Thread: BM Raw for the BMPCC4K Released

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 97
  1. #81  
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    When RED sued Sony (presuming that RED is who were talking about now) it was because Sony did a compressed RAW.

    Arriraw isn’t compressed.

    JB
    John - Thanks for that clarification. I appreciate it. I for some reason thought that Arriraw was some form of compressed as well.
    Last edited by dannyboy; 03-07-2019 at 07:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #82  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,011
    Cant tell the difference with youtubes compression on which braw flavor. Braw is pretty impressive considering how young it is.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #83  
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by weui View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Glencairn View Post
    Just did an article with some tests on BRAW and the "CDNG is gone" hysteria, if someone is interested

    https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com...-mater-at-all/
    Quote Originally Posted by jsfilmz View Post
    Obviously cant compete with superman but heres a quick test. Yes you can tell the difference when super zoomed in. Otherwise, with my untrained eye I cant tell the difference viewing it unzoomed. I provided the download links to the files as well. Prolly have to wait for youtube to encode in 4K DCI
    Thanks a lot for all these tests, very informative. I'm still not upgrading to the new firmware, but with this and the original superman test I have a better idea of what I would be missing if I did.

    I don't think this is "hysteria", it's just me not wanting to update the firmware of my camera. I hardly ever do that anyway.

    If anybody is interested, this is why:
    I don't even need 4k, my eyes can't see it. Plus I'm not that good of a focus puller anyway. I deliver 4k purely for marketing reasons. As long as it looks like very good 1080p, it's fine for me. With that in mind, BRAW shoud be perfect for me, but there are two cases where it's not: sometimes I shoot stuff for VFX, and sometimes I need to punch in pretty hard on the image (on the piece I'm editing now there's one take that has great acting... by two of the people in the shot, the other one dropped the ball badly, so I'm going 175% and leaving her out of this shot). I know I can do that with p4k 4:1 footage, I worry 175% on BRAW Q0 would look soft. I have many other takes of that shot, I could go with one where the acting on the two main characters is not that good. Maybe you could reshoot, but that's hardly ever an option for me. And shooting more in the day isn't either, we're always running late (that's a universal law AFAIK).
    Being able to backroll into the old firmware would fix half the issue for me: when I'm shooting for VFX, I know in advance. But this second case, I never know when it's going to happen, either I'm ready for these accidents or I'm not.

    So, I could install the new firmware, backroll into the old one for specific projects (is that even possible?), and risk having to choose not-so-great takes or getting soft images after punching in too much... Or I could spend $400 on a second CFast card and another HDD for backups. Which is what I'm doing. My p4k was a great deal at $2000 with media and batteries and all, and it's still a great deal at $2400. I just want it to shoot the best images it possibly can shoot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #84  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    but with this and the original superman test I have a better idea of what I would be missing if I did.
    I just read that the 'superman test' was shot at f1.8 using a Viltrox adapter.
    Crazy times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #85  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
    I just read that the 'superman test' was shot at f1.8 using a Viltrox adapter.
    Crazy times.
    Link please....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #86  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Here are results without any additional compression. Since both DNG and Braw are I-Frame only codecs, we can use stills.

    I found the time for a few tests of uncompressed DNG vs Braw Q0 and then some 8K (well, close at 7,952 pixel) from a Sony A7RII. The BM camera used is the Ursa Mini 46 Pro, equipped with an OLPF by Rawlite which cleans it from moiré.
    For the money, I have used a Zeiss 60mm Macro, stopped down to 5.6 and varied the distance of the Sony to get a comparable shooting angle. The BM shots were exported from a 4.6K timeline, so no scaling involved. All shots are center-cropped – BTW, did you know that Photoshop refuses to open shots of banknotes? Well, Affinity Photo didn't complain about my cropping.

    This is DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qwezrok5b3...Money.png?dl=0
    and this BRAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/98xt9eevwc...Money.png?dl=0
    and '8K': https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4j8r4d3hq...Money.png?dl=0

    To shoot something like a natural scene, I used my local environment. The UM46P was used with a Zeiss 35mm f1.4, stopped down to 5.6. The Sony was used with a Zeiss 50mm F1.4 to compensate for the larger sensor and also stopped down to 5.6. All center-cropped.

    DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/izcjpagnms..._Park.png?dl=0
    BRAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2rfytxso5t..._Park.png?dl=0
    '8K': https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tn1l5efer..._Park.png?dl=0

    IMHO, the tiny difference in resolution (yes, I see some) is not worth a lengthy discussion. All of those who claim much better sharpness in DNG may be mislead by false detail beyond the Nyquist limit.
    If you really need more, get an 8K machine…
    Last edited by Nomad; 03-12-2019 at 09:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #87  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by tclark513 View Post
    Link please....
    https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/2019/03/05/...-firmware-6-2/


    3rd paragraph, test specs:
    Viltrox lens adapter with Sigma 18-35mm, set at 24mm with f1.8
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #88  
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta Georgia
    Posts
    3,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Here are results without any additional compression. Since both DNG and Braw are I-Frame only codecs, we can use stills.

    I found the time for a few tests of uncompressed DNG vs Braw Q0 and then some 8K (well, close at 7,952 pixel) from a Sony A7RII. The BM camera used is the Ursa Mini 46 Pro, equipped with an OLPF by Rawlite which cleans it from moiré.
    For the money, I have used a Zeiss 60mm Macro, stopped down to 5.6 and varied the distance of the Sony to get a comparable shooting angle. The BM shots were exported from a 4.6K timeline, so no scaling involved. All shots are center-cropped – BTW, did you know that Photoshop refuses to open shots of banknotes? Well, Affinity Photo didn't complain about my cropping.

    This is DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qwezrok5b365v ... y.png?dl=0
    and this BRAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/98xt9eevwch34 ... y.png?dl=0
    and '8K': https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4j8r4d3hqdcx ... y.png?dl=0

    To shoot something like a natural scene, I used my local environment. The UM46P was used with a Zeiss 35mm f1.4, stopped down to 5.6. The Sony was used with a Zeiss 50mm F1.4 to compensate for the larger sensor and also stopped down to 5.6. All center-cropped.

    DNG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/izcjpagnmsud5 ... k.png?dl=0
    BRAW: https://www.dropbox.com/s/2rfytxso5t458 ... k.png?dl=0
    '8K': https://www.dropbox.com/s/3tn1l5efer0l5 ... k.png?dl=0

    IMHO, the tiny difference in resolution (yes, I see some) is not worth a lengthy discussion. All of those who claim much better sharpness in DNG may be mislead by false detail beyond the Nyquist limit.
    If you really need more, get an 8K machine…

    I haven’t looked yet but I like the sound of your methodology.

    Also factor that the OLPF will potentially mitigate some of the DNG / BRAW differences as well.

    JB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #89  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Also factor that the OLPF will potentially mitigate some of the DNG / BRAW differences as well.
    JB
    That exactly was my point, once you have proper anti-aliasing filtering, the differences are minimized. As I have already proven before, the pre-filtering of Braw alone does not avoid chroma aliasing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #90  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
    https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/2019/03/05/...-firmware-6-2/


    3rd paragraph, test specs:
    Viltrox lens adapter with Sigma 18-35mm, set at 24mm with f1.8
    Thanks!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Mini S4i on BMPCC4K?
    By adcalvetti in forum Lens Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-27-2019, 08:39 PM
  2. Wtb: Bmpcc4k (uk)
    By analog_addict in forum For Sale / Want to Buy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2019, 03:59 PM
  3. Bmpcc4k 4K screen looks off?!
    By Josh Allen csc in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-14-2019, 06:00 AM
  4. Sydney BMPCC4k
    By BM4EVER in forum Footage / Frames
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-01-2018, 05:02 PM
  5. BMPCC4K unboxing
    By OlaHaldor in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-11-2018, 02:07 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
  •