Blackmagic Forum

Hi there just wondering if anyone from Blackmagic can answer this.

I just saw the firmware update and grabbed my camera to update it when I read Kristian's post that reads:

"Switched over to using lossless compressed RAW"

Where as on the official support page it is phrased as:

"Adds lossless compressed RAW support"

Does this mean that if I update my camera I will loose the current uncompressed RAW setting? I hope not as this would be ridiculous. Does it just add it as an option in the recording modes? Why would you take away one of the main features the camera shipped with.

Hi,

Yes, we've switched over and uncompressed RAW is no longer available. Why did we do it? Because there is no different in quality. It's a lossless compression so you end up with a smaller file size but no change the quality of the files. There is no disadvantage.

I see, whats the compression ratio? ~2:1 like the BMPC?

Hi Kristian, quick question: What is the ratio of the compression.

In terms of image compression, it's 1:1. There is no compression.

In terms of file size compression, it's about 30% smaller. It's the same on all cameras when RAW is selected as your recording format.

Thanks Kristian

For the BMCC:
480 GB SSD, recording RAW = approximately 50 minutes
Now it will equate to 2.5 hrs. Quite satisfactory.

that seems a little off if it's only a 30% compression, wouldn't it be closer to an 1H30Min if it was 30% smaller... Just my 2 cents

It's 30% SMALLER Art, not 30% of the original size. So before it was roughly 5MB a frame on BMCC, now on average it's 3MB a frame.

My bad, thanks for the correction Captain.

AWESOME!!!! So excited. I'm going to test this out. Might be enough to convince the director of this short I'm shooting next month to go RAW now. I don't see anything about PRORES 444, but I'm at least thrilled about this update. If PRORES 444 is possible in a future update that would be so cool. Especially if this director still insists on PRORES over RAW for final storage cost benefits.

LOVE YOU BLACKMAGIC DESIGN! YOU GUYS ROCK!!!

You get 47 mins on a 240gb SSD now.

Kristian Lam wrote:Yes, we've switched over and uncompressed RAW is no longer available. ...There is no disadvantage.

Aren't some apps that read the old DNG like Adobe Premiere unable to read compressed RAW? That would seem like a disadvantage.

So, compression on the URSA cuts file sizes in half, but the bmcc compression only one third, right?

Either way, great update guys!

Rutger Groenhuijsen wrote:So, compression on the URSA cuts file sizes in half, but the bmcc compression only one third, right?

The Pocket, BM4K, and URSA all use lossless compressed raw at roughly 1.5:1. The BMCC was uncompressed but is now updated to match those cameras. None of the data is lost with this compression. The URSA also has a 3:1 lossy compression option. This does lose some data but is done in a way to be as visually lossless as possible. So that option does cut file sizes roughly in half compared to the main RAW option, but it's not lossless compression.

CaptainHook wrote:

Rutger Groenhuijsen wrote:So, compression on the URSA cuts file sizes in half, but the bmcc compression only one third, right?

The Pocket, BM4K, and URSA all use lossless compressed raw at roughly 1.5:1. The BMCC was uncompressed but is now updated to match those cameras. None of the data is lost with this compression. The URSA also has a 3:1 lossy compression option. This does lose some data but is done in a way to be as visually lossless as possible. So that option does cut file sizes roughly in half compared to the main RAW option, but it's not lossless compression.

Captain, only 2 questions:
- Can you say if 3:1 is coming for the others cameras? I´m not asking for it, still need to test the new raw, just curious.

- This goes to anyone who already know. Aside from Resolve, how well are the editing programs receiving the compressed dng? I was getting a very good workflow with premiere. So as far as now, only Resolve supports compressed or the others are catching up?

Thanks!

It is working in Adobe premiere CC2014.

Thanks! Another wish granted. Very cool.

Curious if this switch over affects the dynamic range?

Raf702 wrote:Curious if this switch over affects the dynamic range?

It's lossless, so the files are (visually) the same as before. No change in DR.

It's like a zip-compression (it may not work like a zip exacly, but it gives an idea how it works)

Rick Griffo wrote:

Raf702 wrote:Curious if this switch over affects the dynamic range?

It's lossless, so the files are (visually) the same as before. No change in DR.

It's like a zip-compression (it may not work like a zip exacly, but it gives an idea how it works)

Sorry to be a pedant - but its "mathematically" lossless - visually lossless is another way of saying; it is lossy but you probably won't see the difference.

Mathematically lossless is what has been implemented here and what you describe as being similar to how files are Zipped - they are bit for bit identical at the start and end of the process - just the middle section where they are stored are they encoded in a more efficient way to reduce the file sizes.


Visually lossless means that actual data has been discarded (and potentially some zipping too) to reduce the file sizes - so its not bit for bit identical at the end.

Tom wrote:Sorry to be a pedant - but its "mathematically" lossless - visually lossless is another way of saying; it is lossy but you probably won't see the difference.

It's pretty amusing that there are so many people out there who haven't yet figured out that most compression algorithms in use today are in fact truly lossless. Lossy compression is a relatively new thing, and only works when human perception is involved, because for pretty much everything else, if you lose data, you lose it all. Like software. It's compressed, yet it always works. Compress it with a lossy codec, and it will never work again.

I also suspect that the people wondering whether or not this affects dynamic range, color quality, etc still don't understand what "raw" really means with a digital sensor.

This is a welcome enhancement, IMO. Same image, less storage hungry. Cool.

Richard Emile Malouf wrote:It is working in Adobe premiere CC2014.

But what about other programs???

I'm often using Photographic Software, especially as I also work in cinemagraphs (for what DNG Sequences are absolutely perfect) and I also match my Video files to my photos what means, I can use the same tools and same settings for Video and Photo when I give both to the same programs, for example CaptureOne or Aperture... Do these programs come along with compressed DNG???
I already made the experience that I had problems with the "old" uncompressed files when I set the camera to ISO800 what produced unusable black images...
Can someone who did the update already may post some short Test samples (a few seconds should be enough), maybe via WeTransfer or something. so that we others can try what compressed DNG would mean for us before we kill our workflow with this update?

Awesome. Thanks, BMD!

CaptainHook wrote:

Rutger Groenhuijsen wrote:So, compression on the URSA cuts file sizes in half, but the bmcc compression only one third, right?

The Pocket, BM4K, and URSA all use lossless compressed raw at roughly 1.5:1. The BMCC was uncompressed but is now updated to match those cameras. None of the data is lost with this compression. The URSA also has a 3:1 lossy compression option. This does lose some data but is done in a way to be as visually lossless as possible. So that option does cut file sizes roughly in half compared to the main RAW option, but it's not lossless compression.

Thanks for the explanation. So all blackmagic camera's shoot compressed raw (1.5:1) at the moment, but only the URSA can compress even higher. Great!
Can we expect future updates enabling the bmcc, bmpc and pocket to shoot 3:1?

Great update after all, I'm really happy with it.

Focus peaking stays selected, better storage of RAW, extra frames guides and opacity. These cameras just get better and better.

Rutger Groenhuijsen wrote:So all blackmagic camera's shoot compressed raw (1.5:1) at the moment, but only the URSA can compress even higher. Great!

Correct. All BM camera now have compressed RAW. The ratio will vary depending on what is in frame tho. Shooting a white blown out frame will compress much more than a very colourful and detailed frame.

Rutger Groenhuijsen wrote:Can we expect future updates enabling the bmcc, bmpc and pocket to shoot 3:1?

Unlikely... The URSA has much more processing power so can do much more. The other cameras have limited overhead and so probably won't be able to deal with 3:1 compression reliably. But never say never...

Thank you!

alexgreen wrote:

Richard Emile Malouf wrote:It is working in Adobe premiere CC2014.

(...)
Can someone who did the update already may post some short Test samples (a few seconds should be enough), maybe via WeTransfer or something. so that we others can try what compressed DNG would mean for us before we kill our workflow with this update?

no one? really???

Just do the upgrade and if it doesn't work for your workflow, downgrade again. Can't expect others to do work for you if you're not willing to do it yourself when it's so simple and no risk.

Steven Abrams wrote:Just do the upgrade and if it doesn't work for your workflow, downgrade again. Can't expect others to do work for you if you're not willing to do it yourself when it's so simple and no risk.

I already read in here about people who did an upgrade and had problems that still existed after downgrading again... sorry, but I have no space for experiments...
I thought a forum is a place where people try to help each other – something like "do it your own" isn't the intention of a forum in my opinion...

alexgreen wrote:

Steven Abrams wrote:Just do the upgrade and if it doesn't work for your workflow, downgrade again. Can't expect others to do work for you if you're not willing to do it yourself when it's so simple and no risk.

I already read in here about people who did an upgrade and had problems that still existed after downgrading again... sorry, but I have no space for experiments...
I thought a forum is a place where people try to help each other – something like "do it your own" isn't the intention of a forum in my opinion...

Be more proactive. I am between projects so I did the upgrade knowing if I needed to backgrade in an emergency I could. I tested out the raw. Works fine. I will most likely still be shooting ProRes 422 as that is the workflow that works best for me, but it's nice to know I get an extra ~15 minutes of raw on my 240gb cards should I need to shoot in that format.

Kristian Lam wrote:Hi,

Yes, we've switched over and uncompressed RAW is no longer available. Why did we do it? Because there is no different in quality. It's a lossless compression so you end up with a smaller file size but no change the quality of the files. There is no disadvantage.

Hi Kristian,

You probably can't answer this, but will the pocket ever get the 3:1 RAW like the URSA? Love the RAW capabilities already, but 10 min-ish recording time can be difficult. Figured I'd give it a shot

Thanks!

alexgreen wrote:

alexgreen wrote:

Richard Emile Malouf wrote:It is working in Adobe premiere CC2014.

(...)
Can someone who did the update already may post some short Test samples (a few seconds should be enough), maybe via WeTransfer or something. so that we others can try what compressed DNG would mean for us before we kill our workflow with this update?

no one? really???

Alex, here you go:

LBK-BMCC01_1_2015-03-23_1928_C0000.zip

Nothing fancy, just a focus pull on my studio desk.

Tom wrote:
Visually lossless means that actual data has been discarded (and potentially some zipping too) to reduce the file sizes - so its not bit for bit identical at the end.

With almost 10% compression we have:

Visually losslss mans that actual data has bn discardd (and potntially som zipping too) to rduc th fil sizs - so its not bit for bit idntical at th nd.

Tyler Peck wrote:Hi Kristian,

You probably can't answer this, but will the pocket ever get the 3:1 RAW like the URSA? Love the RAW capabilities already, but 10 min-ish recording time can be difficult. Figured I'd give it a shot

Thanks!

Hi

We're not sure. Sometimes we won't know until we try and then see if there's other optimization we can do to fit in a new feature.

Robert Niessner wrote:

alexgreen wrote:
Alex, here you go:

LBK-BMCC01_1_2015-03-23_1928_C0000.zip

Nothing fancy, just a focus pull on my studio desk.

Tanks Robert! Good to see you can rely on central europeans!

But my concerns were justified: While the compressed RAW seems to work good in CaptureOne it doesn't work in Aperture and also not in other Mac programs which use the system's integrated RAW engine…

So for the Moment I can't do any upgrades untill I have ponted out how far I can work without the files supported in many places… It's already unpleasant not to see, what's in the folders with a simple preview in the Finder without opening the files in a supported program...

alexgreen wrote: it doesn't work in Aperture and also not in other Mac programs which use the system's integrated RAW engine…

You're out of date. Get on Yosemite, it's been supported natively in OSX for around 6 months now in finder/quicklook etc and it's supported across Adobe apps too. Aperture is dead (was never really alive) but pretty sure latest version supports it anyway. To be replaced by "Photos for OSX".

Steven Abrams wrote:

alexgreen wrote: it doesn't work in Aperture and also not in other Mac programs which use the system's integrated RAW engine…

You're out of date. Get on Yosemite, it's been supported natively in OSX for around 6 months now in finder/quicklook etc and it's supported across Adobe apps too.

Pretty sure I won't go to Yosemity, there are still too many problems! The very first thing I did, when I got my new MacPro last month, was to re-format and install Mavericks. At home I also still use Mountain Lion because of many things. I'm not shure If I did my Aperture test at home or in the studio, but will repeat it tomorrow on 10.9, maybe it works there…

Aperture is dead (was never really alive) but pretty sure latest version supports it anyway. To be replaced by "Photos for OSX".

Aperture is still the very best way for selecting images and handle the files. I haven't yet found any program (and I was searching for a very long time now!) that does the job even roughly as good as Aperture does, especially with a high amount of files! I agree, that Aperture has it's problems and that it's not any more suitable for processing the RAWs as it hasen't been improved for several years, but that's part of Apple's "we don't care about professionel users" policy… anyway: there's no alternative for selection and file handling (and also "databasing") giving the same speed, comfort und functionality as Aperture does… regarding "Photos for OSX": it's crap (sorry, buth that's the truth…) nothing else as a toy for kids...