Do you think when RED's patent expires BM will change BRAW?

Personally, I don't think so because BRAW is the underlying technology in all Blackmagic's products so changing how it works would make all their cameras redundant. However, it is interesting to think about because BRAW isn't technically RAW data as some have pointed out already. So if Blackmagic were given free range to make a true internal RAW codec would they do it? Now that Red's owned by Nikon I wonder if they'll speed up the process and make internal RAW available to all.

Well, "technically" what is raw if not just another codec? The reason Grant gave for partial in-camera debayer it that the hardware is already "in the camera," leveraging that hardware removes some of the processing grind for the computer. I use Sony 16 bit linear raw from the axsm for the F55, NRAW from Nikon 8k, and 12k BRAW feels just as raw like, more in most respects, and less of a drag on computer resources than Sony 4k 16 bit linear raw, which is 3:1 compressed, and NRAW 8k 60 fps also compressed. The technical argument has no merit if there are no practical benefits.

I think BRAW is here to stay.
It's super flexible and I prefer it over CDNG.

Also, I know people are always saying clients want pro res, and maybe it's just me and the work I'm doing, but I have NEVER had a client tell me 'no' to BRAW.
I can't remember the last time I shot anything other than BRAW.

Interesting question. I think Nikon will also try to uphold the patent because it’s a nice source of income which I think has helped RED stay alive over the years.

For me the difference between raw and non raw is if the data is debayered in camera or not. So I don’t regard BRAW as true RAW, it is off course still a very powerful codec. I do think it would be beneficial if BM could make a flavour of BRAW that is not debayered in the future. Mostly for archival purposes and the added benefit that if better and more powerful debayer algorithms are created you can improve your old footage.

Here's how Adobe defines Raw: A camera raw file contains unprocessed, uncompressed grayscale picture data from a digital camera’s image sensor, along with information about how the image was captured (metadata).

The Japanese firms, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, Canon, Nikon conduct business like a cartel. They will respect the existing terms but enforcement will not be necessary. They take the long view and the patent is a short term event. The need to defend the patent against interlopers is not likely therefore for all intents and purposes, the patent is dead.

Today we have mxf that act like raw also if they are a simple container for hevc 10bit 4:2:2, and that enable camera raw in resolve.
Why we should go back to uncompressed raw? Or cdng similar bottleneck?
Do you think that 12k and 17k raw from newer cameras can be usable? Recordable?
With braw we a tech that give us the best of raw flexibility without raw downfall.
Why change it?


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I don't see a reason to change anything just because it's not "real" raw. I think no-one cares about that. Braw is fantastic as is.

I think BMD would rethink BRAW in the absence of RED’s patent. They seem like a company that is always revising things, and I don’t doubt that they would at least test out some alternative approaches if they haven’t already. It’s not like future implementations would make the cameras that came before it worse, so why not keep developing new ways of making images?

Does BMD need to rethink BRAW? Maybe? I put a lot of energy in to comparing BRAW to DNG with my BMPCC4K, and while I do prefer the look of BRAW I was kinda shocked by the noticeable difference in the way fine detail was rendered. I’d love to get to a place where BRAW feels just that little 5% sharper, you know?

At this point, how much more video quality do you expect to get? To me, BRAW is pretty awesome. We barely have media that can record Q0. What is ARRIRAW? ZRAW? REDCODE? I don't see how my life will change if all of a sudden I get full on internal raw recording. It's all being preprocessed and compressed anyway.

I think we're now in the land of diminishing returns in terms of image quality. I can buy a 6K Pro for $1200 in the used market right now and put it up against a $100,000 ARRI. Blackmagic has long since equaled or passed RED. People compare Sony FX30 and FX3 (internal non-raw recording) to RED. So who cares about their patent.

It's kind of like... How fast do you need your car window to go down? Would you turn it up to max roll-down speed? No. I have the 12k OLPF camera, I use 8k 8:1 and can get up to 120fps with my 2TB M.2 drive. I cannot record 8K 120fps at 5:1, I get dropped frames. I haven't even tried 12k yet, 8K looks so amazing. I'm coming from an FX6. What can I possibly gain from RED's patent expiring?! I can't imagine...

Here is a comparison I did of my Nikon Z8 vs my Ursa Mini Pro 12K.

The Nikon was shot in 8k 60 fps, 1/119.9 shutter, NRaw/Nlog w/120mm focal length.
The U12K was shot in 12K 60 fps, 180 degree shutter, Braw Q5, 85mm focal length, scaled to 7680 x 4320 in Resolve.

Make your own judgment from 500% crops of 7680 x 4320. Images were taken on consecutive days at the same time of the afternoon, very close but on different days. A slight breeze both days. Focus point is the motorized operator on the swinging gate.

Nikon on the left, BMD on the right.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UxyS0J ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vhk4JV ... sp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/118WEfD ... sp=sharing

Finally, here is the full 12K image resized to 8K, used for the comparisons above.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1efXGEl ... sp=sharing

Here is a comparison I did of my Nikon Z8 vs my Ursa Mini Pro 12K.

No offense intended... I'm not a pixel peeper.

Probably not. Blackmagic has built a large ecosystem off of BRAW at this point. To the point that most of their most recent cameras don't have any other recording option but BRAW.

Also, I know people are always saying clients want pro res, and maybe it's just me and the work I'm doing, but I have NEVER had a client tell me 'no' to BRAW.
I can't remember the last time I shot anything other than BRAW.

Majority of the time I'm delivering ProRes to clients is 1920x1080 HD. If they want 3840x2160 UHD I've convinced many that using BRAW 12:1 or Q5 is more efficient that any of the UHD ProRes options. With the exception of UHD ProRes 422 Proxy. And, if they want that then they really don't care about the image quality that much, but for some reason still want UHD.

Slowly I'm starting to shoot on my Sony more for clients that want UHD in a compressed codec with small file sizes. Usually those clients aren't paying the money for my Blackmagic Camera Packages, so the need to convince them that using BRAW is better doesn't happen as much.

Thus, with my Blackmagic Camera Packages I am shooting BRAW probably 90-95% of the time for clients now. But I did shoot ProRes for one client this year on my Blackmagic Cameras, so it does still happen.

In the future that means that Blackmagic will not be for certain clients and I'll be going to Sony or Canon for the clients that don't want raw. And, Sony has such good autofocus now that many of those clients who want Sony will ask for it. Job postings often specify which camera they would like.

Here is a comparison I did of my Nikon Z8 vs my Ursa Mini Pro 12K.

A 500% zoom in on a 7x4k image does not tell me anything about differences in finished renders that an actual audience watches.

Also the 12K is known to be soft compared to high res competitors, Braw is probably a minor (maybe even none at all) cause of the difference you're seeing when pixel peeping.

Btw RED had already been working on extending the patent, it's not even certain it just runs out.

Also the 12K is known to be soft compared to high res competitors, Braw is probably a minor (maybe even none at all) cause of the difference you're seeing when pixel peeping.

What difference am I seeing? Please explain.

'You' as in the person pixel peeping, not you personally.

I don't see much difference, and maybe that was your point, but my point was that there are so many factors here that it's hard to say it's a Braw vs raw comparison.

'You' as in the person pixel peeping, not you personally.

I don't see much difference, and maybe that was your point, but my point was that there are so many factors here that it's hard to say it's a Braw vs raw comparison.

This exactly was my point, without giving it as an opinion. Now I will.

I think it follows that Braw is not suffering in a significant way from being a partially debayered raw codec. The Nikon 8K/60 NRaw is not harder to deal with, but it's not managing as many pixels either. Visually 8K for 8K, I don't see much if any difference under close inspection or looking at the frame as a whole. If there was a practical difference it was operational. The auto focus of the Nikon was always spot on, while it could be extremely difficult to critically match focus manually on the BMD. But once I did, the visual spoken-about distinctions in fine detail resolution disappear. The Nikon is very sharp, owing to it's Z mount designed lens, but also the autofocus is critically 100%, difficult to achieve on the BMD but if you can, fine detail becomes the same. I don't think BRAW or the U12K camera is compromising here.

It won’t expire.

RED, like many medical tech companies get around the patent expiry by making NEW patents that deliver the same thing with a slight tweak. In pharma examples it can be as simple as changing it from am injection delivery to a tablet. Bingo, new patent, same drug.
This was filed just before Nikon probably started thinking to buy them. They wouldn’t buy a company who’s IP was about to run out.
https://ymcinema.com/2022/12/01/red-dig ... essed-raw/

JB

The old patents will expire and they cannot be renewed, opening an avenue for anyone wanting to use the existing technology of the expired patent freely.

In addition to the now, very public disclosures of prior art, the extent of the design changes will determine whether a new patent application will be considered non-obvious over prior patents, but the old patents will expire and they cannot be renewed, opening an avenue for anyone wanting to use the existing technology of the expired patent freely.

I think it’s a bit naive Tom.

https://kenfoxlaw.com/evergreening-stra ... bstruction

JB

The cartel-speak may be naïveté or not John, although I'm persuaded by it. This however is not naive. https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/renew-patent/

Of course you can’t renew a patent.

There are strategies that companies already employ to have the same end result. Thats all I’m pointing out. The result will be *as if* it was extended.

JB

What was different about Red was the high profile of its founder. Behind the scenes was it ever a serious impediment for any cartel member who wanted to put raw in their camera? Canon negotiated. Sony and Red settled. Nikon and Red settled. BMD, Panasonic and Fuji all have their patents and business agreements too. Jannard said it was a business negotiation as usual all along. But to enthusiasts, there was a narrative inflamed by bloggers putting blame on Red for not having raw available to their camera.

What we can expect from Nikon is a calming of the hysteria, where patent negotiation is a mere part of everyday business-as-usual negotiation between cartel members. Patent infringement is not standing in the way of innovation. That's why I say the patent is dead, metaphorically.

Canon negotiated.

Swapped their exclusivity on their mount for access.

Sony and Red settled.

RED sued. Sony counter sued and then they both agreed to not pursue hostilities. Sony would allow RED to use their IP and Sony could use REDs.

Nikon and Red settled.

They didn’t. RED decided to park their IP challenge which hadn’t been determined. Nikon weren’t blinking at the idea of actually going to court. Not even Apple went that far… They presumably did this because they’d decided to just buy RED instead of challenge their IP in court.

BMD, Panasonic and Fuji all have their patents and business agreements too. Jannard said it was a business negotiation as usual all along. But to enthusiasts, there was a narrative inflamed by bloggers putting blame on Red for not having raw available to their camera.

There’s no doubt that RED was very aggressive towards defending what they view as their IP.

Other companies like wooden camera also felt their intimidation. It wasn’t just REDCODE. They also did this towards individuals. I have first hand knowledge of this.

That is their way of doing business “negotiating” except it’s about intimidation and aggression. I’m almost certain that the only company that they have actually done a license deal with that wasn’t an IP swap of some kind is Atomos for ProRes RAW. Which then threw Apple into having to try and invalidate their paten because it blocked ProRes RAW from being used on any camera for on-board recording.

In other words, it’s not like it was really much of a revenue earner for them because they weren’t actually interested in licensing. No one ever actually just paid RED to have a RAW codec in their camera. Atomos didn’t even make cameras.

And frankly I think the camera-bro culture was off putting for many. And all the outright lying.

What we can expect from Nikon is a calming of the hysteria, where patent negotiation is a mere part of everyday business-as-usual negotiation between cartel members. Patent infringement is not standing in the way of innovation. That's why I say the patent is dead, metaphorically.

Nikon now control the IP for RAW cameras. I think we’re all looking at cinema cameras and missing the point. It’s the larger consumer market they have their eyes on. And their direct competition. It’s Panasonic and Sony. Not Arri or BMD that Nikon care about.

I’m almost certain that RED will fade away. They may have a model or two still in development that they will allow to drop but they aren’t interested in running a niche couture camera company. It adds nothing in value. A few thousand Nikon mount lenses? Hadn’t worth the effort.

I’m sure they will negotiate the IP more readily than RED who had a more antagonistic strategy.

To the original question. I don’t think it matters. For the users of BMD’s cameras BRAW offers raw-like control without the headache of previous iterations and better performance than other mezzanine codecs such as ProRes. So no, I don’t think BRAW changes much.

JB

There’s no doubt that RED was very aggressive towards defending what they view as their IP.

Other companies like wooden camera also felt their intimidation. It wasn’t just REDCODE. They also did this towards individuals. I have first hand knowledge of this.

That is their way of doing business “negotiating” except it’s about intimidation and aggression. I’m almost certain that the only company that they have actually done a license deal with that wasn’t an IP swap of some kind is Atomos for ProRes RAW. Which then threw Apple into having to try and invalidate their paten because it blocked ProRes RAW from being used on any camera for on-board recording.

In other words, it’s not like it was really much of a revenue earner for them because they weren’t actually interested in licensing. No one ever actually just paid RED to have a RAW codec in their camera. Atomos didn’t even make cameras.

And frankly I think the camera-bro culture was off putting for many. And all the outright lying.

Agree but welcome to the machine. George Westinghouse owned patents on Tesla's inventions that J.P. Morgan wanted. When Westinghouse wouldn't sell, Morgan threatened to bankrupt him in court. Under coercion Westinghouse sold to Morgan, and the company that emerged was General Electric.

I think we’re all looking at cinema cameras and missing the point. It’s the larger consumer market they have their eyes on. And their direct competition. It’s Panasonic and Sony. Not Arri or BMD that Nikon care about.

That makes a lot of sense.

Will be interesting to see Nikon's future steps.

Consider than Nikon makes as much from lens sales as they do from cameras. I think Nikon is more interested in leveraging the patent then licensing it.

Good Luck