Denoising diminishes braw and prores detail

So, here is the low light test with fabrics.
Same setup as before, except the lens was set to 35mm (+ 0.71x Speedbooster) and no VND filter.

I recorded in CDNG, BRAW Q0, BRAW 3:1, BRAW 12:1, ProRes HQ each with

• ISO 800 / shutter 360° / f/8.0
• ISO 400 / shutter 360° / f/5.6
• ISO 200 / shutter 360° / f/4.0

and CDNG, BRAW Q0 with

• ISO 1600 / shutter 360° / f/8.0

CDNG sharpness = 0
no post noise reduction for any of the codecs

While I attached a lens support this time - the framing still moved when pressing the stills button. That button is really ridiculous.

UHD PNG stills from Resolve for download:
https://we.tl/t-IQAg61AaK7

DNG 800_1.1.1.jpg (734.23 KiB) Viewed 12149 times

BRAW Q0 800_1.2.1.jpg (848.5 KiB) Viewed 12149 times

BRAW 3_1 800 1.3.1.jpg (826.94 KiB) Viewed 12149 times

BRAW 12_1 800 1.4.1.jpg (858.23 KiB) Viewed 12148 times

ProRes HQ 800_1.5.1.jpg (841.87 KiB) Viewed 12148 times

DNG 400_1.6.1.jpg (794.14 KiB) Viewed 12148 times

BRAW Q0 400_1.7.1.jpg (679.46 KiB) Viewed 12148 times

BRAW 3_1 400 1.8.1.jpg (665.74 KiB) Viewed 12148 times

BRAW 12_1 400 1.9.1.jpg (682.76 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

ProRes HQ 400_1.10.1.jpg (682.63 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

DNG 200_1.11.1.jpg (650.05 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

BRAW Q0 200_1.12.1.jpg (916.6 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

BRAW 3_1 200 1.13.1.jpg (901.36 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

BRAW 12_1 200 1.14.1.jpg (917.14 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

ProRes HQ 200_1.15.1.jpg (899.28 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

And finally with the second gain stage at ISO 1600:

DNG 1600_1.16.1.jpg (777.88 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

BRAW Q0 1600_1.17.1.jpg (915.54 KiB) Viewed 12147 times

So, here is the low light test with fabrics.
Same setup as before, except the lens was set to 35mm (+ 0.71x Speedbooster) and no VND filter.

I recorded in CDNG, BRAW Q0, BRAW 3:1, BRAW 12:1, ProRes HQ each with

• ISO 800 / shutter 360° / f/8.0
• ISO 400 / shutter 360° / f/5.6
• ISO 200 / shutter 360° / f/4.0

and CDNG, BRAW Q0 with

• ISO 1600 / shutter 360° / f/8.0

CDNG sharpness = 0
no post noise reduction for any of the codecs

While I attached a lens support this time - the framing still moved when pressing the stills button. That button is really ridiculous.

UHD PNG stills from Resolve for download:
https://we.tl/t-IQAg61AaK7

Thank you very much for this Robert, At least personally this test illustrates the muddiness from the denoiser much better. It's still close up shot but many thanks for taking the time to do this test for us. What was surprising was that iso 800 had a lot more denoising than iso 1600? The dual native iso circuit really decreases the noise in the bmpcc4k. Also can attest to the ridiculousness of the stills button, does not register at all unless you press really hardly.

The most telling sign of denoising I would say is by putting up all 4 cdng stills into a group, and putting all 4 braw stills into a group. Even at a 2x crop the cdng really didn't change it's detail level over the different iso. Where as braw at iso 800 is significantly more muddy than iso 200.

Downloadlink to ISO 400 original files:
https://we.tl/t-uu0VVByC2j

Downloadlink to ISO 800 original files:
https://we.tl/t-EyNk16kEDX

While I attached a lens support this time - the framing still moved when pressing the stills button. That button is really ridiculous.

You need Kim Jansson to design a voice-controlled bluetooth app so you can mutter "Camera, take a still!"

While I attached a lens support this time - the framing still moved when pressing the stills button. That button is really ridiculous.

You need Kim Jansson to design a voice-controlled bluetooth app so you can mutter "Camera, take a still!"

Brad, the problem is, that BMD has no support for the stills function in their SDK/camera protocol. So no feature in an app possible.

Downloadlink to ISO 200 original files:
https://we.tl/t-yJVJ8Cwfw7

Downloadlink to ISO 1600 original files:
https://we.tl/t-UPbXGrh8LB

EDIT: Link added

6 pages and the OP still havent posted images of his claims????

6 pages and the OP still havent posted images of his claims????

To be fair he, like many of us are locked down and he's already explained he's not able to do so.

JB

6 pages and the OP still havent posted images of his claims????

To be fair he, like many of us are locked down and he's already explained he's not able to do so.

JB

And filming faces just for tests released on the internet is also quite difficult nowadays. Hence why I haven't done those yet.

From start to finish the low light fabric test did cost me 3 hours - and I didn't had to setup any lights for this - plus it was a locked down shot.

Where as braw at iso 800 is significantly more muddy than iso 200.

You do know that BRAW 100-1000 ISO is exactly the same data but just a different metadata tag?

Where as braw at iso 800 is significantly more muddy than iso 200.

You do know that BRAW 100-1000 ISO is exactly the same data but just a different metadata tag?

John, normally you are right. But I have changed the aperture parallel to the ISO setting in the test shots. So they are different because ISO 400 got +1 stop more light than ISO 800 and ISO 200 got +2 stops more light.

Man, I think we should be a bit gentler than attack the OP.

I tried to stay away from this discussion but feel like stepping up beside Jack. Not because I agree in all the statements. But from my perspective, he is not trolling and deserve a bit more respect. Much of he’s claims, beside the title itself, is quite sound. He is just a bit late to the game, concerned about an obvious side effect from a beloved format.

Jack, to sum up the aftermath from countless of these discussions regarding BRAW and softness. And I believe others agree upon this.

After shooting BRAW and cDNG on the p4k, I know that the later delivers a higher detailed image. Even Roberts picture in this thread show this if you crop in… 200%... false detail or not. Many have complained about the BRAW being soft. I have done this as well in the past. But Compared to many other formats, it’s not that obvious. The biggest problem is cDNG being overly sharp and sometimes deliver false detail as a comparison. If you compare BRAW and prores, then you see less difference.

I, and probably many others, have come to the conclusion that the efficiency working with BRAW outweigh the subjectively difference of it being softer than let’s say cDNG. It’s like prores 422 with RAW abilities, speed and smaller file size. It feels like the future even though it doesn't always look like it.

The concern you have about cropping is valid, IMHO. The 1080p120fps cDNG we had on the p4k, before the first BRAW update, could in some cases deliver superior image quality. I was actually shocked how bad some of my BRAW 1080p120 footage came out in comparison, and rolled back to cDNG when shooting 120fps. The new 2.7k BRAW option changed that though. Now we have 120fps that delivers, AND give us bigger FOV. We should thank BM for that, they listen. To me, and many others, going back to cDNG or Prores is not a good option. But this a subjective mater of course. If cropping matters to the production you are doing, then I would look into the p6k if you have the right lenses.

Anyways, an inconvenient truth so to speak. Most compression by the delivered format, will probably smog the BRAW softness. The audience will most likely not notice nor care if its shot 4k on ari, R3d, Braw, mov or cDNG... etc. I’ll bet there is a higher possibility that they will complain about you misfocus Keep shooting.

Man, I think we should be a bit gentler than attack the OP.

I tried to stay away from this discussion but feel like stepping up beside Jack. Not because I agree in all the statements. But from my perspective, he is not trolling and deserve a bit more respect. Much of he’s claims, beside the title itself, is quite sound. He is just a bit late to the game, concerned about an obvious side effect from a beloved format.

Jack, to sum up the aftermath from countless of these discussions regarding BRAW and softness. And I believe others agree upon this.

After shooting BRAW and cDNG on the p4k, I know that the later delivers a higher detailed image. Even Roberts picture in this thread show this if you crop in… 200%... false detail or not. Many have complained about the BRAW being soft. I have done this as well in the past. But Compared to many other formats, it’s not that obvious. The biggest problem is cDNG being overly sharp and sometimes deliver false detail as a comparison. If you compare BRAW and prores, then you see less difference.

I, and probably many others, have come to the conclusion that the efficiency working with BRAW outweigh the subjectively difference of it being softer than let’s say cDNG. It’s like prores 422 with RAW abilities, speed and smaller file size. It feels like the future even though it doesn't always look like it.

The concern you have about cropping is valid, IMHO. The 1080p120fps cDNG we had on the p4k, before the first BRAW update, could in some cases deliver superior image quality. I was actually shocked how bad some of my BRAW 1080p120 footage came out in comparison, and rolled back to cDNG when shooting 120fps. The new 2.7k BRAW option changed that though. Now we have 120fps that delivers, AND give us bigger FOV. We should thank BM for that, they listen. To me, and many others, going back to cDNG or Prores is not a good option. But this a subjective mater of course. If cropping matters to the production you are doing, then I would look into the p6k if you have the right lenses.

Anyways, an inconvenient truth so to speak. Most compression by the delivered format, will probably smog the BRAW softness. The audience will most likely not notice nor care if its shot 4k on ari, R3d, Braw, mov or cDNG... etc. I’ll bet there is a higher possibility that they will complain about you misfocus Keep shooting.

Thanks a lot for defending me, those people seems like good people on other threads. So I guess they just really really like braw lol. I definitely needs to change the title and maybe the original post too to make it less aggressive sounding. And I would love to shoot with the p6k, especially after the price drop, it actually costs me around the same price to buy the p4k + speedbooster. But unfortunately the braw file sizes are just a bit too unmanageable, 12:1 is bigger in file size than 5:1 of the p4k. And I love braw's workflow and speed as well. That's why I'd rather to improve braw, than bring back cdng.

I think a lot of the comments made pushing back and calling for more evidence to prove the strong opinion of the OP is unfairly construed as attacking the OP personally. If you're going into a public space to announce your opinion you should be prepared for push back and have clear evidence to prove your case. If you're not prepared you should and will be challenged. If you don't want to be challenged, don't post publicly. You can simply call or send an email to BMD.

Attacking arguments is totally fair and normal in a discussion, especially if the opposition can clearly point to clear issues with the arguments presented.

It wasn't much misconstrued, they do this at the drop of the hat to anybody they disagree with and won't listen to evidence generally, or check on their own footage, that would be correct conduct, this is bad conduct by a handful of people all over the place over and over again. Beating your head being responsible and evidenced to unreasonable biased people who don't want to really listen, inspect understand and accept any difference from their point of view, but trash others people's peace, livelihood (trashing time and reputation by falsely accusing people and making out they are wrong publically when they are actually the right ones)) etc gets a bit much over time.

Robert is one of the few people who have acted correctly.


@Robert,

Great effort. If was Jack (which I'm obviously not) I could have done the same tests at home, and using my own face. I don't know why Jack did not attempt the inside tests.

I will do some further tests with low contrast textures and in lowlight in the next days

Sorry for making you do the work that I should've done mate, thank you very much for this. If you can also include some far away faces (like in the jsfilmz sample) with a fullbody shot of a person wearing same colored fabric as well that would be excellent, thank you so much.

Jack, it's been shown again, it's not really necessary to go that far. You could do most of these recent tests in a bedroom yourself. He's really putting a good effort in, but doesn't need to do everything himself for you (though at this stage a complete reference set of tests fir future evidence would be useful).

So, here is the low light test with fabrics.
Same setup as before, except the lens was set to 35mm (+ 0.71x Speedbooster) and no VND filter.

I recorded in CDNG, BRAW Q0, BRAW 3:1, BRAW 12:1, ProRes HQ each with

• ISO 800 / shutter 360° / f/8.0
• ISO 400 / shutter 360° / f/5.6
• ISO 200 / shutter 360° / f/4.0

and CDNG, BRAW Q0 with

• ISO 1600 / shutter 360° / f/8.0

CDNG sharpness = 0
no post noise reduction for any of the codecs

While I attached a lens support this time - the framing still moved when pressing the stills button. That button is really ridiculous.

UHD PNG stills from Resolve for download:
https://we.tl/t-IQAg61AaK7

Thank you very much for this Robert, At least personally this test illustrates the muddiness from the denoiser much better. It's still close up shot but many thanks for taking the time to do this test for us. What was surprising was that iso 800 had a lot more denoising than iso 1600? The dual native iso circuit really decreases the noise in the bmpcc4k. Also can attest to the ridiculousness of the stills button, does not register at all unless you press really hardly.

The most telling sign of denoising I would say is by putting up all 4 cdng stills into a group, and putting all 4 braw stills into a group. Even at a 2x crop the cdng really didn't change it's detail level over the different iso. Where as braw at iso 800 is significantly more muddy than iso 200.

As I said before, great effort Robert, thanks very much. It would be great if you could get these tests hosted on their own in its own sticky closed thread here (and they pay you $1000 euro fur your time ideally).

The red material again. It is a shame that the original tests from when Braw came out, disappeared, so we couldn't link to them as proof. But the material hides the false detail people complain about, where a slowly undulating detailed surface might make it more obvious.

People here don't seem to understand we are moving to wider field of view displays which act like 2x-4x+ magnification (depending on how far away you use it at the moment). I literally can just look a d see the spacing grid between the pixels of my 4k display at a optimal distance. It's worse than I expected the better I have gotten. The future comes, the past disappears, we have to live in the future.

I will do some further tests with low contrast textures and in lowlight in the next days

Sorry for making you do the work that I should've done mate, thank you very much for this. If you can also include some far away faces (like in the jsfilmz sample) with a fullbody shot of a person wearing same colored fabric as well that would be excellent, thank you so much.

Jack, it's been shown again, it's not really necessary to go that far. You could do most of these recent tests in a bedroom yourself. He's really putting a good effort in, but doesn't need to do everything himself for you (though at this stage a complete reference set of tests fir future evidence would be useful).

I'd love to do it, but unfortunately I live in a asian country with seriously expensive land prices, so our apartment is tiny, like really really tiny. I don't even have the space to spread out my tripod in my room, and in doors it's just not that obvious with what I want to demonstrate, but I'll definitely try my best in the coming weekend to conduct another test.

I think a lot of the comments made pushing back and calling for more evidence to prove the strong opinion of the OP is unfairly construed as attacking the OP personally. If you're going into a public space to announce your opinion you should be prepared for push back and have clear evidence to prove your case. If you're not prepared you should and will be challenged. If you don't want to be challenged, don't post publicly. You can simply call or send an email to BMD.

Attacking arguments is totally fair and normal in a discussion, especially if the opposition can clearly point to clear issues with the arguments presented.

To be challenged is obviously important. And I agree that this topic should as well, and it is. But it’s the tone in this thread from some that is unfairly aggressive and don’t really contribute much more than frustration.

Most adult people want constructive criticism, and see it that as beneficial. Not only Jack have asked for improvements regarding BRAW. Is that really a surprise to many of those who has walked in these forum for a while? The topic has changed in is course and the title does not reflect this. Reading only the headline in the newspaper and make a judgment based on that is a bad idea.

So, here is the low light test with fabrics.
Same setup as before, except the lens was set to 35mm (+ 0.71x Speedbooster) and no VND filter.

I recorded in CDNG, BRAW Q0, BRAW 3:1, BRAW 12:1, ProRes HQ each with

• ISO 800 / shutter 360° / f/8.0
• ISO 400 / shutter 360° / f/5.6
• ISO 200 / shutter 360° / f/4.0

and CDNG, BRAW Q0 with

• ISO 1600 / shutter 360° / f/8.0

CDNG sharpness = 0
no post noise reduction for any of the codecs

While I attached a lens support this time - the framing still moved when pressing the stills button. That button is really ridiculous.

UHD PNG stills from Resolve for download:
https://we.tl/t-IQAg61AaK7

Thank you very much for this Robert, At least personally this test illustrates the muddiness from the denoiser much better. It's still close up shot but many thanks for taking the time to do this test for us. What was surprising was that iso 800 had a lot more denoising than iso 1600? The dual native iso circuit really decreases the noise in the bmpcc4k. Also can attest to the ridiculousness of the stills button, does not register at all unless you press really hardly.

The most telling sign of denoising I would say is by putting up all 4 cdng stills into a group, and putting all 4 braw stills into a group. Even at a 2x crop the cdng really didn't change it's detail level over the different iso. Where as braw at iso 800 is significantly more muddy than iso 200.

As I said before, great effort Robert, thanks very much. It would be great if you could get these tests hosted on their own in its own sticky closed thread here (and they pay you $1000 euro fur your time ideally).

The red material again. It is a shame that the original tests from when Braw came out, disappeared, so we couldn't link to them as proof. But the material hides the false detail people complain about, where a slowly undulating detailed surface might make it more obvious.

People here don't seem to understand we are moving to wider field of view displays which act like 2x-4x+ magnification (depending on how far away you use it at the moment). I literally can just look a d see the spacing grid between the pixels of my 4k display at a optimal distance. It's worse than I expected the better I have gotten. The future comes, the past disappears, we have to live in the future.

On what basis do you think ‘people here’ don’t understand screen resolution? (and I assume in the interests of fairness the OP is included as one of these ‘people’) as if you are viewing footage on a low res screen where display resolution and DAW timeline image scaling are in the mix things can look very strange with regards to judging resolution and image detail. I can’t see the spacing grid on my 4K screen unless I’m sitting at an unrealistic viewing distance which would make spatial perception of the whole image very uncomfortable like sitting in the front row of a cinema. I’ve not got any visual impairment when using appropriate reading glasses but I’m also not by the sounds of it one of those rare people like you seem to be indicating who have >20/20 vision.

Thanks a lot for defending me, those people seems like good people on other threads. So I guess they just really really like braw lol. I definitely needs to change the title and maybe the original post too to make it less aggressive sounding. And I would love to shoot with the p6k, especially after the price drop, it actually costs me around the same price to buy the p4k + speedbooster. But unfortunately the braw file sizes are just a bit too unmanageable, 12:1 is bigger in file size than 5:1 of the p4k. And I love braw's workflow and speed as well. That's why I'd rather to improve braw, than bring back cdng.

Well don’t get me wrong. I am one of those loving BRAW. I have come to peace with it and see more benefits than problems. The file size is kind of ironic in this discussion. We can’t get it all, and have to decide what’s most important. I also own a GH2(hacked) and it does deliver incredible detailed image as a full HD camera, better than most in the same league. But trust me.. after you have used BRAW for a while you don’t look back. The softness is really not that big of a issue. Only heavy cropping can be. IMHO, If you stay in 20-30% crop than it is quite good. 100-200%, buy another camera.

I think the real issue Jake has is the P4k and not BRAW. If he had asked the question earlier ‘What camera will best give me the facility to punch in to the image as an alternative to a 2nd camera on set’ how many here would honestly say an <9mp 1:1 sampling sensor sans OLPF let alone say it depends on the codec more than the sensor.

Thanks a lot for defending me, those people seems like good people on other threads. So I guess they just really really like braw lol. I definitely needs to change the title and maybe the original post too to make it less aggressive sounding. And I would love to shoot with the p6k, especially after the price drop, it actually costs me around the same price to buy the p4k + speedbooster. But unfortunately the braw file sizes are just a bit too unmanageable, 12:1 is bigger in file size than 5:1 of the p4k. And I love braw's workflow and speed as well. That's why I'd rather to improve braw, than bring back cdng.

Well don’t get me wrong. I am one of those loving BRAW. I have come to peace with it and see more benefits than problems. The file size is kind of ironic in this discussion. We can’t get it all, and have to decide what’s most important. I also own a GH2(hacked) and it does deliver incredible detailed image as a full HD camera, better than most in the same league. But trust me.. after you have used BRAW for a while you don’t look back. The softness is really not that big of a issue. Only heavy cropping can be. IMHO, If you stay in 20-30% crop than it is quite good. 100-200%, buy another camera.

I usually crop in 30% - 70%, and sometimes 100%, cdng with no processing seemed able to do that in any situations, and braw and prores can handle 50% with no problem at high con situations, but really just doesn't do well even at 30% at low con situations or underexposed. That's why I thought it might've been the denoiser. Braw is a great codec, it's compression is also pretty efficient without showing much artifacts. So I'm thinking of a away to reflect that it's the denoiser that I'm targeting, in my new title.

I think the real issue Jake has is the P4k and not BRAW. If he had asked the question earlier ‘What camera will best give me the facility to punch in to the image as an alternative to a 2nd camera on set’ how many here would honestly say an <9mp 1:1 sampling sensor sans OLPF let alone say it depends on the codec more than the sensor.

When we purchased the p4k, there were really not many options in our price range, that offered a robust codec and decent iso performance, the xt3 had massive denoising issues (kinda ironic), The s1 had the blue clipping issues, and the p6k was about 1500 dollars extra in my country. And I watched some reviews that didn't mention any particular softness coming from braw only compression artifact from 12:1, so I thought, we are going to shoot in 5:1 anyways, so what's the big deal. So we bought the p4k. I love the camera still, and braw is a great codec. It's the denoiser in that camera I would say is problematic, I'm definitely considering to change my title and initial post to reflect that.

Hi Jake, Do you believe that with a better codec you will be able to use the P4k with the big punch-in’s your workflow requires?

Hi Jake, Do you believe that with a better codec you will be able to use the P4k with the big punch-in’s your workflow requires?

Not really, It's the denoiser that I have issue with, since prores also has this issue, but is really solid on other cameras without excessive denoising like the og bmpcc.

Hi Jake, I see you have changed the title but the use of the word ‘destroys’ makes it equally if not more inflammatory and hyperbolic than the original one but I’m sure this was not your intention so I think replacing it with ‘reduces’ would be more in line with the evidence.

Hi Jake, I see you have changed the title but the use of the word ‘destroys’ makes it equally if not more inflammatory and hyperbolic than the original one but I’m sure this was not your intention so I think replacing it with ‘reduces’ would be more in line with the evidence.

Ah ok, thanks for the suggestion.

But uncompress cDNG have been around for awhile in 4k. That why I advocate bringing uncompressed lossless cDNG to BMPCC4k. I admit 6k cDNG uncompress may not be possible for current media.

They're not going to introduce a feature like that on one camera and not others.

JB

Then why cant we have uncompress cDNG in 1080p, 2.5k, 2.8k cropped and 4k full in BMPCC4k/cropped in BMPCC6k on both cameras?
Afterall compression such as BRAW is much more evidence when the image is cropped.

Sounds like a good suggestion.

But uncompress cDNG have been around for awhile in 4k. That why I advocate bringing uncompressed lossless cDNG to BMPCC4k. I admit 6k cDNG uncompress may not be possible for current media.

They're not going to introduce a feature like that on one camera and not others.

JB

Then why cant we have uncompress cDNG in 1080p, 2.5k, 2.8k cropped and 4k full in BMPCC4k/cropped in BMPCC6k on both cameras?
Afterall compression such as BRAW is much more evidence when the image is cropped.

True, especially considering normal uncompressed cdng is open to use, and there are no licence required to use it.

I’m afraid it’s more complex than just add cDNG back. JB is most likely right, it’s not going to happen. It’s about not putting your hand into the hornet’s nest. So to speak.

AFAIK Red cameras patented the concept of the compressed RAW video codec. Not the compression type, not the codec but the concept of combining these so they form a practical video format. This is why BM had to pull it. BRAW although having ‘RAW’ in it’s name (maybe to stick 2 fingers up to Red?) is not actually RAW as it’s partially processed in camera so doesn’t infringe the patent. As soon as you start pulling a RAW data stream straight off the sensor and into a codec without debayering but with compression to make the data size manageable you are into a patent war with RED. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected but I believe this is the gist of why there will never be a return to cNDG nor probably any codec that sails close to the wind and could be classed ‘legally’ as a raw video format i.e one that extracts all the sensor data.

I believe you are unfortunately right John.

AFAIK Red cameras patented the concept of the compressed RAW video codec. Not the compression type, not the codec but the concept of combining these so they form a practical video format. This is why BM had to pull it. BRAW although having ‘RAW’ in it’s name (maybe to stick 2 fingers up to Red?) is not actually RAW as it’s partially processed in camera so doesn’t infringe the patent. As soon as you start pulling a RAW data stream straight off the sensor and into a codec without debayering but with compression to make the data size manageable you are into a patent war with RED. I may be wrong and am happy to be corrected but I believe this is the gist of why there will never be a return to cNDG nor probably any codec that sails close to the wind and could be classed ‘legally’ as a raw video format i.e one that extracts all the sensor data.

Damn... Jim Jannard really loves his patents huh. I mean uncompressed cdng technically doesn't infringe on their patents. But judging by how butt hurt they are over everything I do get bm's decision to stay the heck away anything that could possibly earn them a court notice from red.

I dont mean to offend the OP. Surely no one here does. But the thing is, he comes with a certain claim, others confront it, a proof that doesnt show what he was talking about is shown, confronted, then an unreliable proof is shown but it cant prove the point. The OP insistis in his claims, others have difficulty acknowledging it and confront it. 6 pages later nor the OP could prove his point nor at least show exactly what he is talking about and the others cant agree or disagree with factual arguments. So far, we have only different people looking at this in different ways. Thats the problem of not having shown what you are claiming. Its an endless debate.
The only thing we have that is close to the truth, if not the best take on this and real truth, is from experienced filmmakers like JB. Still, some (less experienced) likes to disgree, still without actual evidence. Still, an endless debate.

I really would like we could get to the bottom of this. Everyone would benefit. And for my personal experience, I have no problems with it and find it amazing

I dont mean to offend the OP. Surely no one here does. But the thing is, he comes with a certain claim, others confront it, a proof that doesnt show what he was talking about is shown, confronted, then an unreliable proof is shown but it cant prove the point. The OP insistis in his claims, others have difficulty acknowledging it and confront it. 6 pages later nor the OP could prove his point nor at least show exactly what he is talking about and the others cant agree or disagree with factual arguments. So far, we have only different people looking at this in different ways. Thats the problem of not having shown what you are claiming. Its an endless debate.
The only thing we have that is close to the truth, if not the best take on this and real truth, is from experienced filmmakers like JB. Still, some (less experienced) likes to disgree, still without actual evidence. Still, an endless debate.

I really would like we could get to the bottom of this. Everyone would benefit. And for my personal experience, I have no problems with it and find it amazing

I will try my best to do some tests this weekend. It is not gonna be the most extensive test, due to the limitation of the lockdown. But it should be providing more samples.

One test for everyone to see the ‘bigger picture’ with would be to take your video capable stills cameras ( Sony A73, Panasonic S1 etc) and shoot video at the highest quality settings and then at the same settings take a raw frame in the stills settings. Using the best resampling method downsize the frame to that of the video pixel size and compare. You may be shocked to find that BM are not the only manufacturer who are ‘diminishing’ detail (some may even be destroying it) and shock horror if you then think BRAW is doing a pretty good job......

One test for everyone to see the ‘bigger picture’ with would be to take your video capable stills cameras ( Sony A73, Panasonic S1 etc) and shoot video at the highest quality settings and then at the same settings take a raw frame in the stills settings. Using the best resampling method downsize the frame to that of the video pixel size and compare. You may be shocked to find that BM are not the only manufacturer who are ‘diminishing’ detail (some may even be destroying it) and shock horror if you then think BRAW is doing a pretty good job......

Unfortunately I only have my g7 with me as of now, which does a weird cropped pixel readout for 4k, so that's unfortunately not possible. I'm really just targeting an option to disable the denoiser, since the codec like prores and braw seems to be fine. So I'm really trying to have more options.

I really would like we could get to the bottom of this. Everyone would benefit. And for my personal experience, I have no problems with it and find it amazing

We're *already* at the "bottom of this". The difference between formats like Prores (first) and braw (later) and cDNG has been obvious on BMD cameras since the BMPCC hit the mass market (2014?).

Most people don't care, and many who do shouldn't (who's your audience? do you even have an audience?). It's still not clear what Jack actually shoots, but a) not everyone is as horrified as he is by 1.3x crops and in any event, he must have known a 1.3x crop has a small effective sensor size starting from m43, b) the camera satisfies its advertised purposes ("cinema"?), and c) none of this, not one word of it, is "news". We've been over it a million times. Make that a million and one times.

@John
I did exactly that when I got my Sony A7S, the so-called night owl. It's denoising video massively in camera.
You are so right!

Thanks a lot for defending me, those people seems like good people on other threads. So I guess they just really really like braw lol. I definitely needs to change the title and maybe the original post too to make it less aggressive sounding. And I would love to shoot with the p6k, especially after the price drop, it actually costs me around the same price to buy the p4k + speedbooster. But unfortunately the braw file sizes are just a bit too unmanageable, 12:1 is bigger in file size than 5:1 of the p4k. And I love braw's workflow and speed as well. That's why I'd rather to improve braw, than bring back cdng.

Well don’t get me wrong. I am one of those loving BRAW. I have come to peace with it and see more benefits than problems. The file size is kind of ironic in this discussion. We can’t get it all, and have to decide what’s most important. I also own a GH2(hacked) and it does deliver incredible detailed image as a full HD camera, better than most in the same league. But trust me.. after you have used BRAW for a while you don’t look back. The softness is really not that big of a issue. Only heavy cropping can be. IMHO, If you stay in 20-30% crop than it is quite good. 100-200%, buy another camera.

I usually crop in 30% - 70%, and sometimes 100%, cdng with no processing seemed able to do that in any situations, and braw and prores can handle 50% with no problem at high con situations, but really just doesn't do well even at 30% at low con situations or underexposed. That's why I thought it might've been the denoiser. Braw is a great codec, it's compression is also pretty efficient without showing much artifacts. So I'm thinking of a away to reflect that it's the denoiser that I'm targeting, in my new title.

Hi, sorry, I keep missing little things. By the time I finish reading and writing other replies, things get forgotten.

So, it's been pointed out the denoising is not discreet, but seems to be an affect of the debayering and compression, so is not there to be turned down, though the function of the debayering and compression which causes it, could be modified and perimeters turned down to similar effect, but maybe more restrictive in what could be done compare to an independent denoiser. Maybe there is some mask function. Re-edit: Yep, forgot my point. It's best to not talk about it that way do as to avoid confusion in the future, and people coming in and arguing about it Jack.

But as far as the 6k file sizes goes compared to the 4k, to get the same quality as cdng you are likely to have files sizes maybe 50% bigger than present. So, as far as the 5,K, or 8k goes, if one wants better quality one has to duck it up and accept bigger file sizes unfortunately. If only they would implement a better underlying intra codec, like I have been asking for, then you could have similar or maybe smaller file sizes at the quality you want.

I'm very interested in what's coming, as Intel has an i9 much, and if there was only an nvidia Ti3080 optical n fur it, it would be interesting to see if it could handle 8k Braw fast enough on it. The cost of business is whatever; s required. So, if bigger storage, that's it, if 12 bit+ 4:2:2 h266 visually lossless for YouTube, then tjAt would be a saving. So much waiting Grant?

But uncompress cDNG have been around for awhile in 4k. That why I advocate bringing uncompressed lossless cDNG to BMPCC4k. I admit 6k cDNG uncompress may not be possible for current media.

They're not going to introduce a feature like that on one camera and not others.

JB

Then why cant we have uncompress cDNG in 1080p, 2.5k, 2.8k cropped and 4k full in BMPCC4k/cropped in BMPCC6k on both cameras?
Afterall compression such as BRAW is much more evidence when the image is cropped.

They actually could have 4k uncompressed to external storage. That would be a cheap option. And you could set up a receiving computer to convert to whatever format whole you do other things, and reuse the drive. But still expensive.