Thread: Oops! BRAW isnt Raw Its a YCbCr codec

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 118
  1. #101  
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    465
    Lossy compressed RAW is RAW but will show compression artifacts. Calling it RAW is not disingenious. Calling it uncompressed RAW, or lossless compressed RAW, would be. But I don't think BM has claimed anything like that. The detailed inspection of the SDK showed that whatever transformations the codec is doing can be undone to get back an approximation of the original RAW data. I'd call that RAW. They're calling that RAW. Sony is calling that RAW. Canon is calling that RAW. RED is calling that RAW. Nikon is calling that RAW. You're fighting an uphill battle if you want RAW to refer only to uncompressed or losslessly compressed RAW.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    ...The detailed inspection of the SDK showed that whatever transformations the codec is doing can be undone to get back an approximation of the original RAW data...
    I've not seen an example of this. What I have seen is visible baked-in processing. I'd love to be wrong. Early days, hopefully this black box will be opened at least a crack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    2,930
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    I've not seen an example of this. What I have seen is visible baked-in processing. I'd love to be wrong. Early days, hopefully this black box will be opened at least a crack.
    Like..RED or Sony do with their SDK ?

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Junior Member PearFilms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Saskatoon, Sk
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Glencairn View Post
    it highly doubt that it is YCbCr.
    I wouldn't be so sure, when you look at the level of compression the are attaining without visually degrading the image, its hard to believe something isn't being discarded. we know it's not actually raw, no raw is going to get that small, ycbcr i dont know, but it would be nice for bm to clear this up sometime so we don't have to argue heh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Like..RED or Sony do with their SDK ?

    JB
    If I wanted BMD to behave like their competition, I'd be on a RED or Sony forum. ;-) Besides, BMD chose to use the word "open."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Senior Member Frank Glencairn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,924
    Quote Originally Posted by PearFilms View Post
    I wouldn't be so sure, when you look at the level of compression the are attaining without visually degrading the image, its hard to believe something isn't being discarded. we know it's not actually raw, no raw is going to get that small, ycbcr i dont know, but it would be nice for bm to clear this up sometime so we don't have to argue heh.
    Yeah, but as I said before, why make the small undebayered black&white image from the sensor, bigger in camera first, by debayering it, and than compress the shit out of it?
    Wouldn't it make more sense for low data rate, to leave it as small as it is in the first place, apply some noise management, store the gradient predictions in the metadata, and compress from there, so you end up with higher quality at the same low data rate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    BRAW can simultaneously be a great new codec that makes a great deal of sense for a great many scenarios - and at the same time suffer from an unfortunately misleading, marketing hyperbole fueled, promotion.
    I think you statement is hyperbolic.

    Quote Originally Posted by joe12south View Post
    If BRAW really is a yCbcR codec with visible compression artifacts (ringing, macro-blocking) and baked-in noise reduction then implying it is RAW is at best a stretch, and at worst disingenuous. Again, this doesn't mean it isn't a good codec. It appears to be. It appears to beat ProRes in some key areas. Yay. But if these initial findings are correct, then BRAW might not be a good substitute for RAW for those that prefer a camera to do the minimum of processing and instead do that at the last mile, i.e. a traditional RAW workflow.

    Yes, we still have cDNG. Wisely, BMD did not remove that choice. But they did possibly muddy the waters unnecessarily by using the BRAW moniker. It's not unreasonable to expect an operator who does not frequent these forums to expect that BRAW is RAW. (Again, IF, preliminary findings prove true.)

    I think you are being too harsh. BM has given us a great camera, great software, and a great new format to record in. The best advice is to try the new format out. If it meets your needs use it. If not ignore it and enjoy the only 4k raw and prores camera priced at $1,300.

    I know what you mean about companies naming things but I really don't think BM has done anything that bad. In fact the new format in many instances may be BETTER than CDNG. It is one thing to put out an inferior product and then try and slip it past people by using a deceptive name. It is quite another to put out a revolutionary product that doesn't quite fit in any traditional category so you just pick the name you think describes it best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    www.gigaboots.com
    Posts
    76
    “It’s not disingenuous because it’s a great codec” and “it’s not disingenuous because the competition uses just as questionable language describing their products” are lame arguments and it’s all this thread is and ever will be. I’m done. At the end of the day, just remember that I never said it wasn’t going to be a great format to record to. It’s just not raw. It’s BRAW.
    My Gaming YouTube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/gigab00ts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,032
    Meanwhile on planet earth, people have real problems..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by VidShooter View Post
    I think you statement is hyperbolic.
    I took pains to repeatedly qualify my statements as we really don't know what's going on. If...if...IF.

    I, nor anyone I recall on this thread, is suggesting BRAW isn't a good codec or that BMD doesn't make good hardware and software. What I'm suggesting is that the marketing language *might* be problematic.

    Listen, I could not be more excited to get my hands on my P4K. And I fully expect that – assuming nothing ugly turns-up in testing – what I would have shot ProRes will be BRAW instead. I also expect that *some* of what I would have shot RAW, I will move to BRAW. But, based on what I've seen so far (especially the color bleeding), BRAW won't be a total replacement for real RAW, and I wasn't expecting that based on the announcement.
    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
  •