Tue May 12, 2020 4:52 am
Thanks Uli, you are one of the few experts who contribute some reality here.
Jack,
But innovation is another level again, which all the arm chair experts here don't really realise, that the sort of deep reality explorer innovative is generally the sort of person that ultimately sees and identifies the problems and the innovative solutions they will use, all generally hidden is the back ground, mocked and mistreated by those which can't see, but making tomorrow. Generally everybody they praise is actually not the person coming up with and designing things they are praising them for. They mistake what they themselves do, as valid to the reality of this innovation, they use, but understand very little from the arm chairs, inflexible and unknowing, instead of flexible and considering the scope of what can be done in their estimation and what could be in exploring design, which are the must haves to correct innovation. They disrespectfully sulk and plague and bully to have to be expert and right, focusing on themselves rather than the expanse not the truth, which they degrade. Should you listen to them, yes, with a grain of salt, to a block of salt and even more, to sift out what's real. But you should do so based on capacity in handling real truth. It's like
film industry, fine framing distribution is as important as focusing which is as important as story which is as important acting, which is as important as lighting and color, which is as important as set (see framing) which is as important wardrobe and location etc. If any of these things are off you have a B grade or less production, which if people are being truthful they would agree and that there are not many who get there. I generally don't comment on those, things, prefering to be positive and encouraging, except for the negative people trying to unrealistically tear into us, who want to act like something they are not and dominate, and I see a sea of orange on my little screen Jack, a word of advise, only appreciate much those that have truely tried to help you and the truth here, not those. You can show them aome appreciation as well, for little bits and pieces of actual truth they have contributed in all they have. I and others saw what you were talking about, what you meant, what the issue was, what you were trying to achieve, and didn't get bogged down in irrelevancies, mistake you wanted but still try to beat you over the head for it, and make war on you for saying something they should understand to defend something they do didn't, and we tried to help. Robert is put in a Stella effort. We might disagree at times, but at least he and some others have an ability to see and contribute. There are three types of people on thus forum, those who contribute, those who remain hidden a lot, and those who negatively miscontrbute, who have to be seen as credible. Even when trying to be careful and correct, their speech is full of mistakes. Make no mistake, accept for me and a few engineers, generally no really talented person is coming here much to contribute, you are largely on your own with a bunch promoting what they want. The top end people are largely working or on other forums.
But you have exposed a floor, the market is mainly video production and what they need, not cinema cameras, the bigger market is stills, which is being eroded by phones, but those other areas need to be addressed just as much, not degraded (except that stills is a handy work and personal thing, that can sell extra cameras, but not the main focus).
Written earlier: I started out successfully contacting companies around 13 or 15, and probably have contributed more to the world economy then anybody here, because seeing and avoiding technical use problems (something often neglected) is a big cost. When working on the OS design project I aimed to reduce computer usage costs to one seventh, major savings to the world economy, and it turned out my design was very mainframe like, which is well ahead of what was out there on personal computers and maybe still is. I still continue to back channel improvements to the most popular OS, which they implement their way. But, if it saves people billions of hours a year, that's great. So, being as trained, experiemced, and knowing as much as I do, does anybody generally really know anything completely? So, it pays to be careful and circumspect in your speech, and to limit it to what can be possible, and to regard others speech as to what could be possible (beyond ones limited knowledge).
A quick example. I assert that there is likely no other civilisation in the universe unmatched to our own that evolved, due to the processes against such a thing (making it uniikely). Then an dude comes down on a ship claiming to be Lord whatever from whatever. Then I have to look at what proof and likely hood of proof, is there they are what they say they are, and consider and explore (if time). Maybe I would not have the ability to concretely find out if it is, true but ha E to consider the evidence I can price as to how likely they are true. Not, act like we see here, where the thought and evidence Braw produces less detail, let alone that Braw is changing what the sensor is seeing, which is Bayer) is like telling somebody who firmly that there are no aliens, that you are alien Lord whatever and they want to go to war on you. Dudes, get a life, go do some work instead or harrassing innocent people.
I'm having some issues here preventing me from getting to assess your footage, but what I can say through my first blurry look (where it doesn't have to be native format only lossless version of the native frame) is that Braw is only a render of what cdng is supposed to be able to record lossless, not superior, and the results people criticise are really the results of the demosaic and processing stream, which is what Braw does. So, trying a better demosaic will likely make the cdng look a lot better. I know you were concentrating on there being more actual detail there, but if people who wrongly assert people as being pixel "preepers" after they were told that we are seeing the difference full screen at optimal viewing distances, and areas of missing image, or and broad areas of whited out image from a fish net) and can't accept that true reality, they are going to get stuck on the bad demosaicing effects left over from Bayer without a optical low pass filter. While in lock down, you might try getting a cdng frame and try processing it through many different demosaicing routines in different software, even photo shop, and see how close you can get to Braw with detail. You could also enable highlight recovery cleanup noise floor with temporal noise removal and optical flow, and compress/shape more latitude stops into it. Then compare the two half frames in one frame to see if you can get something better that brww could do.
Have a good day Jack.
aIf you are not truthfully progressive, maybe you shouldn't say anything
bTruthful side topics in-line with or related to, the discussion accepted
cOften people deceive themselves so much they do not understand, even when the truth is explained to them