Give me Cinema DNG any day of the week

So I have been following the new camera release closely ....

I recently dropped my main camera and traded for a monochrom
camera that does not shoot video.

Wanted a small body to use the lenses adapted and with decent color.

Picked up a Sigma fp ... the original ...

Played with a bunch of setting recommendations which should not work ... but one of them was
perfect for my needs.

Highly recommended if you can deal with its limitations.

Totally agree, some limitations but beyond that, CinemaDNG provides a lovely image. Shooting lossless CinemaDNG and BRAW Q0 tomorrow.

Thanks Rick

It has a distinctly greater depth and fullness ... worth the bandwidth.

And storage is a pittance today ...

I tested many times cDNg vs braw q0 with Ursa Mini Pro g1 and Bmpcc4k and … I prefer braw for its quality, be cause not have false details like cDNg sometimes aliasing seems sharpen details but not real details.
I have in ursa firmware with both cDNg from uncompressed to compressed, braw q0 and no one can give me the answer of what is what on a dcp projection cinema.
This is my experience, if no one can tell me what is cDNg against braw, and I did comparati on about quality, details, dinamic range and i not found real difference on end of chain.
CDNg give me the only one advantage, a single frame damage don’t damage total footage, but I never had braw damaged.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I also switched to the Sigma fp as my main rig and haven't looked back since. To me it's night and day, but it might also be the sensor and the color science. What I do know is that some time after Blackmagic switched from CDNG to BRAW is when I started not loving the images I was getting.

Carlo, when I shoot either the UM4.6K and the BMPCC4K, I often notice differences in the dynamic range of the UM4.6K when working with both raw clips on the Timeline. Both images look good in most situations.

On the level of the codecs, when shooting stills, my stills editing app, ON1, handles DNG well but does not recognize BRAW. That’s an important difference as DNG is widely recognized but BRAW doesn’t seem to be a priority to adopt.

I might not always be able to pick CDNG from BRAW in a blind test, but side by side on my Timeline, it can be noticeable.

Carlo, when I shoot either the UM4.6K and the BMPCC4K, I often notice differences in the dynamic range of the UM4.6K when working with both raw clips on the Timeline. Both images look good in most situations.

On the level of the codecs, when shooting stills, my stills editing app, ON1, handles DNG well but does not recognize BRAW. That’s an important difference as DNG is widely recognized but BRAW doesn’t seem to be a priority to adopt.

I might not always be able to pick CDNG from BRAW in a blind test, but side by side on my Timeline, it can be noticeable.

You know, English is not my main language and sometimes I wrote a bit convoluted;-P
I would tell that if I do a shoot with Ursa Mini Pro g1 in cdng or in braw I cannot see a real difference between them at best quality.

The same on p4k if I shoot a test with cdng and later same with braw, or simpler i shoot braw and at same time I shot a frame in cdng.
Obviously if I put cdng cs4 and braw cs5 of pk4 I have difference of dinamic range and difference picture also if I work in aces or dwg.

The only situation where you can notice a difference is when you shoot high frequency details be cause false detail caused from cdng demosacing give you illusion of more details, like on cloth or similar.

If you want to continue to shoot dng still, you can switch to ProRes and camera shoot still in uncompressed dng, if you switch to braw do still in braw. Not perfect but work

Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

The BRAW from the Video Assist out of the Sigma FP is much better to work with over the cDNG IMHO. I did a lot of tests with it and when I needed to use the Sigma FP as a dash cam I preferred the BRAW.

I think it's a different story if you're trying to hold onto a legacy model like the original URSA Mini where it is only recording ProRes or cDNG. With the Sigma FP line I wish they would do internal BRAW.

In this thread I had done some extensive comparisons between BRAW and CDNG on the UMP G1 with the same shots done in both codecs:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91802

Be your own judge if you think there are huge differences.

You can also download 3 Clips in UHD Cineform I did back then with CDNG, BRAW Q0 and C3 on the UMP G1. It's a shot of miniatures on a rotating table - lined up so you can compare the codecs directly:

https://laufbildkommission.filemail.com/d/swueemzelallqpd

EDIT: new wetransfer file link without an expire date as I ditched filemail:
https://we.tl/t-bmyDwUzV9f

In this thread I had done some extensive comparisons between BRAW and CDNG on the UMP G1 with the same shots done in both codecs:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=91802

Be your own judge if you think there are huge differences.

You can also download 3 Clips in UHD Cineform I did back then with CDNG, BRAW Q0 and C3 on the UMP G1. It's a shot of miniatures on a rotating table - lined up so you can compare the codecs directly:

https://laufbildkommission.filemail.com ... mzelallqpd

I remember looking at these images way back in the day and, at first, being bummed out by what looked like a significant loss of detail in BRAW compared to DNG. When I really pixel peep now though it's clear that it's not so much that there's more information in the DNGs as much as there is a more defined pixel grid and some false detail. Other than that bizarre fringing around the hand of that Warhammer miniature, I think I prefer BRAW in just about all of these?

I wonder too if the BRAW pipeline has been refined at all since being implemented in 2019. If you shot those tests again would you still see that fringing?

I wonder too if the BRAW pipeline has been refined at all since being implemented in 2019. If you shot those tests again would you still see that fringing?

Hard to say - as the only camera ever with BRAW and CDNG at the same time was the UMP G1 with a certain firmware version. For all other tests I would have to flash the firmware around - and that would the PCC4k. Every camera after that came with BRAW only.

But it would be interesting to shoot this miniatures with my PCC6k Pro. I think very likely you won't see the fringing in downscaled UHD, maybe still visible at 100%

I wonder too if the BRAW pipeline has been refined at all since being implemented in 2019. If you shot those tests again would you still see that fringing?

Hard to say - as the only camera ever with BRAW and CDNG at the same time was the UMP G1 with a certain firmware version. For all other tests I would have to flash the firmware around - and that would the PCC4k. Every camera after that came with BRAW only.

But it would be interesting to shoot this miniatures with my PCC6k Pro. I think very likely you won't see the fringing in downscaled UHD, maybe still visible at 100%

Probably.

I think the image that really sealed the deal for me is the blue channel with the chalk. It's so much cleaner in BRAW! Again, zooming in on detail in the normal images the sharpness really just winds up being a bit of an illusion. I used to keep around the old Camera Firmware v6.1 in case I wanted to roll back my BMPCC4K but I don't think I'm gonna sweat that anymore.

I'm never going back to Cinema DNG. People forget that the only people who shot on Cinema DNG were hobbyists with too much card space or larger productions, for everybody else CInema DNG was an unpractical nightmare that you used on very select projects or even shots.

You know, English is not my main language…

The only situation where you can notice a difference is when you shoot high frequency details be cause false detail caused from cdng demosacing give you illusion of more details, like on cloth or similar.

If you want to continue to shoot dng still, you can switch to ProRes and camera shoot still in uncompressed dng, if you switch to braw do still in braw…

Your English is great and we appreciate your contributions here very much.

I’ll watch out for false detail from CinemaDNG in my current project.

It’s fairly easy in my shoots to make comparisons on the Resolve Timeline as both UM4.6K and BMPCC4K are recording the same scene but different angles.

My only concern about BRAW vs DNG at a time when I and others did some tests for chroma key shots were loss of detail in braw when it came to fine details like hair, there was less details in braw for those shots and the conclusion were NR in Braw causing it.
But those tests were done quite some time ago so possible things with braw has changed sins then, I have not done tests sins then.

I'm never going back to Cinema DNG. People forget that the only people who shot on Cinema DNG were hobbyists with too much card space or larger productions, for everybody else CInema DNG was an unpractical nightmare that you used on very select projects or even shots.

The biggest problem with DNG was that there wasn't an easy way to further compress the files without getting into deep trouble with IP. As the cameras are getting into larger resolutions can you imagine what a 12K DNG file would be like? There's not really any camera media that would even work with that. People were struggling with DNG workflows on HD timelines!

Some of the complaining about loss of fine detail or on keys is probably more down to the fact that it IS COMPRESSED MORE and that's the point. To make the files smaller, but sill give the utility of a raw workflow.

And a lot of that fine detail WAS FALSE detail. What's more interesting is what an OLPF would have done. RED have a super aggressive OLPF. If you reject a lot of the fine detail via the OLPF then it makes the compression a bit more efficient too.

I wish it was the option for STILLS. For motion it's long dead.

JB

The biggest problem with DNG was that there wasn't an easy way to further compress it…
I wish it was the option for STILLS. For motion it's long dead.

JB

But I’m shooting with CinemaDNG lossless on the UM4.6K often in 2K and liking the results. “Dead” for newer cameras and higher resolutions may be true, but working well for DNG stills and 2K motion.

The biggest problem with DNG was that there wasn't an easy way to further compress it…
I wish it was the option for STILLS. For motion it's long dead.

JB

But I’m shooting with CinemaDNG lossless on the UM4.6K often in 2K and liking the results. “Dead” for newer cameras and higher resolutions may be true, but working well for DNG stills and 2K motion.

And Working with cDNG lossless from ump 4.6k has never been a problem here ether and lovely to work with

And Working with cDNG lossless from ump 4.6k has never been a problem here ether and lovely to work with

I know you guys love DNG.

But you don't have 8K+ cameras.

Saying it's great when you throw away 3/4 of the file size by shooting at 2K and saying it's great doesn't make it easier to work at 8K+.

It's great that you're using it and getting great results.

I have a 2017 MacBook and right now I'm editing 12K BRAW files on it easily. No way could I do that with DNG even at 4.6K.

JB

Agree that BRAW makes larger formats easier to manage, especially if not processing on a workstation. 8K and 12K would grind on CinemaDNG.

These days it seems a notebook with an adequate M2 chip is the equivalent or even superior to my Mac Pro 2019, but no one who has both the nearly maxed out Mac Pro 2019 and a generously configured M2 notebook has posted relevant benchmark comparisons or their experiences with DaVinci Resolve.

Apple’s early marketing was comparing their M2 to an iMac or entry level Mac Pro 2019 which is telling you something about what Apple felt safe with to encourage new sales. Sadly the Barefeats website isn’t there anymore to test old and new gear without biases due to the passing of the sole operator.

No one is bashing Braw at all, its just both have their pros and cons.
For the info I have one Ursa with DNG for specific projects when asked for and one for Braw witch I use most of the time for program shooting and Prores for fast turnarounds.

The thing that is most fascinating to me is that the CinemaDNG from the 4.6K URSA Mini in the Lossless Compressed 1.33:1 recording is the same file size as the 4.6K ARRIRAW from the new Alexa 35. So, CinemaDNG was great when uncompressed, but many of us rarely shot in that way.

BRAW brought us better compression options. And, with 12K RGB Sensor and BRAW you're able to Downscale the Resolution while still using the entire Sensor. That's just amazing!

I think if Blackmagic does release an URSA Mini Pro LF with a VistaVision/Full-Frame Sensor like they did for the new Cinema Camera 6K, and it was 16K using the RGB sensor then you could probably shoot full 3:2 Open Gate Sensor and get 8K BRAW off that 16K sensor. That would be amazing. You can't get that with CinemaDNG.

Interesting comparison to the Alexa 35. I know my UM4.6K won’t last forever, but it’s going strong after more than 7 years. I still do enjoy working in Lossless CinemaDNG within its limitations. As was mentioned by others, it’s not trying to take anything away from BRAW, just showing some love for what we got.

I should make clear that 4.6K 16:9 in ARRIRAW HDE gets the same recording time in the same storage capacity as the UM4.6K “Uncompressed” CinemaDND.


In other words, both get 14-minutes worth of footage in 256 GB. So thus one 1,000 FT roll of 3-Perf 35mm Film.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still do enjoy working in Lossless CinemaDNG within its limitations.

I cannot find the "artifacts which are so inherent in cDNG".

So school me ...

The following is a series of clips looking at dynamic range color and specular highlights ...

No disrespect for those who do this daily ...

I should make clear that 4.6K 16:9 in ARRIRAW HDE gets the same recording time in the same storage capacity as the UM4.6K “Uncompressed” CinemaDND.


In other words, both get 14-minutes worth of footage in 256 GB. So thus one 1,000 FT roll of 3-Perf 35mm Film.

An important distinction is that HDE cannot be recorded in-camera. HDE is only available during offload with CODEX's drivers. ArriRAW is completely uncompressed in every sense of the word.

… The following is a series of clips looking at dynamic range color and specular highlights ...

...

Bob, I received this message:
“This video is private.”

I should make clear that 4.6K 16:9 in ARRIRAW HDE gets the same recording time in the same storage capacity as the UM4.6K “Uncompressed” CinemaDND.


In other words, both get 14-minutes worth of footage in 256 GB. So thus one 1,000 FT roll of 3-Perf 35mm Film.

An important distinction is that HDE cannot be recorded in-camera. HDE is only available during offload with CODEX's drivers. ArriRAW is completely uncompressed in every sense of the word.

Yeah, luckily CODEX Drives come in 1TB or 2TB sizes, so you can record 34-minutes or 1-hour-and-8-minutes, respectively. Then when offloading you can do HDE for savings on hard drive space. So, yeah, ARRIRAW you'll essentially be able to record close to 2,300FT of 3-Perf 35mm film with a 1TB CODEX Drive.

I think we're finally at $50/TB in storage costs. So say $100 for Storage & Backup on that 1TB. You're still under the cost of 1,000FT of 35mm film since that costs $790 just to purchase. Development and scanning in 4K will add an easy additional $750. So, you're getting better costs from digital ARRI Alexa 35 still by comparison.

So, let's now look back at CinemaDNG and BlackmagicRAW and realize that the cost savings are tremendous. Especially since you could shoot CinemaDNG 4:1 and the quality was still really good. BlackmagicRAW in Q0 is even fantastic.

… The following is a series of clips looking at dynamic range color and specular highlights ...

...

Bob, I received this message:
“This video is private.”

Rectified ... most humble apologies for the mistake.

BOB

I'm never going back to Cinema DNG. People forget that the only people who shot on Cinema DNG were hobbyists with too much card space or larger productions, for everybody else CInema DNG was an unpractical nightmare that you used on very select projects or even shots.

You're joking right? For many many years CDNG ruled basically every Blackmagic camera out there. It shot compressed CDNG up to 12:1 IIRC.

For me, the Sigma fp provides a major difference in the look of the sensor, so maybe that's what I'm gravitating toward. With 4Tb SSD's at less than $200, space really isn't an issue whatsoever.

Bob, lovely video and musical accompaniment. Good shot of the interior showing brighter the exterior using the Sigma fp and BRAW. Thanks for sharing!

An additional strike against cDNG is that it is decoded differently by different applications. That can easily lead to all sorts of post production headaches. One example where I got bit hard by cDNG was on a commercial edited in Premiere from the cDNG source files, the editor did some masked composited layers in timeline and then baked those composites out to ProRes (because it would take too long to redo all that manually from source cDNG for the color grade and almost no one budgets for the color conform to take that kind of time). The delivery deadline was tight so the grade had already been started on the cDNG source files from an early edit. With BRAW, or r3d, or pretty much any other raw codec, there would be no issue here — the ProRes files baked out from Premiere would match the raw source files in Resolve. But with cDNG, when it came time to move it all to Resolve for color grading, those baked out ProRes files were totally different than the cDNG decodes in Resolve, which made delivering a consistent color grade difficult.

To add on top of what Jamie said: Adobe created CinemaDNG and couldn't even properly support it in Premiere Pro!!! Why? Well, because Premiere Pro sucks. But, then they couldn't even load the compressed CinemaDNG from the URSA and URSA Mini cameras. So if you shot CinemaDNG 4:1 it wouldn't even load in Premiere Pro!

And, that's why I switched to Resolve for editing in 2016.

But I still remember the pain in 2013 of trying to load Blackmagic Cinema Camera 2.5K footage into Premiere. It was a nightmare! Resolve handled it so well, but for some reason Adobe's own software couldn't. They barely improved it in 2015, but that was almost too late because Resolve 12 was out and basic editing features were available in Resolve then.

cDNG is a “dumb” codec.

No tricks for playback to make it work on slower machines (like BRAW)
No Metadata support for things like gyro stabilising.
No LUT support - built in LUT workflow.

And as mentioned, no easy way to compress beyond 5:1 for IP problems. That’s a huge barrier as sensor resolution increases.

cDNG wasn’t magic. It’s not doing something special that other codecs aren’t doing. It’s just a DNG image sequence with timecode and audio added.

And DNG is reallllly just a TIFF file.

TIFF is a very old technology branch, designed for stills and hacked to work with motion.

If you think DNG is better, more likely you just happen to like the way they load in your chosen post workflow and you don’t like compression or you like the DNG workflow. Nothing wrong with that but there’s too many downsides these days.

I want to love the Sigma so much but it has a few giant problems that make it a non starter. So close.

JB

Not disagreeing with these CinemaDNG shortcomings, but none of these problems appear to apply in my use case. Nothing against BRAW as I’ve been a supporter of BRAW Q0 recording from day one (well at least after I ran my tests of all the options which did show minor differences at the different levels of compression). BRAW is not completely innocent as many of us here have recorded in a ProRes flavour over BRAW.

So do the decent thing and drop the rant that CinemaDNG is dead. That’s a step too far as long as there’s arguably some life left in it by those who are able to make it work, within its limitations. Maybe CinemaDNG has “one foot in the grave” as we say in English about someone who is metaphorically near death.

Edit
CinemaDNG is the codec equivalent of the Walking Dead. Dead but still going strong!

Tricks for playback using cDNG has not been needed here, I have no need for gyro stabilising and I hardly use Luts. but those can of course be useful for others witch is great.
Some things are useful fore some and not for others.

P.s. DNG being Tiff or what ever does not change the fact it holds Raw data from the sensor witch is all is needed, old or not that is all it neds to do and does the job really well.

DNG still works and does it really well.
For those who have systems handling DNG with ease are using it for a reason.
Both DNG and Braw like all other codecs have their pros and cons and even thought one does not see it there cane for sure be reason for people using DNG in some situations.

BRAW is great and all and I use it my self most of the time my self but when asked for DNG it is not a problem for me at all and love working on them.
Of course people who are not used to work on DNG or had problems using DNG do not see the point, witch is just fine, Braw is good

The point is if you don't need it then just don't use it..
Braw is good and DNG is good, no worries.

Amen.

We live in a strange world where people struggle to have raw, uncompressed, and at same time there is people that when i show them that bmd not record in h265 cry for the space of their hard disk and time of copying files.

Cdng unfortunately cannot be use compressed due the sue of Red against the world, then we can use only uncompressed cdng in a cameras.
When we worked with Pocket4k Cdng uncompressed was 13.2 mb, that mean 13.2 x 30 = 396 mb/s
it was possible, on old Ursa G1 you can share on dual card and work also 4.6k 60p uncompressed, but later Bmd understand that compression is necessary.

Like John B told few message ago, uncompressed CNDG in 6k is a big size, i tried to shoot in cdng and my 6k produce a 26.1mb file per frame, mean 26.1 x 30 fps = 783 mb/s just over cfast standard and over usb 3.1 limits of 625 mb/s.

i know newer cinema camera 6k had Express card type B that can reach 3/4000 mb/s, could use this kind of recording, but.... mean also more cache on camera, more storage (6k uncompressed mean 46,98 gb per minutes, mean a classic 512 gb card can keep no more than 11 minutes

I want to love the Sigma so much but it has a few giant problems that make it a non starter. So close.

I love owning it, just not for video. I upgraded to the FP L and their kit 45mm lens and it's very much like having a classic 1970s Leica CL with 40mm lens. It really has great build quality for a tiny camera that you can take with you everywhere.

Might be a good time to put this thread to rest.

Obviously everyone has strong sentiments about their favorite
Codec and workflow.

Horses for courses … I imagine it is an evolving environment which
will drive most of us to any number of technical and esthetic choices.
Good for that … nice to have options.

May your light color and opportunities exceed your wildest hopes, dreams and
desires …

Pick your horse and ride it like you stole it.

Pick your horse and ride it like you stole it.

Respectful discussion is always good to have as are options.

JB

I apologize if you consider any of my comments as disrespectful ... not my intention.

I apologize if you consider any of my comments as disrespectful ... not my intention.

Not at all Bob!

JB

How is there able to be 3:1 cDNG in the BMMCC then if there was/is a lawsuit from red?

How is there able to be 3:1 cDNG in the BMMCC then if there was/is a lawsuit from red?

My understanding is that RED had sent a threatening letter and that’s why BMD switched to BRAW. BRAW had been in development for a while anyway because of the new 12k sensor so they just rolled it out everywhere.

JB

That’s interesting, I didn’t realize the 12k sensor was in the works for that long as well.

Was really hoping they were going to use it for some kind of 8k camera to slot in between the bmpcc6k and the ursa12k but maybe one day!

Every time we shoot , we use a Combination of a " Codec " , a Sensor , also a lens , and the result is always different .. The appropriate Tool for each Work ..

I should study that more deeply , but maybe the reproduction of movement is better with CDng ? Traditional Film was , and is , Twenty Four Still Pictures per second . Same thing for CDng , maybe it has something to do with movement rendition .. ? And a mechanical Shutter .. A global shutter is sure better for movement rendition .. I still own the " Old Big Ursa " .. the sensor is a global shutter one .. I want to film Fly Fishing , in good hands , the line makes a beautiful " S " , but the fly and the line move quickly .. I am not sure a rolling shutter is going to record it well ..

Next Dream .. a 12k FF Sensor .. with eighteen Stops of DR .. Global Shutter .. and Generation Seven Colour Science .. I am sure BM is working on that ... " Yes , we can " ..

The BMCC produced beautiful images .. Reality , but with " Something more " .. something of a Painting .. You'll find as an attachment a picture shot in October 2014 with a BMCC , an old Park created in 1882 by a passionate , containing Giant Sequoîas , Douglas Trees , Libocedars , also European Species .. Shot with a Zeiss planar 50 , and a SLR Magic Anamorphic Adapter .. It's Reality , but with an old Look , a Vintage look I love .. The kind of picture you sometimes find on a wall of an old Hotel , in a remote , lost , and almost forgotten place in Center France .. The Sequoîas came from North America through Le Havre harbour .. all a Story .. and a vintage Look ..

SioulePark.jpg (926.85 KiB) Viewed 11491 times

Just purchased a 12 k Olpf , because I want the best possible Image quality , but the BMCC , with CDng , remains a good Tool ..

" Et , toujours , cette insoutenable légéreté de l'être " ..

" And , always , that unbearable lightness of the Being " ..

Mike ..

Every time we shoot , we use a Combination of a " Codec " , a Sensor , also a lens , and the result is always different .. The appropriate Tool for each Work ..

My main issue with the Sigma FP isn't necessarily cDNG, which I think is not hard to work with after owning the URSA Mini 4.6K for so many years and other BM cameras. I think the issue is the color pipeline and their 'color modes' when recording to BRAW externally or cDNG internally.

Sigma is reviving cDNG on a newer camera and using it to offer RAW without necessarily doing the backend work to make the color editing pipeline work in a clear or understandable way. Sigma has recommended using the "Color OFF" mode (in camera) for best results then if you are using cDNG you would have to interpret that footage with BMD Film or REC709. The color in this case is skewed to a particular 'look' already. For example violets appear blue and greens more brown. This is the look that will be baked into the BRAW if you record externally.

Then if you are to use any other mode other than "OFF" you do get mostly unshifted primaries but also must use BMD film if you want log and do your own grade. You can also convert to directly REC709 or even ARRI or RED colorspace but none of them ever feel truly to be a neutral starting point or representative of what the sensor is supposed to be able to be capable of.

So if you are to use that camera and like the results it feels like the result of a random recipe that you've tried for an artistic look (which is fine) rather than a repeatable method from a neutral start. Then it feels subject to change if Sigma decides to update their firmware and try something new.

I feel that there is a huge compromise when compared to any of the BMD cameras with color science GEN 5. It makes the Sigma FP line feel unfinished or not well thought out. GEN 5 color science from BMD is really the best of all worlds with the decode options. And BMD cameras, even the large URSA which I owned for a few years had a consistent interpretation of the color science and relation to the sensor.

With Sigma it's like using Kodak film but then being told to develop with Fuji's chemicals because Kodak didn't bother to make their own development recipe for those that want to color grade themselves. Which for me would largely be the point of using the cDNG in the first place.

I havent totally ruled out the new Pocket 6k LF. If it is reduced by £500 I'm in. I wish it can shoot STILLS in Cinema DNG like the other Pocket cameras. Surely a firmware update can give us that?

Excellent observations from Ryan. Definitely the colour “Off” seems a better starting point.