Thread: Are there any validations to these claims made by Blackmagic Design?

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47
  1. #1 Are there any validations to these claims made by Blackmagic Design? 
    What do you guys think of this? Are there any validations to these claims made by Blackmagic Design? Any truth to what they say
    Incredible image quality, extensive metadata support and highly optimized GPU and CPU accelerated processing make Blackmagic RAW the world’s first codec that can be used for acquisition, post production and finishing.
    Source: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicraw

    Blackmagic RAW is a revolutionary new and very modern codec that’s easier to use and much better quality than popular video formats, but with all the benefits of RAW recording. Featuring multiple new technologies, such as a new advanced de-mosaic algorithm, Blackmagic RAW gives you visually lossless images that are ideal for high resolution, high frame rate and high dynamic range workflows.

    Incredible image quality, extensive metadata support and highly optimized GPU and CPU accelerated processing make Blackmagic RAW the world’s first codec that can be used for acquisition, post production and finishing. Blackmagic RAW is a totally new design, plus it’s cross platform, freely available and includes a developer SDK so anyone can add support for Blackmagic RAW to their own software.
    Are they using RED algorithms under license or something Blackmagic guys developed?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    I don't see any issues with the claims in that. Sure it's been given the 'ol marketing once-over but what published advertising hasn't?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Abeynayake View Post
    What do you guys think of this? Are there any validations to these claims made by Blackmagic Design? Any truth to what they say

    Source: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicraw



    Are they using RED algorithms under license or something Blackmagic guys developed?
    Lets ban Blackmagic for advertising.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Abeynayake View Post
    What do you guys think of this? Are there any validations to these claims made by Blackmagic Design? Any truth to what they say

    Source: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicraw



    Are they using RED algorithms under license or something Blackmagic guys developed?
    It's pretty good... but
    You can do the same with CineformRAW better and faster when NLE's would allow us.

    No RED algorithms or licenses in BRAW https://patents.google.com/patent/US...esign&sort=new

    CineformRAW is still the best compressed RAW format in my opinion only beaten by R3D in compression ratio (you need around 4:1 with CineformRAW for the same quality .R3D at 5:1) vs. quality.
    CineformRAW is still the lowest on compute resources(GPU and CPU) compared to all other compressed RAW formats afaik.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Stolpakov View Post
    Lets ban Blackmagic for advertising.
    I guess you don't know that RED still holds the in-camera RAW compression patent. That is why SONY, Panasonic, Canon and others have to separate recording module from the camera head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,345
    I think the wrinkle from Blackmagic is that their BM Raw codec is partially debayered, so that was one way they were able to avoid infringing the Red patents. I think if they had violated them, there would have been a lawsuit by now. It's possible Red doesn't see BMD as a competitor, since we're talking a $40,000 camera vs. a $6000 camera -- it's a different market.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Posts
    917
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Abeynayake View Post
    I guess you don't know that RED still holds the in-camera RAW compression patent. That is why SONY, Panasonic, Canon and others have to separate recording module from the camera head.
    Yeah... in RED cameras.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,335
    What Marc said. By it being partial debayer it allows for a faster sort of workflow on a shear technical level.

    What Misha said, except nobody supports onward or future develops for a long while now for CineformRAW and it's not getting sexy GPU acceleration or CPU optimization stuff these days.

    What I say. Yep RED owns the patent for Internal RAW Compressed video essentially and apparently licenses that patent accordingly.

    BRAW made BRAW because CinemaDNG is also an open source codec, but alas it also is something that nobody wants to further develop for also not exactly the best codec on earth.

    BRAW is a good move by BMD because it allows for them to take the reigns over their own codec ecosystem without some of the issues above so future development can happen and they have reason to invest resources in it. It's just really pure the true definition of RAW and that's my only quibble.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Nothing wrong with their claims, except for that of being first. BRAW is partially baked. I still prefer it to ARRI RAW and its limited control.

    Cineform had lots of advantages, it was headed in the right direction for a while. It’s pretty much dead now. RIP.

    BMD had to move on from CinemaDNG. Never a good codec even though it did serve a purpose in the industry for a short while. I think many of us, mostly those who had to deal with cDNG on a lot of big projects, effectionately pronounce ‘DNG’ as ‘dung’.

    R3D has drastically improved in the little over 12 years it’s existed and continues to improve. It flows and adapts seamlessly as RED’s hardware improves. Advancements in the processing tools also improve R3D captured on older hardware or with older codec revisions. These things are a big deal many people take for granted and really don’t even think about.
    - Jeff Kilgroe
    - Applied Visual Technologies, LLC | RojoMojo
    - Just me and my 8K Monstro VV kicking ass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,756
    The one company that is selling camera's world wide except in the US is working on it's own fork of Cineform RAW (KineRAW2.0), I have no idea what the status is today.

    Z-cam with ZRAW is doing more or less the same what BMD is doing with RAW.
    Canon's Cinema RAW Light stays below a compression ratio of 6:1 meaning it isn't infringing the RED patent (afaik, haven't heard of any lawsuit or agreement).
    Sony and RED have some kind of secret agreement.

    ProResRAW has a compression ratio bigger than 6:1, that's why they normally have to pay RED a license fee (ATOMOS in most cases).
    ProResRAW HQ has a compression ratio lower than 6:1 and should be free to use with respect to the RED compressed RAW patent.

    Lets hope that we will have a compressed RAW codec with the benefits of .R3D(compression ratio) and CineformRAW(speed hence low on compute resources) some day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts