Thread: Oops! BRAW isnt Raw Its a YCbCr codec

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 118
  1. #71  
    Senior Member Frank Glencairn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Danji View Post
    ... and CinemaDNG is sharper.
    ...and you need to zoom in 800% to see this difference

    I mean, that you loose a certain amount of image detail, with extreme compression isn't exactly a new concept.
    Not sure if it is any consolidation, but the amount of detail you gonna loose with delivery compression at the end, is way more.
    Last edited by Frank Glencairn; 09-24-2018 at 04:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #72  
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    www.gigaboots.com
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Glencairn View Post
    but the amount of detail you gonna loose with delivery compression at the end, is way more.


    By that logic, you should be okay with filming in codecs that look this bad if you're only uploading in 1080p.

    The original still: https://imgur.com/G70l6Bl
    Last edited by Danji; 09-24-2018 at 05:47 AM.
    My Gaming YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/gigab00ts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #73  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Danji View Post


    By that logic, you should be okay with filming in codecs that look this bad if you're only uploading in 1080p.

    The original still: https://imgur.com/G70l6Bl
    No. Not everybody delivers to YouTube.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #74  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Danji View Post

    By that logic, you should be okay with filming in codecs that look this bad if you're only uploading in 1080p.
    No he shouldn't, this makes no sense.

    And this whole smartass 'it's not real raw' discussion is pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #75  
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    www.gigaboots.com
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by weui View Post
    No. Not everybody delivers to YouTube.
    I'm merely trying to illustrate the divide that exists between recording formats and final delivery (for a specific use case.) The point I'm trying to make here is that you may need to punch in, do some special effects, or something else that would benefit from the extra sharpness. I'm sure the softening on the Pocket 4K will be more apparent than on the Ursa Pro.

    Quote Originally Posted by stip View Post
    And this whole smartass 'it's not real raw' discussion is pointless.
    Not really. This format using the term raw like all of the others continues to water down and bastardize the term to literally mean any codec a manufacturer deems "high quality" enough to call that. If you look up the definition of raw, it clearly excludes something like BMR.

    "A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, or motion picture film scanner, or other image scanner."

    But you're right, it's no more or less raw than these other bullshit codecs.
    Last edited by Danji; 09-24-2018 at 08:32 AM.
    My Gaming YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/gigab00ts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #76  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,942
    Raw isn’t raw, the camera doesn’t fit in my pocket, the cinema is the last place I’ll see footage. My reality is collapsing, I blame the world’s most hyperbolic marketing. I think my first clue raw wasn’t raw was the 18:1 compression option.

    Why is everything in the consumer space “Pro” yet nothing in the professional space carries that badge. I wonder if the title of the thread should read not Bayer rather than raw.

    P.S. if you’re not delivering for the web, you know, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, what are you doing? Presentations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #77  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,930
    To me RAW means

    I can debayer it and re-debayer it later.
    I can change the White point (WB)
    I can change the ISO.

    Anyone else got something different in mind ?

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    To me RAW means

    I can debayer it and re-debayer it later.
    I can change the White point (WB)
    I can change the ISO.

    Anyone else got something different in mind ?

    JB
    Re-bayer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    To me RAW means

    I can debayer it and re-debayer it later.
    I can change the White point (WB)
    I can change the ISO.

    Anyone else got something different in mind ?

    JB
    Whenever the format imposes significant, immutable, visual choices it ceases to meet the practical definition of RAW. "Debayering" is a good example. If an image has already been debayered in camera, then a meaningful, permanent choice has already been made. It can't be changed later. It's already been "developed" before delivery. It's no longer "raw".

    BRAW also introduces compression artifacts and noise reduction. I'm not saying that makes BRAW bad - I'll almost certainly use it over cDNG most of the time - but it's really hard to consider it "raw."
    Last edited by joe12south; 09-24-2018 at 12:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #80  
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    www.gigaboots.com
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    Whenever the format imposes significant, immutable, visual choices it ceases to meet the practical definition of RAW. "Debayering" is a good example. If an image has already been debayered in camera, then a meaningful, permanent choice has already been made. It can't be changed later. It's already been "developed" before delivery. It's no longer "raw".

    BRAW also introduces compression artifacts and noise reduction. I'm not saying that makes BRAW bad - I'll almost certainly use it over cDNG most of the time - but it's really had to consider it "raw."
    Exactly! That's exactly what I'm saying. Still a great codec, just not raw. It's definitely a very promising looking thing, but it's not raw.
    My Gaming YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/gigab00ts
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Braw pixel binning
    By polaroid22 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-19-2018, 02:27 AM
  2. The right codec
    By david evans in forum DaVinci Resolve
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-08-2016, 05:25 AM
  3. Codec help!
    By Sherm in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 11:59 AM
  4. Oops! Delete please.
    By Andrew in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2012, 03:05 AM
  5. 10 bit 4:4:4 DNxHD codec for BMC
    By andrew cheng in forum BMCuser News & Info
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 06-19-2012, 05:07 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •