Prores Raw isn't supported in Resolve and it has nothing to do with technical limitations.

Good Luck

Perfect sense for an end user but not necessarily for the company. External Braw sells Video Assists, internal Braw will sell cameras, and not necessarily Blackmagic's. I think that once they let Braw out of the box then BMs own camera sales will suffer. BM has a good thing going with Braw and its integration with Resolve. 12-13 stops of DR and high quality codecs are the norm at this point. With Braw available on other cams what is BM offering that others aren't?

I imagine it's the same reason that Red doesn't readily license internal raw. The number crunchers have probably decided that the license fees won't offset the hardware loss. Canon probably gets a piece because their volume high enough that it makes sense, Atomos makes monitors so there is no competition.

There is a reason that Prores Raw isn't supported in Resolve and it has nothing to do with technical limitations.

Good Luck

Agree with all that. Offering internal BRAW would hurt their video assist market and their camera market.

apparently, the c700 MII will have R3DCODE via a module, most likely a specially designed minimag module. Going to assume it was what was traded in exchange for the RF Mount.

This will be the most CODEC heavy from Canon: XF-AVC, ProRes and Cinema RAW Light can be recorded internally; BRAW and ProRes RAW externally with the Blackmagic VideoAssist and Atomos Ninja+; Cinema RAW with the Codex CDX-36150; and a new module/recorder developed in partnership with RED Digital Cinema to record REDCODE to a proprietary media

I wish the Video Assist worked with older Blackmagic cameras. I have Production 4K stuck with CDNG and I want to film in BRAW.

The same big error was done twenty five years ago by apple. They sold Os to Mac cloned builder and finish that they never sell Mac hardware… Jobs stopped immediately that error when he was back in apple.

Braw is great, but for Blackmagic Design is better tied to their hardware.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Braw is great, but for Blackmagic Design is better tied to their hardware.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Except when their hardware doesn't give you the option to use the lenses you want to use.

Wouldn't it make sense to give zcam owners and other camera users the option to buy a license te he able to record BRAW internal, instead of over HDMI to a video assist?

I would happily pay a licensing fee.

It would make sense if the ZCam would use FPGAs, but they are using ASICs. To compress BRAW they would have had to create an ASIC beforehand and then integrated into the ZCam's electronic.
Therefore external recording is the only option here.

Braw is great, but for Blackmagic Design is better tied to their hardware.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Except when their hardware doesn't give you the option to use the lenses you want to use.

Ehm video assist is a braw recorder, you not mount lenses…
And if you talk about cameras I mount directly ef, Ae, pl, m4/3 mount directly, is enough to mount from economically and affordable Samyang to prime Cp zeiss to PL Cooke cinema…


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Braw is great, but for Blackmagic Design is better tied to their hardware.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Except when their hardware doesn't give you the option to use the lenses you want to use.

Ehm video assist is a braw recorder, you not mount lenses…
And if you talk about cameras I mount directly ef, Ae, pl, m4/3 mount directly, is enough to mount from economically and affordable Samyang to prime Cp zeiss to PL Cooke cinema…


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

You can not mount m4/3 to the BMPCC 6K

You can not mount m4/3 to the BMPCC 4K

bmpcc 4k had a m4/3 mount and 4/3 sensor... you can do it, i used all lenses bought for gh5 with it.
i was once of first to have it in italy.

You can not mount m4/3 to the BMPCC 4K

bmpcc 4k had a m4/3 mount and 4/3 sensor... you can do it, i used all lenses bought for gh5 with it.
i was once of first to have it in italy.

Sorry, that was a typo. Should have been 6k.

So, if you've invested in lenses for a 4k, as I have, you have no upgrade path to the 6k. At least with the zcam, you have swappable mounts.

Do you pay to record BRAW on a video assist right now?
Do BMD charge you for firmware updates?
Do BMD have any history of charging for something that’s easily done in software?
Do BMD charge subscriptions for upgrades in Resolve?
Do BMD charge any third party for any licensing for any product?

I think the issue is that ZCAM have to want to do it. There’s nothing stopping them from doing internal BRAW. They of course need to have the right hardware. Many companies use ASIC whereas BMD is FPGA based. I know this has stopped some (well known brand) from implementing BRAW internal. It’s a lot of money to port it over to ASIC. Who pays for that?

From what I’ve been told, BMD would make it free to anyone that wanted to use it to record BRAW internally.

Have you asked ZCAM?

JB

Agree with all that. Offering internal BRAW would hurt their video assist market and their camera market.

They just don’t think that way. Look at Resolve. It’s FREE or if you need a few specific features you play a ONCE OFF fee and upgrades are free forever.

Look at their camera models. They don’t artificially restrict features on hardware in the way other companies do.

It took 10 years for another company to dare to offer ProRes on a camera at this price point, something BMD did from the very start with their first camera.

They’re not protecting Video Assists…I’m certain they aren’t big sellers and I don’t think users are buying them just for BRAW.

JB

Do you pay to record BRAW on a video assist right now?
Do BMD charge you for firmware updates?
Do BMD have any history of charging for something that’s easily done in software?
Do BMD charge subscriptions for upgrades in Resolve?
Do BMD charge any third party for any licensing for any product?

I think the issue is that ZCAM have to want to do it. There’s nothing stopping them from doing internal BRAW. They of course need to have the right hardware. Many companies use ASIC whereas BMD is ASIC based. I know this has stopped some (well known brand) from implementing BRAW internal. It’s a lot of money to port it over to ASIC. Who pays for that?

From what I’ve been told, BMD would make it free to anyone that wanted to use it to record BRAW internally.

Have you asked ZCAM?

JB

Iof course it's a Blackmagic decision to not have internal braw.

Iof course it's a Blackmagic decision to not have internal braw.

I think you’re wrong.

JB

Iof course it's a Blackmagic decision to not have internal braw.

I think you’re wrong.

JB

Why wouldn't Zcam want internal Braw?

Why wouldn't Zcam want internal Braw?

I have already mentioned above, there are technical reasons it might not have happened. I don’t know specifically about ZCAM, but i do happen to know many of the BRAW and camera team at BMD.

I have been involved with the development of BRAW from before it was announced.

I know that two major brands much larger than ZCAM were exploring BRAW internally being added to their cameras. The main sticking point is that most HARDWARE development in cameras like this is based on ASIC.

BMD are unusually, FPGA based. Google the difference between ASIC and FPGA. They are very different ways of making hardware.

Think of it like this. BMD wrote BRAW for Mac. Someone wants to use it on a PC. Who pays to port it across to a PC? That development when it costs tens of thousands and many months of developer time.

So I ASSUME, like the other two major brands I mentioned, ZCAM don’t want to take the risk and pay for the development and porting of BRAW to ASIC even if the per unit licence cost is free, and BMD don’t see any value in using their own precious developer time to put BRAW into another camera.

JB

Why wouldn't Zcam want internal Braw?

I have already mentioned above, there are technical reasons it might not have happened. I don’t know specifically about ZCAM, but i do happen to know many of the BRAW and camera team at BMD.

I have been involved with the development of BRAW from before it was announced.

I know that two major brands much larger than ZCAM were exploring BRAW internally being added to their cameras. The main sticking point is that most HARDWARE development in cameras like this is based on ASIC.

BMD are unusually, FPGA based. Google the difference between ASIC and FPGA. They are very different ways of making hardware.

Think of it like this. BMD wrote BRAW for Mac. Someone wants to use it on a PC. Who pays to port it across to a PC? That development when it costs tens of thousands and many months of developer time.

So I ASSUME, like the other two major brands I mentioned, ZCAM don’t want to take the risk and pay for the development and porting of BRAW to ASIC even if the per unit licence cost is free, and BMD don’t see any value in using their own precious developer time to put BRAW into another camera.

JB

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

You can not mount m4/3 to the BMPCC 4K

bmpcc 4k had a m4/3 mount and 4/3 sensor... you can do it, i used all lenses bought for gh5 with it.
i was once of first to have it in italy.

Sorry, that was a typo. Should have been 6k.

So, if you've invested in lenses for a 4k, as I have, you have no upgrade path to the 6k. At least with the zcam, you have swappable mounts.

Swappable mount … a great idea with a lots of dark corner…

I had also ursa mini pro and when I use pl mount I need to shim it, I need to test and calibrate very well the shimming to avoid problems on back focus.

I invested on good ef lenses mount and a great adapter like metabones for pocket4k and gh5, fringer for Fuji, sacker falcon lite for Sony.

Like for a filter is better to have larger lenses for larger sensor then tight lenses.

I bought some good m4/3 lenses but when I moved all to s35 sensor I sold it.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Swappable mount … a great idea with a lots of dark corner…

I had also ursa mini pro and when I use pl mount I need to shim it, I need to test and calibrate very well the shimming to avoid problems on back focus.

I invested on good ef lenses mount and a great adapter like metabones for pocket4k and gh5, fringer for Fuji, sacker falcon lite for Sony.

Like for a filter is better to have larger lenses for larger sensor then tight lenses.

I bought some good m4/3 lenses but when I moved all to s35 sensor I sold it.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

My lens choice is more important than camera choice.
And with no available option from BM, I have for now settled on using the Panasonic S1H with BM video assist. I can use my preferred lenses, and shoot BRAW.

Via Bing AI
ASIC stands for Application-Specific Integrated Circuit, which is designed for a specific application. On the other hand, FPGA stands for Field Programmable Gate Array, which is a multipurpose microchip that can be reprogrammed for multiple applications. ASICs are more efficient than FPGAs but require a higher initial cost and larger time investment for design1. FPGAs are more flexible than ASICs but are quite expensive for large volumes of data4.