Blackmagic Forum

Robert Niessner wrote:

Dennis Sørensen wrote:Thank you very much for this extreeeeeeeeeeme amount of work you have put into it. I think we all owe you big time for this.

In the codecs you wrote: DNG lossless / BRAW Q0 / ProRes HQ

But I dont see the ProRes HQ variant in this comparion?

I didn't include ProRes HQ screenshot because they were indistinguishable to the BRAW samples and wouldn't have added anything to the comparison.

Thanks you for your answer.

rick.lang wrote:Several months after this thread began I wonder if positions have coalesced on the best current practices. Would you kindly comment on which codecs and resolutions you feel would be best for my upcoming music video?

Final deliverables will be either 2K or HD. Want to be able to use both cameras, one shooting BTS and one the music video.

URSA Mini 4.6K - the Music Video:
maximum capture UHD within 1.33x Anamorphot Adapter for 2.39:1 Timeline;
interior and exterior Day;
- should I use CinemaDNG 3:1 24 fps or ProRes 444?

BMPCC4K - the BTS:
could be 4K DCI or UHD, cropped to Widescreen 2.39:1;
interior but might have exterior Day;
- should I use BRAW or ProRes 422 HQ?

Resolve 16 timeline using maximum resolution to Deliver 2K/HD.

I keep vacillating what will work the best. No euros will be harmed or used in this video!

I’d like to use the raw on each camera, but not if that’s a recipe for disaster. Thank you very much for your input.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might find more input to move this to a separate thread. I prefer to work with RAW 3:1 in Resolve in 4.6K - 4K, then ProRes 444 for 2K capture. It might be more of a post processing question with the workflow and tools your comfortable using in Resolve. I can’t speak to best practices. With ProRes 444 my adjustments in Resolve will mostly be with curves. If you have the disk space and computing power Raw 3:1 and 4:1 in 4.6K is a rich workflow.

Thanks, Ryan. I’ll take your advice and create a new topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rick.lang wrote:Several months after this thread began I wonder if positions have coalesced on the best current practices. Would you kindly comment on which codecs and resolutions you feel would be best for my upcoming music video?

Final deliverables will be either 2K or HD. Want to be able to use both cameras, one shooting BTS and one the music video.

URSA Mini 4.6K - the Music Video:
maximum capture UHD within 1.33x Anamorphot Adapter for 2.39:1 Timeline;
interior and exterior Day;
- should I use CinemaDNG 3:1 24 fps or ProRes 444?

BMPCC4K - the BTS:
could be 4K DCI or UHD, cropped to Widescreen 2.39:1;
interior but might have exterior Day;
- should I use BRAW or ProRes 422 HQ?

Resolve 16 timeline using maximum resolution to Deliver 2K/HD.

I keep vacillating what will work the best. No euros will be harmed or used in this video!

I’d like to use the raw on each camera, but not if that’s a recipe for disaster. Thank you very much for your input.

I think with the amount of content you're likely to shoot for a music clip, ProRes 444 for the shoot and BRAW (similar data rate) for BTS. You have to weigh up your post workflow too, especially if you don't have the backing of an established facility.

444 is actually very very robust, and in terms of real world differences, you're not likely to see very much difference at all. It's only when you get into the more extreme ends of grading that there would be any difference and even then it's very small.

The vast majority of the drama content shot for streamers, cable and broadcast is still ProRes 444.

JB

John Brawley wrote:

rick.lang wrote:...
I’d like to use the raw on each camera, but not if that’s a recipe for disaster. Thank you very much for your input.

I think with the amount of content you're likely to shoot for a music clip, ProRes 444 for the shoot and BRAW (similar data rate) for BTS. You have to weigh up your post workflow too...

JB

Thanks, John. Definitely want BRAW Q0 on the BMPCC4K. Post is a concern on this so I’ll give ProRes 444 a try on the URSA Mini 4.6K with the 1.33x anamorphic squeeze. I was thinking due to the anamorphics, CinemaDNG would fare better in post, but I can test that against ProRes 444 in the next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Must of missed this thread when you original posted it.
Great examples and thanks for the work put into this.

Even with my self-diagnosed super vision , I had a hard time noticing a difference in resolution on the money shots (no pun).

Flicking back and forth between the two full-res shots was a really great confirmation on how well the codec holds up.

Some of the other shots the resolution was a little more noticeable, but as mentioned it may be the perceived resolution change due to aliasing etc.

I did notice some color shift in a few areas, but it seems like that is something being worked on.


I love parts of the cDNG workflow, but if it's going to be a relic of the past, or unobtainable, then I'm ok with it being replaced by BRAW. The final images and advantages on whole outweigh any workflow meta that I had a fondness for.

Thanks again for taking the time.

Robert Niessner wrote:I have put all three clips into the playlist of MPC-HC and started to let them play in an endless loop. Waited for a minute without watching so I didn't know which clip was which.

My observations:

Watching the clips downscaled to 1080p on a 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor - no differences can be seen whatsoever. No surprise here.

Watching the clips downscaled to fully height fit into a 34" 3440 x 1440 monitor - no differences can be seen whatsoever.

Watching the clips downscaled to fit into the width of a 34" 3440 x 1440 monitor - tiny differences can be seen - but only if you know where to look for and if you have the possibility to compare to the DNG version. If the clip would be BRAW only - nothing to complain.

Watching the clips at actual 1:1 pixel size on the 34" 3440 x 1440 monitor - differences can be seen if you are used to see 4k. I had no problem to single out the DNG clip anytime out of the three. Again, I have a trained pixel peeper eye, was watching a loop, and knew where to look for differences.

I would say if you record full sensor on the UMP and deliver in UHD, you will never see the difference because you started with an oversampled image.

On the PCC4k this would be another story because you can only record a 1:1 image.

Worst case will be windowed HD on any of the cameras.

When last year I tested my PCC4k in 120fps mode (ProRes) - I was quite surprised that it looked softer than the 120fps from my UM46k. I didn't know back then, that it already got the new debayering, but I immediately saw the difference.

I think BMD can and has to do some improvements on the noise reduction and the way it detects edges. The color haloing on primary color borders is something that needs to be addressed, especially for bluescreen work. It reminds me of the color bleeding of the old 4:1:1 DV codecs. It might be less problematic with greenscreen - but I haven't done any tests on that yet.

Thanks for the tests Robert. I agree with much of your observations, but it has never been about down sampling, and not really about pixel peeping. It has always been about the highest quality option. (as far as the sensor sees it, rather than an approximation how we see it) that you can then work to the best quality. So, it is about 4k on the 4k. Of course Braw is suitable for 2k. Of course downsampled on a lower resolution monitor is going change things. It also means that 4.6k and 6k viewed st their native resolution matters in tests.

With pixel peeping and what people think they perceive. People subconsciously perceive a lot more than the conscious of the brain recognises. Often the conscious mind is the last in in the joke, so to speak. Part or the art is feeling this is better in shooting, versus with all those people with the rules running through their heads missing the moment. So, called pixel peeping makes more obvious what the subconscious perceives and feelings it produces. I still perceive and see difference here without pixel peeping, as I'm sure you will have noticed in your testing yourself.

I missed, is this done more developed version of Braw with less issues?

Do the sample subjects more suit Braw? The original samples that showed Braw issues were different in ways they did. Fine low contrast lines you can feel rather than overtly perceive on the previous banknote sample which I can no longer find, just disappeared into the background. The scene where the netting just blended into each other, again I can no longer find the thread. The bride example with lots of macro blocking, I can no longer find that. Even the thread that discussed how JPEG found in Braw, I can't find (maybe in same thread as the bride one). The only thread I can find after ariund 12 hours if looking for you, is Demitry's Superman figurine thread (similar time to the banknote and netting examples) and the red material comparison examples thread. It would he useful to test on these samples to see how much improvement in gained?

John Paines wrote:

carlomacchiavello wrote:I go back to write my screenplay, if I will write bad also if I shoot it in 16k stereo 3d in odorama it will be a bad products

The joke here is that high resolution on low and ultra-low budget productions absolutely murders the movie. It's impossible to sustain dramatic illusion when the faults of cheap hair, makeup, set design and lighting are seen in all the glory of 4K (and HD is already bad enough).

Look at the paint on the sets on the Fith Element on a modern high contrast TV. The cast also just look like silly people running around in costumes

Valery Axenov wrote:I understand in very deep details what micro contrast means and how it works in graphics. Even if you think that your eyes do not see (or not pay attention) to any fine details/film grain your brain (all the times) evaluate this matter. Your brain understand are there any more information inside of the frame or not. My approach more information to be better in any case (even if do not see it at the moment it works).

Thank you Valery. That is what I have been telling people.

So Robert. In my other thread I have been speculating that Braw (at least old Braw) might have used pixel averaging of adjoined sensor pixels into a single rendered pixel, so that the rendered pixel virtually never contains a sensor pixel all to itself. A 1/2 pixel shift where all pixels are averaged. (A way of low pass filleting, noise reduction, and increasing compressibility). Do you see any evidence if this Robert?

I guess you turned off CDNG sharpening? I'm interested in what real softness differences there are.

Would bi-cubic make the enlargement softer?

Robert, how come such a big size difference between the DNG 3.3 MB and Braw 2.4 MB jpegs of the figurine frames? There couldn't be that much more information in the cdng frame could it?

Wayne Steven wrote:Robert, how come such a big size difference between the DNG 3.3 MB and Braw 2.4 MB jpegs of the figurine frames? There couldn't be that much more information in the cdng frame could it?

Wayne, I think I had to use different compression ratios because of file size restrictions of the forum software.

Robert, how can we compare unless samples are at 100% jpeg?

Wayne Steven wrote:Robert, how can we compare unless samples are at 100% jpeg?

If you are interested, I can provide a download link to the unaltered PNG files from which the JPGs derived.
But I have already used the minimal amount of JPG compression necessary for the forum.

What % is that Robert?

Wayne Steven wrote:What % is that Robert? It's likely that squeezing it too much is going make cdng look more like Braw.

Wayne - it was like 95% vs 92% or something in that ballpark. For comparisons I am always using the least amount of compression possible.

OK. Thanks Robert. I was wondering what was going on, I thought you meant minimal compression rating (%). Which day didn't make sense. But 100% each can be a quick idea of how much extra information cdng is carrying over braw. But then you would have to use temporal techniques to get the noise equivalent. But just the rendered images to lossless would he a good comparison, or stragyht comparison to uncompressed lossless frame and the two formats denoised best temporal methods. But we don't get those options these days. Just very hard to see what's in focus in the figurine sample in order to compare accurately. Welcome to Bayer.

Wayne Steven wrote:

Valery Axenov wrote:I understand in very deep details what micro contrast means and how it works in graphics. Even if you think that your eyes do not see (or not pay attention) to any fine details/film grain your brain (all the times) evaluate this matter. Your brain understand are there any more information inside of the frame or not. My approach more information to be better in any case (even if do not see it at the moment it works).

Thank you Valery. That is what I have been telling people.

Thanks Wayne. The same thing a lot of gays here even do not know that does really 4K means. That is what I have been telling people. Look. First ever 4K camera with real RAW film output. Pocket form factor. And I should say that it is really much better.))

(It was produced by the Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant in the city of Krasnogorsk, Moscow Region in 1956-1973. The most massive and technically advanced model among the "Zorki" cameras.)

Valery Axenov wrote:I understand in very deep details what micro contrast means and how it works in graphics. Even if you think that your eyes do not see (or not pay attention) to any fine details/film grain your brain (all the times) evaluate this matter. Your brain understand are there any more information inside of the frame or not. My approach more information to be better in any case (even if do not see it at the moment it works).

Your preference is not widely shared among actual filmmakers; cinematographers have for years looked for ways to soften the film image, adding to the large generational detail losses already seen, in years past, in 35mm release prints.

Even HD, at the semi-consumer level of BMD cameras, records so much more detail than is available in a 35mm release print, that the drive for capturing still more "micro contrasts", which you claim only the brain can actually "see" (subconsciously?), seems misplaced, among technological ambitions for these cameras, which can't do everything at these prices. Who, for example, would choose greater detail over more dynamic range?

What's changed now is the consumer market driving the resolution wars -- manufacturers who want to sell new TV sets, at ever higher resolutions, and the marketing efforts of companies like Red, which have convinced would-be filmmakers that their careers depend on "future proofing" movies they'll never make or that they won't be able to satisfy the contract they don't have with Netflix without a given resolution.

Meanwhile, cinematographers are still using smoke and detail-reducing filters.

Valery Axenov wrote: First ever 4K camera with real RAW film output. Pocket form factor. And I should say that it is really much better.))

(It was produced by the Krasnogorsk Mechanical Plant in the city of Krasnogorsk, Moscow Region in 1956-1973. The most massive and technically advanced model among the "Zorki" cameras.)

What? First ever 4k camera with real RAW film output?
This is what the Zorki 4K looks like in reality:
http://www.lausch.com/zorki4k_3.jpg

The first Zorkis were exact clones of Leica II, the 4K was normal 35mm film rangefinder camera, nothing special. Zorkis were suffering from mediocre quality control.
https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Zorki-4K

Valery, maybe we should listen to John. Maybe soft images are the professional thing, so something with too much h264/265 compression, those cheapest single chip consumer stills cameras around two decades ago, which had such large spread of light over disconnected pixels olpf and culling of micro contrast under bad high compression, it makes original Braw look really smart, or how about this for professional, not focusing properly? Amazing how those silly people that made movies decades back put in so much over the top hardness that not even multi generations of film print will reduce it enough for his friends. Can you imagine how many generations of these academy award winners there must be doing that loosser stuff.

We can all hide and not wish for better equipment for ourselves and the industry, to suite others.

I wonder what John thinks about those dull lacking life and color on the cheeks, except yellow, softer modern movies these days by 'pros" not really understanding what they are doing? I think I am on the right side

Robert Niessner wrote:
What? First ever 4k camera with real RAW film output?

)) Take it easy. It's Friday evening.)
Hope to the assembly quality of the Soviet Sputnik of 1957 you have no complaints.))

Valery, I have highest respect for what Russians have done in space technology and also mathematics. No complaints here.

And chess!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Wayne and Robert.)

You know Zorki in 60th was fake 4K camera. But it all starts with the original idea. And it was Russian. Now you see.))

Honestly speaking all I try to say here about BRAW that it's seems to be good new codec. With better container than CDNG. Only one thing it should be improved in future to, let say, HQ0 option that will resolve the same details and micro contrast as original CDNG. And all questions will be closed.

So all your fogs and filters one will be able to apply directly in your camera or in post production depends upon your original ideas. Flexibility is the main reason.

ps Black Magic Design and Russian Space program. I'v got for $10,-)) here in Petersburg on "flea market" great lens block from our Moon program MIR-29T (10mm/F2.5) which covers at least 4/3 sensor (may be more). The same lens used in camera on Russian Moon rover (Lunohod). It is in standard of our cinema OKS lenses so will put easily in one of my OKS bodies for my BM camera.

Valery Axenov wrote:Only one thing it should be improved in future to, let say, HQ0 option that will resolve the same details and micro contrast as original CDNG. And all questions will be closed.

I hope you are right, and many of use want CDNG quality from Braw. But I believe that’s unlikely, based on the Braw patent and history of similar codecs. CDNG is more like a typical RAW format, Braw is a heavy compressed format by nature. If you look at redcode, which is a much more developed codec but similar to BRAW, than you see that RED have never actually cracked the code so to speak. Answer to your question is supersampling. Shoot at higher resolution. Interestingly, looking back at the early Red cameras, they did in fact include true RAW, and redcode as an option. Raw as visual superior, redcode as compressed raw. Problem with true RAW is the immense file size. Not even big budget production want to use it.
Cdng in the other hand is quite manageable IMO. It’s a shame BM had to take it out. Still.. I find BRAW more than capable to be used in any production. It’s just a matter of time before we see it in high budget movies and series.

Yep, 8k for good 2k delivery. . Or 4k.

I still don't like the comparisons here, they both don't look that sharp.

Wayne Steven wrote:Yep, 8k for good 2k delivery. . Or 4k.

I still don't like the comparisons here, they both don't look that sharp.

I agree it’s a bit silly. 4K for 4K should be a given these days.. but it’s not. Looking back on history we also see the same problem in the early HD period. None of the 1080p cameras really gave 1080 lines of data, the ones that came close to 900 was incredible sharp. Even really good 720p cameras could beat a more consumer 1080p camera and I’m not even talking about the dreadful 1080i format (540 lines respectfully). So supersampling is not that uncommon looking at the history. Star Wars episode II was shoot in 4:4:4 2k. It was true 2k pixel by pixel. But the data management was a nightmare and not a realistic future. Even modern Bayern 2.8k can’t beat that image quality. A Bayern 4K might (downsampled). But really. The quality we saw in the first digital cinemas back than blowed away any analog 35mm film when it came to detail and sharpens. That’s 2k, not 4K. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY complained about soft images. It was wowed. And it still holds up IMO. Still we are nerds, and want something better. That’s the nature of it. I’m one of them, same as you Steven

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:Still we are nerds, and want something better. That’s the nature of it. I’m one of them, same as you Steven

Okay, but a camera is an instrument for producing art, or some semblance of it. This passion for detail would be better applied to another technology, like medical imaging or electron microscopes, where these advances would be of use.

But for traditional cinema, more detail may actually be a demerit; in any event, "more" isn't necessarily "better". Even the HDR push is more consumer marketing than any serious attempt to make movies better, but at least greater DR makes sense at the capture stage.

John Paines wrote:

Oyvind Fiksdal wrote:Still we are nerds, and want something better. That’s the nature of it. I’m one of them, same as you Steven

Okay, but a camera is an instrument for producing art, or some semblance of it. This passion for detail would be better applied to another technology, like medical imaging or electron microscopes, where these advances would be of use.

But for traditional cinema, more detail may actually be a demerit; in any event, "more" isn't necessarily "better". Even the HDR push is more consumer marketing than any serious attempt to make movies better, but at least greater DR makes sense at the capture stage.

You know what John. I totally agree. Its’s complicated. No wonder why every closeup, beauty shot, on star trek looked like 2x mist filter. My problem is that I keep one foot in one end, and the other foot in another end. And I am not a good gymnastic. The split is hard and uncomfortable. But I can’t deny the urge of longing for something technical better. Still, I prefer the old school cinematic look. Not clinical or high-res by any means. It’s a paradox, and quite silly. But it is what it is.

Even though the topic is about UMP. The P4K is one of the best cameras I ever owned. Not solely because of imagery, but the combination of size and technology. The ability to bring it along, in most situations. Like a backpack on a trip or stealth in a crowd. BRAW makes it truly powerful when it comes to editing. BUT.. I bought the P4K before BRAW, and tasted the forbidden fruit. CDNG on the Pocket 4k. My biggest problem is 120fps 1080p. BRAW in this case is not even close to CDNG. It was like losing a major functionality. If the news about a possible 2.8k BRAW 120fps on the p4k is real… well that would be truly awesome. To be fair, the 120fps BRAW Q0 on the P4K is usable… It’s just that I have the ability to compare against something better. I hope you understand the conundrum.

John, do you honestly believe that sharpness and micro contrast detail are not art, that they can't be used artistically?

People used to have this discussion about noise in film too, but now we don't give it Mich of a thought. Maybe sharpness would reveal the grain of film too much over the top of the details in those days.

Oyvind, sure 4k for 4k would be great, I advocate for that too, but its Bayer which makes it difficult. So, 8k for 4k helps, and for 2k, even more. It can be used to emulate optical low pass filter spread with slightly less sharpness compared to 2k 4:4:4.


But, mildly olp filtered 4:4:4 vertical colour filtered, is just cheaper compared to Bayer, because of the quality of Bayer which requires higher resolution to get better colour etc. So, while people are going for 16 and 32k bayer sensors, I would be reasonably happy with a excellent 8k vertical layered sensor, at less data rate. Even 4k can blow things away. BM should look at vertical colour filtered sensors. If Arri used that, it would blow away Bayer camera companies, Red might not known what to do when the test results come in, and industry starts to rave about it. Even at 2k, you would be looking at something that stacks well against 4k Bayer.

Wayne Steven wrote:Oyvind, sure 4k for 4k would be great, I advocate for that too, but its Bayer which makes it difficult. So, 8k for 4k helps, and for 2k, even more. It can be used to emulate optical low pass filter spread with slightly less sharpness compared to 2k 4:4:4.

That's utter bogus.

No one should care right now about Bayer sensors unless they're an engineer working on sensors. It's nice to have knowledge about how sensors work, it's true... but then there's the practical reality.

People have been PRINTING images shot with Bayer patterns sensors for years. If you think there's something wrong with them, tell Peter Lik that his images aren't any good because of the Bayer pattern... and tell his buyers who hang his work in their private galleries.

Or the galleries that have shown my images printed, originated in film and digital right next to each other... think any of the gallery visitors could tell the difference?

(Some art aficionados would have been able to because my film shots were done on view cameras, and some folks can recognize the telltale signs of perspective manipulation and seemingly infinite depth of field that isn't possible with a flatback digital camera.)

The current standard for theatrical release is 2K. Most films released in 4K digital IMAX are up-rezzed from those masters.

Most of those films that are available on 4K UHD/HDR disk are the same 4K up-rezzed masters.

So... the debate is ridiculous, pointless, and misguided. It's nothing but a distraction from doing what the cameras are for: making images.

Cameras will continue to improve, and sooner or later we'll get a full RGB sensor that doesn't require interpolating color... but in the mean time, what we have access to now is phenomenal, and thanks to companies like Black Magic, affordable.

It's late Rakesh. And as usual, with most of your articles I have read, what would you know? You could try reading the articles at the site you publish on.

I don't have time for your bombing. Real professionals are talking about this, you might try doing some real research, and listening rather t sprouting off. You obviously left out foveon, and don't know the deficiencies of Bayer companies like Canon etc, used oversampling to avoid, that there is a ridiculous push to 16k-32k rather than do one decent foveon based 4k or 8k sensor. Obviously if you shoot with a still beyond 4k you are doing it for increased quality. Go back to SD on a fast film on a contrasty scene in monochrome and hang it up. If you are good people will like that too. They hangup white canvases and multiple coloured bars too, and people like them. But this is professionalism and serving consumer audiences, not pretentious art snobs. I could probably give you a new masterpiece, a white canvas with a small dark leaf coloured dot in the middle you can barely see!

Guys. I'm suspecting Arri is emulating 4:4:4 as close as they can, and am interested in giving that a go too, with my own techniques. The guy with the technical academy award for removing suspension harness wires from footage, I forget his name now. We don't always agree, but we were both virtually blinking in disbelief at each other when Gramme Natress couldn't see his techniques of how you could increase resolution of Bayer footage according to his techniques (I could see what he meant, BM should go and talk to him. He disappeared from red user. I don't remember if he discussed that publicly or not, but I'll give him due respect). But, from my previous work stemming from the 1990's, its a lot of extra work for a system fixing Bayer. I suspect Arii doesn't have the full solution set yet. There is a lot of fanpraise put on Graeme, but the universe is more wide than we think. It's only when we get a feel of how wide the real universe is, that we approach real wisdom. A child sees the boundaries of their small universe as so wide, but as you grow, you see the boundaries as wider and wider.

Many full cups.

Wayne, are you talking about the improved Kimmel algorithm (Lubakin, Kubasov, et al)?
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... erpolation

And I found this very actual study of state of the art demosaicing algorithms, which are using neural networks for improving the quality.

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/senso ... -03215.pdf

Thanks for the links Robert . Interesting stuff.

Thanks Robert, but no. I have not read those. I'm referring to the qualities of the image, how well it holds up compared to competing "colour sciences" and black boxing. From my looking at the problem space, it occurs to me that they must be using processing strategies to archive this over the competition.

As far as neural networks, I believe in doing it right procedurally through selective calculation, then you might get hardly any benefit from neural networks. A hint, neural networks might be good to find these procedures. You look and say why did it do that and what happened, and construct a procedure from there. But, is that patentable, as the network discovered that as "obvious" without your intervention.

Wayne Steven wrote:I don't have time for your bombing. Real professionals are talking about this,

Wrong. Real professionals are using their cameras instead of worrying about things that only matter to the engineers making the cameras.

They are the real professionals!

This kind of discussion often get a bit polarized.

Most professional can make good quality with h264 format, or less. But, most professionals also want to use powerful solution. Like robust codecs, if possible. BRAW is obviously good enough IMO. I bet anyone that work with a RAW format realize that BRAW is good enough, after using it. Perfect? Maybe not. But it also depend on the values you are after. From my perspective. Cdng is horrible on a laptop. Braw, smooth as butter. I made a short vignette on a laptop, at the airport. Had one hour to cut, color grade and distribute. Worked flawless with BRAW. And I had all my gear(p4k and several lenses++), and laptop, without checking in luggage. Pretty awesome times. I had so many batteries that they stopped me at both ends of the trip, that was the biggest problem.

Going on discussions a long time ago (before Braw I think). I don't think cdng is the problem, rather how cdng is handled. I advocated putting it in a serialised container, or serialised file (likely also with meta data, as I advocated before cineform raw. I've been around a long time and have contributed heaps to the community. If certain people don't like it, get a life and go away). To speed up handing by minimising handling of file system structures by the computers file system. However, there will be certain advantage in Braw because of the part debayering and denoising, which is also it's disadvantage. So, make a pick. I take Braw as a better alternative to prores, rather than cdng, but the ignorant know it all masses of serial complainers can never really contemplate things like that easily. In design, it's about what realistically can be done, not about what wasn't doable out of poor design. But know it alls often don't have very good design minds, otherwise they would he contributing rather than complaining.

There is a difference between making do with what you got professionally, and doing best quality you can, and designing better quality. Tip the hat at all of them. But not to people that want to stop up rivers and tell others, no further, for no good reason.

I should explain. With my brain disease, things are clearing up. There were large sections going wrong, and a significant level of permanent damage, but we have been praying and doing treatments to reverse the larger sections. I am getting old abilities returning, praise God. Last night I worked on a new idea, that could achieve over a trillion, trillion operations per square meter. This is a bit similar to one of my old design proposals, but faster. Very happy. Then I switched over to my other design goal, basic level processing which is many magnitudes beyond that. Good to be back.

Fantastic news and so rare!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you Rick.

Good to hear Steven, hope you get much better.

Is there a way to reset/flash my URSA MINI PRO 4.6K back to the CDNG Firmware?
I use this camera mainly for VFX work, and I'm very disappointed with my green screen result with BRAW. BRAW does some color compressions(that's a fakt), and that's the worst thing you can do if you want a perfect key. I did a quick test with my old Sony FS700 with an Odysee Q7 (4K 12Bit CDNG) recorder against the URSA with BRAW and I got shocking better results with the old Sony.

Have you tried Q0? That's been posted here a few times.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk