Emanuel

Blackmagic RAW Player alternative for Windows (no setup): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJnSErTaqQ

Post of the year : -D

Take two : -)

Yes. No idea how it goes with 4:1, even though, the idea is to keep the original 4:1 quality. So, is there more space to save on disk? Maybe Mihail @cpc may drop a word here. I've called him on here but he seems to be offline so far though : -)

What about the 6.1 firmware version + saving 63.3%? source: http://www.cineticstudios.com/blog/2015/7/slimraw-an-easy-method-to-save-space-with-cinemadng-footage.html According to my math you get 134 minutes of 4:1 into a 500GB SSD which is more space in disk than .braw 5:1 offers... Not bad if you have a capable machine to handle post, I guess, even though, slimraw promises a way faster workflow.

LOL Good one! : -) I loved that one! Now we're talking! : ) No worries man, wait to see a fair comparative test with lossy CinemaDNG 3:1, even though, I already guess the result and/or use slimraw to cut and end straight to 60% of bytes or increase equivalently the minutes length -- here's the table from where you/we can start to calculate ; -) https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/

No man, it was not involuntary at all : D I am joking with the terminology because they actually mean the same : ) I am not the one to firstly use it for sure ; ) Thus, there are market reasons to have it named differently (I wish, you wish technical ones to really justify it too!) as Mihail @cpc hinted on his own and above-posted. There are technical aspects but they are not the only ones to consider when we use certain terminology. And at times if not much more often than we'd like, those other ones count even more ; -)

I've used a pretty affordable Vivitar 28mm f2.0 coupled to a native F mount to MFT adapter along the P4K, aside flares, nothing else to declare : -)

PS -- To make it pretty clear: I meant both lossy formats, that is, the visually lossless : D .braw 3:1 (and Q0 too, why not?) vs CinemaDNG 3.1 (and 4.1). To compare CinemaDNG lossless is pointless.

Indeed : ) Not even need to go to eBay. You can buy them anywhere online. From a seller I found who had the original Pocket for EUR250 to sell on OLX I bought two of them (12mm f2.0 and 85mm T1.5) last month for EUR220 the bundle, go figure! : -)

The beauty is on eBay you're prone to find them at similar price. Without mention, no other brand put them as close as the Korean manufacturer. : -)

Faulty units are a bitch! https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/2019/03/08/old-news-braw-is-soft-with-aliasing-vs-cinemadng-proof-poof/ Sorry, couldn't resist : ) Aside the narrator looks like more biased to find .braw goodies this time, the low light approach this round seems to me more interesting and fair enough -- even though the equally sustainable overprocessing claims we may stand up against the new format to not leave to post department the task to handle noise: As someone says pretty accurately here in the comments section of the next comparative video: Something lossless vs .braw aka visually lossless by BMD "it is like comparing a boat and a car" -- what about apples to oranges and compare both lossy CinemaDNG 3:1 vs BRAW or .braw as you wish but 3:1 instead? Here, only one or another comment is worthy to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77nUZZKAlSY Finally, take a look on this: http://www.slimraw.com/ by @cpc I guess this might solve some headaches at post. Seems a good compromise between acquisition and post needs. You can keep your 6.1 firmware version then ; -)

PS: Dennis, I took some look on it in the meantime... I don't even agree with. The quality from highest bitrate on BRAW is simply amazing, makes ProRes obsolete for this camera : ) May CinemaDNG be better, no surprises here. The higher bit rate the better quality. What's new to see from this equation? BRAW is better than equivalent ProRes though. Let features alone. This is the news. On 6.1 you'll have CinemaDNG at your discretion, 6.2 something in-between BRAW and ProRes which means something much upper front than the usual H.264 crap, a delivery recipient BTW. ProRes was meant to be for intermediary use at post. Not BRAW, made for acquisition as well, this time. Where's a fair perspective for the subject matter?

Yes. WTH how did you guess, Glenn? LOL ; -)

Only?? Only to begin with... 10-bit vs 12-bit don't make any difference?! C'mon, let's drop pixel peeping sport in benefit of some positive vibe ; ) If has served Peter Jackson, it will likely fit me as well : -D

I know P4K is not a hybrid but I am puzzled how you all rule out the Queen outside of such task. Test one for a few days you won't want to look back. Ah BTW grabs from 4K 60p give lovely stills : ) 'cause video, guys, this device is one or two generations ahead, if not more : -)

6GB vs 8GB GPU memory seems to me the gap at first glance : -)

I understand you... but it is pretty unfair. Seems to me glass comparitives: the world is not divided between Fujian and Fujinons. Q0 is much different of ProRes HQ... Only to begin with.

What nope? In every compression modes? Hey, you go from 12:1 to 3:1...

Not only theirs... ; ) Mine and many others. In essence, photography is shutter, ASA, ISO, whatever, that is, sensitivity and aperture. What else? Maybe AF and monitoring features assist today. Other than that, it is much... LESS ...pretty BS for geeks (not for shooters) to my book : -)

I've seen now that link in your signature... Nice stuff : ) Terminology is not an important matter for filmmakers, only pictures apply to and count in the end. Geeks talk. Deep pockets for legal issues. Consumers (there's no Berlin wall to separate PROs) to pay the bill.

Well, visually lossless happens to be the new paradigm. There's no controversy, only for a few which means to be pointless : -) All this pretentious purism is nonsense when there's no actually scientific tests to testify any lack of flawless claims. The patent topic is even beyond than that (written by a lawyer as secondary background). Fat eye as Brazilians call. Without mention that RED (the other contender other than Adobe also befriended of this scribe BTW) is already used to open files (Arri, Sony...) only to close settling all them somehow later on. Let alone David Newman per se, if memory applies.

As much as neglecting post labor for creating pictures... : -)

Ljudi su cesto zarobljeni u sopstvenim osecanjima. ~ Tamara Stamenković

This doesn't mean it is lossy, just means can touch both extremities of the ruler. Both sides. Lossless front as well. BRAW is as flexible as that. Nothing new to see here on such. ProRes, as for instance, also varies from 422 Proxy more modest bitrate up to 4444. Six different options IIRC, right? So, six now with BRAW too. What's the beef then? It is up to you to decide where you sit yourself.