Denoising diminishes braw and prores detail

I have a newer bmpcc4k that cannot downgrade to firmware 6.1 (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=90870)
So I am stuck with braw it seems, and I am honestly very frustrated with the lack of details that braw presents, especially on low contrasty textures or far away faces. The lack of detail and muddiness is very visible even on a 1080p screen with no cropping done, and with the camera being advertised as 4k, I should've been able to crop 2x and still get a true 1080p image, however braw can't even provide me a decent 1080p image at 1.5x crop at 4 megapixels, where as in my comparison, the cdng stills was absolutely able to crop 2x no problem, and beautifully preserved every texture detail in the scene. (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing) And after a bit of research, it seems like blackmagic aggressively denoises and resharpens the footage inside the camera first before it gets packaged up as braw. This is very disappointing to me since other compressed raw formats such as zraw do not touch the image at all other then partially demosicaing the data inside the camera. Which leads to much superior detail and resolution in the files out of the card, and thus giving the user the ability to perform better denoising or resharpening in the editing software while keeping the resolution. I love blackmagic raw's speed and workflow, but with such a muddy image, and blackmagic sneakily killing off all possibilities of cdng, I'm left very disappointed with braw, so if at least blackmagic can let users choose the denoising and sharpening level inside the camera, that would partially salvage the resolution side of the fantastic image out of the bmpcc4k.

Anyways, braw has other benefits that are not simply whether or not it is sharper out of the box compared to other codecs. My experience with cdng out of the pocket 4k camera, since I own one of the first batch cameras, is that it required a lot of denoising and I ended up with roughly the same level of detail at the end of the pipe. 4:1 cdng was unusable for me. I have had individuals comment on how amazingly sharp my videos are even with YouTube compression, and I crop in pretty far for interviews to get a second angle.

Have you tried q0 or 3:1? I shoot 5:1 maximum. You haven't identified a compression rate or anything nor have you provided examples of your findings or how you work the footage so I guess you're here to complain and not get any actual help.

Good luck.

Anyways, braw has other benefits that are not simply whether or not it is sharper out of the box compared to other codecs. My experience with cdng out of the pocket 4k camera, since I own one of the first batch cameras, is that it required a lot of denoising and I ended up with roughly the same level of detail at the end of the pipe. 4:1 cdng was unusable for me. I have had individuals comment on how amazingly sharp my videos are even with YouTube compression, and I crop in pretty far for interviews to get a second angle.

Have you tried q0 or 3:1? I shoot 5:1 maximum. You haven't identified a compression rate or anything nor have you provided examples of your findings or how you work the footage so I guess you're here to complain and not get any actual help.

Good luck.

Thank you for the insight. Personally I actually like noise and grains in a shot, and the noise that I get from cdng is more then acceptable for me. That’s why I would rather sacrifice the denoising for extra detail in the braw files. Cropping is the thing I want the extra resolution for, second angles. With braw the amount of cropping was next to nothing before it wasn’t a 1080p image anymore, that’s why I would want extra detail from the bmpcc4k. Braw is a great codec to work with, especially at low compression rates like 3:1 and q0, the compression artifacts are almost the same as cdng. That’s why I think if blackmagic could salvage the resolution of braw. I would be very satisfied with the bmpcc4k. I shot all of my comparisons (included in my original post) at 3:1 or q0 (2:1). And the textural detail didn’t improve over the higher compression rates. There were less compression artifacts but the image was just as muddy. So that’s why I think it’s the fault of denoising and resharpening

Don't say that around here, people officially think that doesn't exist.

Yes, I have been asking for a more like zraw for years at lower compression, at least a few options to turn certain things off. But, the real issues are the spatial denoising blurring the picture and lowering contrast which is also a technique of heavy compression. I think this is also an attempt of getting rid of natural aliasing artifacts that the sensor sees without the low pass filter, really no better than could be done with the right software afterwards. But as people who argue don't know what they are talking about around here, and just clog up the place with self-denial. It's as if I have to get out of a sick bed, describe my own IP, giving it away, make a program for them, and maybe even give it to them for free, rather than them doing any effort thinking or looking for an alternative solution, in total self entitlement. Plus, their vision issues. I don't think I left out many details. Been plenty of threads on it in the past which people have consistently bombed. So, hopefully they won't do that to you here.

There is another issue, good vision is less contrasty due to higher dynamic range. So, silicon has up to around 17 stops range on the best sensors, but whatever capability the model of sensor has, a number of stops are lost in noise. But braw I think tries to squeeze more of those stops into the average visual range people concentrate on, making it look like it has more dynamic range, and more smoothed out, on top of the spatial and compression stuff. This might be all causing what you see.

On zcam, their is something interesting you will see on dynamic range tile tests. While it says it has more stops than the pocket 4k, it falls into noise much faster when it gets noisy. It really has little more dynamic range than the pocket 4k if you work the stops disappearing into the noise floor. What sensor manufacturer do they use, it's more like a Fairchild in it's last stops? The dynamic range values used now are based on an acceptable quality level rather real dynamic range. If only it was simpler to get to those extra stops on all cameras. Maybe Braw will further enhance this and; offer a mode more like zraw with more bits as well, and jpegs latest infrastructure codec which can offer a lot more quality at the same data rate.

Mind you, I also was advocating diverting quality away from certain areas in the image, to devote more to foreground faces and objects. That would cause what you are seeing too, if over done. Do a test between the two highest datarate modes and 12:1, too see how much difference it makes?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the 6k was better at this when downscaled in post to 4k.


Have a good day.

The noise from the pocket 4K CDNG is mostly artifacts AKA false detail, not grain, and a lot of color noise that must be corrected for a proper image or to do any kind of proper keying for grading. I hear this a lot, that CDNG has better details and people are OK with grain, but reality is the the CDNG from this Pocket 4K in particular produces an image best denoised to begin with and when you do that, you are left with something pretty much exactly like what you see in braw. And you can easily get the same level of sharpness as CDNG at the end of the pipe by simply adding sharpening, and there are many ways to do this and achieve results that don't look like you sharpened the footage at all.

Since CDNG produces a lot of false detail anyways, adding sharpening to details at the end of the pipe produces an image with as much or less artifacts by comparison to CDNG.

This is what I have discovered after using the camera since its release.

I have found 8:1 to be a great compromise compression rate, 5:1 for images that need a little more detail or shot for slow motion, and 3:1 for shots I plan to crop in to 2x or shoot in 120p. Q5 is great for screwing around shooting whatever for fun and has an incredible amount of play in the file as well and the compression for it can be pretty unbelievable in terms of space you can save.

TO be honest, since the release of braw, I have found the codec to be indispensable and now want every camera I use to have it or something similar to it so I am a bit disheartened that you have such a negative view of the codec compared to the cumbersome CDNG.

Wayne, I think the majority of us in the forum in the discussion about this topic are well aware of your views on the matter.

Personally, as someone who shoots, colors, edits for a living, I find braw far more useful than CDNG regardless of the proof or lack of proof that there are or are not more or less details in braw compared to CDNG. In reality, as I have said multiple times on this forum, the small bit of detail people talk about with CDNG are not visible in a normal viewing of material in the deliverable, especially if you are streaming the product.

Whether or not there is a hair or more detail in a pixel of fabric doesn't really matter to me at all. I want as much dynamic range and color flexibility in post as possible to allow for adjustments to shots and avoid any reshoots while also having a choice of compression rates. Braw provides that and has more than enough detail for HD/2K deliverables, which is what I and many others bought this camera for in the first place. It does the job extremely well.

Personally I believe, if you want those extra details out of the box for 4K products, you are probably better of with the 6K version of the pocket camera.

The noise from the pocket 4K CDNG is mostly artifacts AKA false detail, not grain, and a lot of color noise that must be corrected for a proper image or to do any kind of proper keying for grading. I hear this a lot, that CDNG has better details and people are OK with grain, but reality is the the CDNG from this Pocket 4K in particular produces an image best denoised to begin with and when you do that, you are left with something pretty much exactly like what you see in braw. And you can easily get the same level of sharpness as CDNG at the end of the pipe by simply adding sharpening, and there are many ways to do this and achieve results that don't look like you sharpened the footage at all.

Since CDNG produces a lot of false detail anyways, adding sharpening to details at the end of the pipe produces an image with as much or less artifacts by comparison to CDNG.

This is what I have discovered after using the camera since its release.

I have found 8:1 to be a great compromise compression rate, 5:1 for images that need a little more detail or shot for slow motion, and 3:1 for shots I plan to crop in to 2x or shoot in 120p. Q5 is great for screwing around shooting whatever for fun and has an incredible amount of play in the file as well and the compression for it can be pretty unbelievable in terms of space you can save.

TO be honest, since the release of braw, I have found the codec to be indispensable and now want every camera I use to have it or something similar to it so I am a bit disheartened that you have such a negative view of the codec compared to the cumbersome CDNG.

Please checkout the example I have in my original post, cdng clearly has way more actual detail then braw. And I’m just advocating for user selectable denoising level in braw really. I personally use 5:1 and still find it hella soft compared to cdng. That’s why I’d like to see user selectable denoising and sharpening level inside the camera

Wayne, I think the majority of us in the forum in the discussion about this topic are well aware of your views on the matter.

Personally, as someone who shoots, colors, edits for a living, I find braw far more useful than CDNG regardless of the proof or lack of proof that there are or are not more or less details in braw compared to CDNG. In reality, as I have said multiple times on this forum, the small bit of detail people talk about with CDNG are not visible in a normal viewing of material in the deliverable, especially if you are streaming the product.

Whether or not there is a hair or more detail in a pixel of fabric doesn't really matter to me at all. I want as much dynamic range and color flexibility in post as possible to allow for adjustments to shots and avoid any reshoots while also having a choice of compression rates. Braw provides that and has more than enough detail for HD/2K deliverables, which is what I and many others bought this camera for in the first place. It does the job extremely well.

Personally I believe, if you want those extra details out of the box for 4K products, you are probably better of with the 6K version of the pocket camera.

For me personally, buying a camera that was advertised as 4k means that I should be able to crop in 2x and still get a 1080p image. And not being able to do even close to that not has made me incredibly frustrated. I really like the braw's speed and workflow, it's just that I'd want a user selectable denoising/sharpening level inside the camera to improve the textural detail of the footage.

... CDNG is mostly artifacts AKA false detail...

Sorry, but that's not true. Read here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936
And then look at the solution: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936&start=500#p441271

So what CDNG and false details are spread is not true. It can simply be corrected afterwards, without loss of sharpness.

This thread seems familiar. Haha

This thread seems familiar. Haha

Oh god I hope this doesn't turn into one of those arguing cdng vs braw threads. I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

I must have missed the shared images so I apologize for missing that.

What I see is way more noise in one image compared to the other at full screen.

The DNG has more noise and zig zags that must be denoised and smoothed. Also, we are not using a stills camera, we are using a motion picture camera, so the proper way in my opinion to show images really is to show in motion. Was the tree moving more in one image than the other? How am I to know? Can we see the difference when the shot is in motion? No idea with the given examples.

When CDNG images are in motion, the noise and false details are very obvious and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The details that others call "false detail" actually take shape and are distracting to me when they are not denoised and smoothed. The zigzags on the frames of the cars in dirty parking lot image shows this.

My opinion is that motion picture is an end results procedure with the aim to make motion pictures that are viewed at full size and views at a certain distance, not examined 1:1 pixel level on a still frame of an un-developed image.

This means that in reality, in my opinion, we are best comparing our end results to see if there is or isn't a real difference in actual use of the footage. This has been done previously on this very forum as well as in tests I have done myself and the results show, in my experience, that in the real world the details people complain about not appearing in braw are not discernible or noticeable unless you develop and view the image in a way no human being will ever consume the product in the first place.

The DNG has more noise and zig zags that must be denoised and smoothed....

Unfortunately I edited the previous post too late... Again:

Read here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936
And then look at the solution: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936&start=500#p441271

So what CDNG and false details are spread is not true. It can simply be corrected afterwards, without loss of sharpness.

RAW means RAW to me, which means that nothing is denoised internally. The RAW user can then do this himself as he wants to have it.

Wayne, I think the majority of us in the forum in the discussion about this topic are well aware of your views on the matter.

Personally, as someone who shoots, colors, edits for a living, I find braw far more useful than CDNG regardless of the proof or lack of proof that there are or are not more or less details in braw compared to CDNG. In reality, as I have said multiple times on this forum, the small bit of detail people talk about with CDNG are not visible in a normal viewing of material in the deliverable, especially if you are streaming the product.

Whether or not there is a hair or more detail in a pixel of fabric doesn't really matter to me at all. I want as much dynamic range and color flexibility in post as possible to allow for adjustments to shots and avoid any reshoots while also having a choice of compression rates. Braw provides that and has more than enough detail for HD/2K deliverables, which is what I and many others bought this camera for in the first place. It does the job extremely well.

Personally I believe, if you want those extra details out of the box for 4K products, you are probably better of with the 6K version of the pocket camera.

For me personally, buying a camera that was advertised as 4k means that I should be able to crop in 2x and still get a 1080p image. And not being able to do even close to that not has made me incredibly frustrated. I really like the braw's speed and workflow, it's just that I'd want a user selectable denoising/sharpening level inside the camera to improve the textural detail of the footage.

Not all same "K" images are equal. They are pretty much always different with some cameras out resolving the other at the same K. You can see this clearly when you test cameras with the exact same MP count that certain cameras can be sharper with the same glass on it. Pixel count and the resolution are not really the same thing because there are tons of other things going on that determine what the camera actually resolves, including the codec. A camera shooting compressed 4K from a 6K super sample is likely to be sharper than native 4k for example.

Firstly, I wrote that 6k Braw would probably deliver better 4k in the post you responded to and told me the same thing. So, please don't bomb without reading.

This was examined elsewhere and dramatic examples of big differences posted on this forum. You were there? The linked frames in those threads, and I think some threads themselves, started to disappear. But they were there and witnessed, unsubjectively. However, I was talking to Jack, who wasn't familiar rather than anybody else.

Now. If you read what I have written previously, and here, is that the sensor does naturaly not see what Braw presents, but what cdng does present it, which is why it is the superior format when used in lossless. Braw lacks a certain level, and trying to convince people they have not seen the evidence of their eyes compared to zcam, is not on. I see you are hassling to all of us, to convince us Braw is something like magical, so to speak. It's not, it is what it is, and can be more. You also try to make out about the post processing superiority, which is caused by its light weightless, the use of a combined file (which could be fine with cdng) instead of a series of frames, and only a result on inadequate systems. If Jack wants cdng to get better real details, let him it's not really going be resolved until BM implements an extra quality Braw mode that also allows one to turn down spatial denoising. Combining that with the newer form of jpeg I mentioned, will give you maybe the same datarate. At the moment it apparently is jpeg 1 like cdng, so basically like cdng/ProRes/jpeg lossy processed and repackaged.

I must have missed the shared images so I apologize for missing that.

What I see is way more noise in one image compared to the other at full screen.

The DNG has more noise and zig zags that must be denoised and smoothed. Also, we are not using a stills camera, we are using a motion picture camera, so the proper way in my opinion to show images really is to show in motion. Was the tree moving more in one image than the other? How am I to know? Can we see the difference when the shot is in motion? No idea with the given examples.

When CDNG images are in motion, the noise and false details are very obvious and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The details that others call "false detail" actually take shape and are distracting to me when they are not denoised and smoothed. The zigzags on the frames of the cars in dirty parking lot image shows this.

My opinion is that motion picture is an end results procedure with the aim to make motion pictures that are viewed at full size and views at a certain distance, not examined 1:1 pixel level on a still frame of an un-developed image.

This means that in reality, in my opinion, we are best comparing our end results to see if there is or isn't a real difference in actual use of the footage. This has been done previously on this very forum as well as in tests I have done myself and the results show, in my experience, that in the real world the details people complain about not appearing in braw are not discernible or noticeable unless you develop and view the image in a way no human being will ever consume the product in the first place.

Sorry about the lack of motion examples, there were cars driving around and it would've been impossible for me to motion track a mask on to their plates while still uploading the original uncompressed files. I definitely see the extra aliasing in those scenes with cdng. But since braw has a higher level of moire I think it all equals out. In the end I just want second angles out of the bmpcc4k, since this camera is advertised as 4k, so it would be natural for me to want to crop into it for a tighter shot. and if braw could manage that by giving us options for denoising and resharpening inside the camera I think that it would be wonderful.

Wayne, I think the majority of us in the forum in the discussion about this topic are well aware of your views on the matter.

Personally, as someone who shoots, colors, edits for a living, I find braw far more useful than CDNG regardless of the proof or lack of proof that there are or are not more or less details in braw compared to CDNG. In reality, as I have said multiple times on this forum, the small bit of detail people talk about with CDNG are not visible in a normal viewing of material in the deliverable, especially if you are streaming the product.

Whether or not there is a hair or more detail in a pixel of fabric doesn't really matter to me at all. I want as much dynamic range and color flexibility in post as possible to allow for adjustments to shots and avoid any reshoots while also having a choice of compression rates. Braw provides that and has more than enough detail for HD/2K deliverables, which is what I and many others bought this camera for in the first place. It does the job extremely well.

Personally I believe, if you want those extra details out of the box for 4K products, you are probably better of with the 6K version of the pocket camera.

For me personally, buying a camera that was advertised as 4k means that I should be able to crop in 2x and still get a 1080p image. And not being able to do even close to that not has made me incredibly frustrated. I really like the braw's speed and workflow, it's just that I'd want a user selectable denoising/sharpening level inside the camera to improve the textural detail of the footage.

Not all same "K" images are equal. They are pretty much always different with some cameras out resolving the other at the same K. You can see this clearly when you test cameras with the exact same MP count that certain cameras can be sharper with the same glass on it. Pixel count and the resolution are not really the same thing because there are tons of other things going on that determine what the camera actually resolves, including the codec. A camera shooting compressed 4K from a 6K super sample is likely to be sharper than native 4k for example.

Well yeah of course, an 4k prores file out of the p6k is gonna give much better results then the p4k. But when my panasonic g7, which also shoots pixel to pixel 4k, provides that 2x cropability, on a 100mbps h.264 codec. I'd expect the bmpcc4k to at least give me some flexibilities in terms of cropability when i was shooting at 7-800mbps.

The DNG has more noise and zig zags that must be denoised and smoothed....

Unfortunately I edited the previous post too late... Again:

Read here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936
And then look at the solution: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51936&start=500#p441271

So what CDNG and false details are spread is not true. It can simply be corrected afterwards, without loss of sharpness.

RAW means RAW to me, which means that nothing is denoised internally. The RAW user can then do this himself as he wants to have it.

Braw is a codec with the functionality of raw. For all work purposes in my view it does the same thing with a partial demosaic in camera, likely to deal with patent suits. I am not really that interested in arguing which is sharper at a zoomed in microscopic view or what raw really is. BMD has been up front with what braw does from the very beginning and has explained it a number of times so you either believe its good enough for you or not.

CDNG DOES have false details due to the way it works which end up having to be smoothed out like the thread you pointed to states. The thread points to a work around to get rid of artifacts, clearly, so they are having to put their heads together to figure out a method to deal with artifacts, which I said you have to deal with regarding CDNG in the first place. How you decide to do itand whether or not you can see enough of a difference in the final product to warrant the additional space you require and workarounds to deal with it is up to you.

I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

False detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

I owned the G7 for years. The G7 has in camera sharpening even at the lowest settings and super samples from a larger image as well, so a sharper image could be expected out of the box.

I used it for a number of personal projects years ago and although it provides a sharper picture, it does not at all provide the dynamic range nor the post production capabilities of the pocket 4K and it also has a lot more artifacts in shadows, meaning you likely need to denoise regardless.

I now use an XH1 as a personal camera and it has a sharper 4K image but also lacks dynamic range as well as flexibility in post compared to the pocket 4k. It is a trade off clearly.

I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

False detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

Are the expectations for a 1300 dollar camera offering multiple raw codec compression that allows raw flexibility on a UHS1 SD card boundless? Of course they are.

I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

False detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

It definitely has practical significances for my type of work, where I would need various angles coming from a wide shot. And when you consider that the blackmagic once was able to achieve the true pixel resolution, but then sneakily took that away without telling anybody. It would be quite misleading considering all of the early reviews misrepresenting the level of detail out of the bmpcc4k, that's why I'm advocating for blackmagic to at least let us control the amount of denoising and sharpening inside the camera

John, Braw is more complex and cdng was on the camera previously, so it's hardly boundless to get something simpler that was there before, or even to turn down some complex denoising feature and compress less, just a bit more flexibility.

I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

False detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

Are the expectations for a 1300 dollar camera offering multiple raw codec compression that allows raw flexibility on a UHS1 SD card boundless? Of course they are.

If it was on 12:1 and 8:1. Sure, but my tests were shot at q0 at a compression of merely 2:1. So the results were quite a bit lackluster in my opinion. I think braw is a great codec, but it's just this one area that I would like to see blackmagic improve on by giving us user selectable denoising/sharpening levels.

I owned the G7 for years. The G7 has in camera sharpening even at the lowest settings and super samples from a larger image as well, so a sharper image could be expected out of the box.

I used it for a number of personal projects years ago and although it provides a sharper picture, it does not at all provide the dynamic range nor the post production capabilities of the pocket 4K and it also has a lot more artifacts in shadows, meaning you likely need to denoise regardless.

I now use an XH1 as a personal camera and it has a sharper 4K image but also lacks dynamic range as well as flexibility in post compared to the pocket 4k. It is a trade off clearly.

Well of course the g7 has worse dynamic range and color compared to the pocket. I love the image coming out of the bmpcc4k, it's just that resolution is the one area that my work needs to utilise. So it would be nice for blackmagic to provide us with better braw controls inside the camera.

I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

False detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

It definitely has practical significances for my type of work, where I would need various angles coming from a wide shot. And when you consider that the blackmagic once was able to achieve the true pixel resolution, but then sneakily took that away without telling anybody. It would be quite misleading considering all of the early reviews misrepresenting the level of detail out of the bmpcc4k, that's why I'm advocating for blackmagic to at least let us control the amount of denoising and sharpening inside the camera

I have no idea what work you do that requires a large level of detail at a 2X crop from a 4K image but can't afford to sharpen the image in post or provide then a higher resolution camera for such work, but I do crops from 8:1 ALL the time and it works for HD production just fine.

BMD did not sneakily remove CDNG and their BRAW codec was also clearly explained multiple times by the team. This was all made crystal clear when they did it and if you just bought the camera, it has been this way for a very, very long time.

Your solution is to return the camera and get a different one.

I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

False detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

It definitely has practical significances for my type of work, where I would need various angles coming from a wide shot. And when you consider that the blackmagic once was able to achieve the true pixel resolution, but then sneakily took that away without telling anybody. It would be quite misleading considering all of the early reviews misrepresenting the level of detail out of the bmpcc4k, that's why I'm advocating for blackmagic to at least let us control the amount of denoising and sharpening inside the camera

It may have "practical significance" for you, but it has none to viewers of ultra-low budget movies. There are interminable threads here which require 3x zoom, in order to lose sleep over loss of "quality". All for a <$1500 camera.

It's not as if the BMPCC 4K is the only camera on the market, and it's far from self-evident that BMD can offer what you ask for.

I have no idea what work you do that requires a large level of detail at a 2X crop from a 4K image but can't afford to sharpen the image in post or provide then a higher resolution camera for such work, but I do crops from 8:1 ALL the time and it works for HD production just fine.

BMD did not sneakily remove CDNG and their BRAW codec was also clearly explained multiple times by the team. This was all made crystal clear when they did it and if you just bought the camera, it has been this way for a very, very long time.

Your solution is to return the camera and get a different one.

I can't even get a decent 1080p image out of a mere 1.3x crops a lot of times. and that's the problem. if blackmagic has been up front and clear about the inability for new pockets to downgrade to cdng on heir press release or something, maybe I would've went in buying the camera knowing better. But they only explained it in their hard to find forum replies. And unfortunately there are no new p4ks that can downgrade to the 6.1 firmware, so that's why I would at least like to see some user controllable level of denoising and sharpening inside the camera.

It may have "practical significance" for you, but it has none to viewers of ultra-low budget movies. There are interminable threads here which require 3x zoom, in order to lose sleep over loss of "quality". All for a <$1500 camera.

It's not as if the BMPCC 4K is the only camera on the market, and it's far from self-evident that BMD can offer what you ask for.

I don't work with narrative works, and honestly for those work i wouldn't really care for this kind of stuff, since I can always spend the time to frame the shots properly. But with my type of work I would need to do at least a 1.3x crop to get a second angle. And for a camera that says 4k in the name I thought that at least that would be possible. And I feel like everybody is misinterrupting me as attacking the bmpcc4k, I really like this camera and it's image, braw is also a pleasure to work with. That's why I'm just asking for a user selectable denoising/sharpening level inside the camera.

This thread seems familiar. Haha

Oh god I hope this doesn't turn into one of those arguing cdng vs braw threads. I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

Much everything you say I agree with or have said before. I've already discussed this before concretely, so am not bothered to get into it again. But the other side is suffering from misconceptions. Duane, is treating the 4k sensor like it's sees like an 8k 4:4:4 foveon sensor with modest optical low pass filter that sees like we do presented by Braw. But braw presents an artificial unnatural image that the raw Bayer 4k sensor definitely does not see, but which cdng naturally portrays for you to clean up better than the limited camera. Pro quality choice. The little you ask for in place of true Bayer raw cdng (braw definitly is not, as pointed out), is quite reasonable.

MmFalse detail or not, the difference between your 1080p pngs is of no cinematic significance, and least of all, for any production likely to use a BMPCC 4K, which is going to have a few other technical shortcomings.

There's another thread nearby, concerning which braw compression level is best suited to feature films. I restrained myself, but the only sensible answer is "the one which gets you the best performances".

At some point, reality has to creep in, no? Are the expectations for a $1300 camera really boundless?

It definitely has practical significances for my type of work, where I would need various angles coming from a wide shot. And when you consider that the blackmagic once was able to achieve the true pixel resolution, but then sneakily took that away without telling anybody. It would be quite misleading considering all of the early reviews misrepresenting the level of detail out of the bmpcc4k, that's why I'm advocating for blackmagic to at least let us control the amount of denoising and sharpening inside the camera

I have no idea what work you do that requires a large level of detail at a 2X crop from a 4K image but can't afford to sharpen the image in post or provide then a higher resolution camera for such work, but I do crops from 8:1 ALL the time and it works for HD production just fine.

BMD did not sneakily remove CDNG and their BRAW codec was also clearly explained multiple times by the team. This was all made crystal clear when they did it and if you just bought the camera, it has been this way for a very, very long time.

Your solution is to return the camera and get a different one.

He explained enough.

Force removing a sold feature through updates is not on, if Red wants it gone, it's their responsibility to sue each camera owner.

This thread seems familiar. Haha

Oh god I hope this doesn't turn into one of those arguing cdng vs braw threads. I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

Much everything you say I agree with or have said before. I've already discussed this before concretely, so am not bothered to get into it again. But the other side is suffering from misconceptions. Duane, is treating the 4k sensor like it's sees like an 8k 4:4:4 foveon sensor with modest optical low pass filter that sees like we do presented by Braw. But braw presents an artificial unnatural image that the raw Bayer 4k sensor definitely does not see, but which cdng naturally portrays for you to clean up better than the limited camera. Pro quality choice. The little you ask for in place of true Bayer raw cdng (braw definitly is not, as pointed out), is quite reasonable.

The least you could do Wayne is not characterize, or I should say mischaracterize, other people's comments or arguments or reasons to make professional choices to make your point. I argue that the benefits of CDNG, whatever they may be in terms of detail, are neither important enough nor noticeable enough to deal with the cons of using such capture format, and that braw provides an end result that renders CDNG ultimately pointless as a capture format in comparison on this camera.

Considering I am actually a professional and using these products to do work and make a living, CDNG is not my choice, and therefore not an obvious "pro quality choice" in my opinion.

Thanks.

Oh god I hope this doesn't turn into one of those arguing cdng vs braw threads. I like braw, it's just that I want to squeeze as much detail out of it for second angles, so that's why I'm asking for user selectable denoising/sharpening levels inside the camera.

Much everything you say I agree with or have said before. I've already discussed this before concretely, so am not bothered to get into it again. But the other side is suffering from misconceptions. Duane, is treating the 4k sensor like it's sees like an 8k 4:4:4 foveon sensor with modest optical low pass filter that sees like we do presented by Braw. But braw presents an artificial unnatural image that the raw Bayer 4k sensor definitely does not see, but which cdng naturally portrays for you to clean up better than the limited camera. Pro quality choice. The little you ask for in place of true Bayer raw cdng (braw definitly is not, as pointed out), is quite reasonable.

The least you could do Wayne is not characterize, or I should say mischaracterize, other people's comments or arguments or reasons to make professional choices to make your point. I argue that the benefits of CDNG, whatever they may be in terms of detail, are neither important enough nor noticeable enough to deal with the cons of using such capture format, and that braw provides an end result that renders CDNG ultimately pointless as a capture format in comparison on this camera.

Considering I am actually a professional and using these products to do work and make a living, CDNG is not my choice, and therefore not an obvious "pro quality choice" in my opinion.

Thanks.

Yes, everybody has heard your opinion, and your "mischaracterisation" of what is natural and your mischaracterisation of my putting the record straight about your mischaracterisation which is producing your disagreement with people who are basically right. You come in here to rubbish somebodies factual view that doesn't agree with what you want to believe despite the facts. Thats pretty much what some people do here. I support Jack's factually based opinion, because it is factual, that is professional.

Wayne, I think everybody in these forums has heard your self described factually correct commentary as well as constant misunderstandings or mischaracterizations of other people's opinions on this subject. We have also received a pretty huge dose of your "professional" insight and suggestions as to what other people who do this work for a living should do instead.

Seeing so many people having to deal with smoothing these fine "details" visible at huge crops from CDNG, which present themselves as artifacts in a render and must be dealt creatively within the pipeline, definitely must mean you are 100 percent correct in that these "details" should be preserved in capture, professionally, and we should all be shooting our professional products at uncompressed CDNG or 3:1 Vs. not having to deal with it in the first place.

I suppose professionals seeing a lack of any apparent visible difference or advantage between CDNG and BRaw in rendered and distributed products and therefore deducing no visible competitive advantage of CDNG for general products must also be foolish because YOU can see in a hugely cropped still that there is a slight amount more "detail".

Thanks for your consistent pro level insight as to how we fools don't understand or know any better how to use our own eyes and tools to make a living in motion picture production.

Duane, neither Jack or myself are the source; fvyhe problem. I keep seeing some people do this to others, and who cares what you want to be considered as best or professional, natural, raw, when it's not, I'd rather depend on and support facts. We will virtually NEVER get anywhere if we oppose every advancement or need for advancement. We would just be picking berries naked, or if you are big on evolution, the most basic life form. Give Jack the credit he is due.

I'm going say it, all the handful of people who want to argue with others display common health pattern that affects how they see and think, and have to ask how come every forum member doesn't think like them, and come along and argue with anybody who thinks differently and factually all the time, just because it does not line up with their own personal desire of what they want to support. Why it is only a few people that when things are explained properly have to reject and misinterpret, and dwell on characteristics neither their arguments or themselves have? I'm old, zi haven't seen it all, but I've seen enough to call it, unless you are saying that examples are not focused, that is about the only free credible way Jack could be wrong. Either agree with the evidence or stop fighting it, giving Jack and his evidence some respect.

Duane, neither Jack or myself are the source; fvyhe problem. I keep seeing some people do this to others, and who cares what you want to be considered as best or professional, natural, raw, when it's not, I'd rather depend on and support facts. We will virtually NEVER get anywhere if we oppose every advancement or need for advancement. We would just be picking berries naked, or if you are big on evolution, the most basic life form. Give Jack the credit he is due.

I'm going say it, all the handful of people who want to argue with others display common health pattern that affects how they see and think, and have to ask how come every forum member doesn't think like them, and come along and argue with anybody who thinks differently and factually all the time, just because it does not line up with their own personal desire of what they want to support. Why it is only a few people that when things are explained properly have to reject and misinterpret, and dwell on characteristics neither their arguments or themselves have? I'm old, zi haven't seen it all, but I've seen enough to call it, unless you are saying that examples are not focused, that is about the only free credible way Jack could be wrong. Either agree with the evidence or stop fighting it, giving Jack and his evidence some respect.

Thank you for not only your professional advice as to what I and other fools should do, but thanks also for your free psychiatric analysis of myself and others disagreeing with you regarding gear on online forums.

You are indeed a genius of many talents and skills.

I hardly ever "constant misunderstandings or mischaracterizations". That is what you guys constantly do, and this thread again has abundant proof. But like Mr T, you accuse others of what you do. As I said before, just a handful of disagreeable people roaming the threads to find people to disagree with, don't matter how better minded they are. Not able to admit wrong, and not prepared to at least be right to avoid that, but hassling people about being wrong when they are right. I do not know a single really intelligent person that acts like you guys, only opinionated people. We all ******* agree most of the time, and get in with the job of exploring what is the real situation. Thats because those people often aren't so foolish to put themselves ahead of the truth. But how can I explain this to 99.9% of people? The past present and future is FACT, and that you rely on on discussion with whatever skills required. I think in the past must be right in the future, dogma, just dies not cut it. By your statements, it's obvious it's not me. Start to consider at least, how Jack can be right, perfectly right maybe, and how you can be wrong, at least, I do it nearly every time. Do you?

I'm not a Polymath. Need better memory for that. I'm something inbetween. Thanks.

CDNG DOES have false details due to the way it works which end up having to be smoothed out like the thread you pointed to states. The thread points to a work around to get rid of artifacts, clearly, so they are having to put their heads together to figure out a method to deal with artifacts, which I said you have to deal with regarding CDNG in the first place. How you decide to do itand whether or not you can see enough of a difference in the final product to warrant the additional space you require and workarounds to deal with it is up to you.

We do not know exactly how the Blackmagic camera stores sensordata in the CDNG. But there is a simple solution without loss of image details or loss of sharpness.
It is up to me how I edit RAW sensor data afterwards. This is correct and also my understanding of RAW.

Anyway... I’m not talking about a massive crop here as dune keep suggesting. Only a crop of 1.3x to 1.5x while keeping a decent 1080p image for second angles. And if blackmagic can achieve that using braw by giving us the ability to select user controllable levels of denoising and sharpening in camera. I will be happy. I personally do understand why they have to remove cdng because of patent issues. But if they could’ve been upfront about removing such a feature. That would’ve been much better.

It's not cDNG that has false detail, it's the sensor itself. The camera has no OLPF, so it has false detail. Please read about the Shannon/Nyquist limit. DNG shows that even uncompressed, while BRAW is smoothing some of it out, but not all.

Once you install a proper OLPF, both codecs deliver pretty similar results regarding resolution. I have demonstrated that here in the forum for my UMP G1 before and after installing an OLPF.

The only thing that BMD might do about this is equipping cameras with a proper OLPF and avoid any smoothing by software. But it's their decision and for my part, I prefer a clean image with apparently less resolution over false detail.

BTW, Red always had sufficient low-pass filtering and has been criticized for its softness when they 'only' had a 5K camera before anybody else. You may say about them what you want, but you can't say one can't shoot a big-screen movie with these cameras…

It's not cDNG that has false detail, it's the sensor itself. The camera has no OLPF, so it has false detail. Please read about the Shannon/Nyquist limit. DNG shows that even uncompressed, while BRAW is smoothing some of it out, but not all.

Once you install a proper OLPF, both codecs deliver pretty similar results regarding resolution. I have demonstrated that here in the forum for my UMP G1 before and after installing an OLPF.

The only thing that BMD might do about this is equipping cameras with a proper OLPF and avoid any smoothing by software. But it's their decision and for my part, I prefer a clean image with apparently less resolution over false detail.

BTW, Red always had sufficient low-pass filtering and has been criticized for its softness when they 'only' had a 5K camera before anybody else. You may say about them what you want, but you can't say one can't shoot a big-screen movie with these cameras…

Very interesting... Maybe they could also give us control if we would want to smooth out the aliasing in camera as well? Since some people (like me) would much prefer the extra aliasing for a more detailed image, and some people would rather trade the resolution for an olpf effect, I think that could be very useful.

Well, an OLPF isn't exactly an 'effect' and until today there is no algorithm in software to fully replace it.

The only way to get more real resolution is more photocells. IMHO, the only reason for 6K and beyond.

Well, an OLPF isn't exactly an 'effect' and until today there is no algorithm in software to fully replace it.

The only way to get more real resolution is more photocells. IMHO, the only reason for 6K and beyond.

What I meant by olpf effect is the smoothing by software that you mentioned. Of course it would be nice to have a higher resolution sensor like the p6k, but unfortunately it can't super sample in braw, so the file size is quite unmanageable, and the noise reduction/resharpening issue still exists unfortunately. So if they could give users options for more control over braw, I think that could be nice.

This cropped up again on the JSFILMZ youtube channel:

The lack of detail on the face using BRAW is especially noticeable in the flat lighting outdoor scene compared to ARRI Alexa Classic.
So is the Arri giving "false detail"?
Seem to me it would be easy to test the false detail argument by recording a longer focal length version of each suspect portion of a scene (using a lens, not just pixel peeping) to see if the details are false or not.

A little silly to compare Arri to a pocket 4k.

Any and all commentary I am making about CDNG/BRAW is specifically regarding the pocket 4k camera and how it operates or records codecs, not an Arri or anything else for that matter.

I'll leave the 'silly' comment between you and the many who do camera comparisons.
But my suggestion still stands for testing what is and isn't 'false detail' or lost detail with CDNG and BRAW on a pocket 4k.

I'll leave the 'silly' comment between you and the many who do camera comparisons.
But my suggestion still stands for testing what is and isn't 'false detail' or lost detail with CDNG and BRAW on a pocket 4k.

In a discussion talking about a camera and CNDG/BRAW recordings out of it, yes it is silly, because it proves nothing regarding what the pocket 4k results could or couldn't be by recording either CDNG or BRAW.

I could take an 8K RED and compare the resolution of that camera to a Pocket 4k.

Interesting comparison? Sure.

Relevant to this discussion? no.

EDIT: Clearly this discussion about braw and cdng with this particular camera is ongoing and is still stuck in neutral on these forums long after the initial complaints from a year ago. Trying to compare recordings from an Arri to a 1300 dollar budget camera in effort to make a point about resolution specifically between CDNG/Braw recordings on the pocket 4k alone and which would be better... its just icing on this cake. There is nothing to gain there.

If the camera is not sharp enough, there's a 6K version with your name on it or a number of other products available to choose from. That's the clear answer.

Good luck.

I'll leave the 'silly' comment between you and the many who do camera comparisons.
But my suggestion still stands for testing what is and isn't 'false detail' or lost detail with CDNG and BRAW on a pocket 4k.

In a discussion talking about a camera and CNDG/BRAW recordings out of it, yes it is silly, because it proves nothing regarding what the pocket 4k results could or couldn't be by recording either CDNG or BRAW.

I could take an 8K RED and compare the resolution of that camera to a Pocket 4k.

Interesting comparison? Sure.

Relevant to this discussion? no.

EDIT: Clearly this discussion about braw and cdng with this particular camera is ongoing and is still stuck in neutral on these forums long after the initial complaints from a year ago. Trying to compare recordings from an Arri to a 1300 dollar budget camera in effort to make a point about resolution specifically between CDNG/Braw recordings on the pocket 4k alone and which would be better... its just icing on this cake. There is nothing to gain there.

If the camera is not sharp enough, there's a 6K version with your name on it or a number of other products available to choose from. That's the clear answer.

Good luck.

Because there were no improvements made on braw since it's initial release, that's why we are asking for blackmagic to improve braw's resolution. And the reason why he brought up the arri alexa, was because it has a mere 2.8k sensor, which is only 70% of the resolution of the bmpcc4k, yet it still performs way better. And that's because arriraw do not apply the excessive denoising and smoothing like blackmagic does in braw. And I genuinely wouldn't have cared about cdng if braw didn't have these issues. And unfortunately the p6k also exhibits these issues from a pixel to pixel standpoint, and it can't super sample it's 6k sensor into a 4k braw image, thus leading to unmanageable file sizes. So if blackmagic could give us options in terms of denoising and resharpening in braw, that will be very nice. We are not trying to resurrect cdng here, just trying to make a product better.

A 1:1 sampling 8.8mp /4K sensor with no OLPF is by definition going to display all sorts of artefacts and cropping to 2mp / HD is not going to improve things. If you want clean 4K output you will need a higher resolution sensor to restrict moire to only the very finest detail and if you want clean HD you will need an OLPF to deal with it at source.
Nothing wrong with BRAW (apart from the fact that it’s not actually RAW and is more like ProRes 12 bit 444) and the best of luck in 2020 using a <9mp sensor to capture 4K and 2mp sensor to capture HD.....