Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K gets BRAW in extensive FFPGA hardware update delivered via software

[amanieux]

7 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

The definition of raw isn't that its uncompressed. Its that its not yet processed and is just a file with the code needed to create the image. So no, compressed raw, lossless or lossy is not bullshit raw. Its still raw.

(BTW, its not "RAW", its "raw" or "Raw" if its in the beginning of a sentence.)

disagree lossless raw is still raw because it is bit for bit identical to uncompressed raw but lossy raw is no longer raw unless you give another definition of raw that is for me "data straight out of the sensor", altering a single bit of data disqualifies for raw otherwise where do you put the limit of more or less lossy compression and still qualifying for "lossy raw" ? is h264 a very lossy raw ?

[KnightsFan]

6 minutes ago, amanieux said:

disagree lossless raw is still raw because it is bit for bit identical to uncompressed raw but lossy raw is no longer raw unless you give another definition of raw that is for me "data straight out of the sensor", altering a single bit of data disqualifies for raw otherwise where do you put the limit of more or less lossy compression and still qualifying for "lossy raw" ? is h264 a very lossy raw ?

This is especially true if you want a definition of RAW that works for non-bayer sensors. If your definition of RAW includes "pre-debayering" then you've got to find exceptions for 3 chip designs, Foveon sensors, or greyscale sensors.

Compression is a form of processing, so even by @Mattias Burling's words, "compressed raw" is an oxymoron. But in fairness, I often see people use RAW to describe lossless sensor data, whereas raw (non-capitalized) is often a less strict definition meaning minimal compression to a bayered image, thus including ProRes Raw, Braw, Redcode, and RawLite. So as long as we remember the difference I grudgingly accept that convention.

[marcuswolschon]

For the sake of clarity, please use "lossless compression" instead of "compression".
A runlength-encoding, Lempel-Ziv-Welch Dictionary or similar method of compressing the raw data with the ability to reconstruct it just as it where is someting I feel deserves it's exception.

After all, all the higher bits of all red,  all green or all blue intensity values for large streches of pixels are to be expected to be equal and thus easily compressible. (just to name a simple example.)

[Mattias Burling]

29 minutes ago, amanieux said:

is h264 a very lossy raw ?

You misunderstood my post. Raw is basically a text file containing the code needed to make the baked image which could for example be a h264. I don't believe there is such a limit that you are looking for. 

So to answer your question: No, h264 is not a very compressed form of raw.

I stick to the actual definition of what raw is, but people are of course free to make up their own definitions. Might cause some confusion for you at times but that wouldn't be the end of the world.

[amanieux]

30 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

This is especially true if you want a definition of RAW that works for non-bayer sensors. If your definition of RAW includes "pre-debayering" then you've got to find exceptions for 3 chip designs, Foveon sensors, or greyscale sensors.

Compression is a form of processing, so even by @Mattias Burling's words, "compressed raw" is an oxymoron. But in fairness, I often see people use RAW to describe lossless sensor data, whereas raw (non-capitalized) is often a less strict definition meaning minimal compression to a bayered image, thus including ProRes Raw, Braw, Redcode, and RawLite. So as long as we remember the difference I grudgingly accept that convention.

defining "raw" vs the real deal "RAW" as "meaning minimal compression to a bayered image" is very tricky because where do you put the limit of "minimal compression" is 3:1 minimal but 12:1 no longer minimal ? what about 5:1 ? they should have avoided this semantic headache an called their format : BVC for Blackmagic Video Codec and avoided the RAW misappropriation altogether . what pisses me off is not that "BRAW Q0" is closer looking to prores than to RAW, what pisses me off is that they removed the only real "RAW" with firmware 6.2

[KnightsFan]

10 minutes ago, amanieux said:

defining "raw" vs the real deal "RAW" as "meaning minimal compression to a bayered image" is very tricky because where do you put the limit of "minimal compression" is 3:1 minimal but 12:1 no longer minimal ? what about 5:1 ? they should have avoided this semantic headache an called their format : BVC for Blackmagic Video Codec and avoided the RAW misappropriation altogether .

I agree, but hey, what can we do. As long as everyone knows what everyone else is talking about, that's really the best we can hope for at this point.

[Emanuel]

It is almost as much as saying that people live completely free in a democracy.

Well, they live more free than under an authoritarian regime, very likely.

I see compressed raw in the same way.

E : -)

[HurtinMinorKey]

So without DNG, the camera no longer supports a lossless codec, correct?

[Emanuel]

Should we infer BRAW is lossy then? What about visually lossless Blackmagic claims? ; -)

[Novim]

On 3/7/2019 at 7:35 PM, sanveer said:

I remember someone saying that after the BRAW on their Ursa Mini, they got another stop of usable ISO. Could someone test whether there have been improvements to low light (another usable stop ISO). 

Perhaps not a full stop, maybe a half or 2/3 of it in my testing of BRAW in the last couple of days.

And to add, it seems to me that people who criticise BRAW - in the sense whether it is RAW or raw etc. - among other things forget that BRAW is also meant to be (post)processed in the DaVinci Resolve at the first place, where this new codec - which would evolve in time to come - shows as a very robust for grading. For me, it is gradable as much as cDNG, not to mention that it is more efficient for memory cards and computers. So far I wouldn't complain, and it is still posible to roll back to the 6.1 version with cDNG, if anyone needs so.

 

[KnightsFan]

1 hour ago, HurtinMinorKey said:

So without DNG, the camera no longer supports a lossless codec, correct?

That's a good question. I assume BRaw is always lossy because none of the official Blackmagic info I've seen says it's mathematically lossless, but with q0 the data rate is as high as some lossless formats. Of course higher ratios like 12:1 and such must be lossy.

32 minutes ago, Novim said:

And to add, it seems to me that people who criticise BRAW - in the sense whether it is RAW or raw etc. - among other things forget that BRAW is also meant to be (post)processed in the DaVinci Resolve at the first place, where this new codec - which would evolve in time to come - shows as a very robust for grading.

I think calling Braw "RAW" is misleading, but I fully support the format. The image quality is great at 12:1, and the use of metadata sidecar files could really improve round tripping even outside of Blackmagic software. Back when I used a 5D3 and the choice was either 1080p in 8 bit H264 or uncompressed 14 bit RAW, the latter really stood out. Nowadays with 4k 10 bit in HEVC or ProRes, I see no benefit to the extra data that lossless raw brings. BRaw looks like a really good compromise.

[Emanuel]

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.

 

[CaptainHook]

3 hours ago, amanieux said:

definition of raw that is for me "data straight out of the sensor", altering a single bit of data disqualifies for raw

By that definition you have probably never used raw then, as I haven't come across any camera that supports uncompressed/lossless raw that doesn't alter the sensor data in a process referred to as "calibration" - where every pixel is altered. That can include noise reduction and other processing that's already applied before the raw file is created. Some sensors do this on chip before the ADC! I've also never seen a camera that doesn't do pixel remapping as all sensors suffer hot/dead pixels. Some even offer user initiated pixel remapping to address this as it can occur over time. Which means lots of pixel data is CREATED because the sensor didn't provide useful information. So yeah, no camera from any manufacturer I have seen or used would qualify as offering "raw" to your standard.

People seem to have a romantic and idealised notion about what raw is.

[Emanuel]

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

[Mattias Burling]

9 hours ago, amanieux said:

defining "raw" vs the real deal "RAW" 

In this case the only difference is that "RAW" is misspelled. It's a word, not a abbreviation.

[marcuswolschon]

6 hours ago, CaptainHook said:

 I've also never seen a camera that doesn't do pixel remapping as all sensors suffer hot/dead pixels.

 

So you've never seen the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera that came before the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K?

It certainly didn't remap hot pixels. In Cinema DNG you had to do that yourself.

[Mattias Burling]

59 minutes ago, marcuswolschon said:

 

So you've never seen the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera that came before the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K?

It certainly didn't remap hot pixels. In Cinema DNG you had to do that yourself.

Are you seriously asking one of the Blackmagic developers if he has ever shot the BMPCC? The same guy that has beta tested the BMPCC and every BMD camera since. Why not just ask without the passive aggressiveness..

[marcuswolschon]

13 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Are you seriously asking one of the Blackmagic developers if he has ever shot the BMPCC? The same guy that has beta tested the BMPCC and every BMD camera since. Why not just ask without the passive aggressiveness..

No I'm stating that his own statement implies that.

It was quite some work to remove the patterns of hot pixels in both my BMPCC at higher isos in post.

(Fixed patterns of pure white, individual pixels in near black scenes at iso 1600. Usually fixed by ovelaying the same image shifted exactly 1 pixel in "darken" mode to not loose too much contrast.)

 

[CaptainHook]

2 hours ago, marcuswolschon said:

It certainly didn't remap hot pixels.

It did, at calibration time during manufacturing. But more can develop over time like all sensors, and in unfortunate situations even before the customer receives it. Some companies have publicly known policies on how many "defective" pixels are acceptable, including for displays etc.

[marcuswolschon]

3 minutes ago, CaptainHook said:

It did, at calibration time during manufacturing. But more can develop over time like all sensors, and in unfortunate situations even before the customer receives it. Some companies have publicly known policies on how many "defective" pixels are acceptable, including for displays etc.

Okay. I didn't know that they could develop over time.

I had accepted it that this was part of it being a raw, unaltered output. Just as there is no sharpening happening in-camera or other alterations.

(About 100-200 randomly distributed white, single pixels in both cameras, never moving, only happening at ISO 1600 and when the sensor is basically starved of light with lit actors in front of a pitch black stage.)

 

Since the second BMPCC is currently being sold (up to last year I still handed it to additional volunteer operators to provide closeups as an extra for our stage show recordings),

the BMPCC4K got the 6.2 firmware with a recalibrate -option, the BMCC2.5K/BMPC4K and GH5/GH4R never exhibited this issue, there is nothing for me to do about it anymore.