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

Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Hybrid View

  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
    170
    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  
    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  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Posts
    931
    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  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,773
    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  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,347
    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  
     

  8. #8  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,474
    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  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,898
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    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.
    I actually disagree a bit, even though much of what I'm going to say is pure conjecture. Nevertheless, here it goes. Pretty much all BMD cameras can record Prores and until recently, Cimema DNG was used for RAW recording. As it was correctly pointed out, Cinema DNG has some quality issues and it's kinda EOL. So, BMD had a decision to make what codec to use for RAW recording in their new cameras. They could just use Prores RAW and call it a day. It would have been easy to do and it would have been much cheaper to let Apple to do all development heavy lifting and just pay a small license fee. Instead they decided to develop a brand new codec in-house at probably some considerable cost, which is still and always ongoing, if they want to stay relative in the camera market. Partial debayer in camera also requires some extra hardware and it's too not free, resulting in camera price increase. On the other hand, Apple can easily afford to spend a considerable amount of money, including attempts to overturn Red's IP. Not only Apple can afford to do that, but they can easily bear the cost, if you consider Apple will be spreading the development costs for Prores RAW over millions of future iPhones. Now that Red successfully defended it's compressed RAW patent, it looks like Red will be very happy from Apple licensing payments. So, why then BMD decided to develop BRAW? Well, despite outward appearances, Resolve on Windows and Linux (except for a few Linux installations with the special dongle) still can't write Prores because, unlike with scores of other software manufacturers, Apple consistently refuses to license it to BMD. Even more interesting, to my knowledge, Resolve is the only color grading platform, that doesn't support ProresRAW... still. All other platforms already do. So, it seems, BMD had no choice but to develop their own RAW codec, as ProresRAW isn't available on Resolve...
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hollywood, USA
    Posts
    6,347
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    I actually disagree a bit, even though much of what I'm going to say is pure conjecture. Nevertheless, here it goes. Pretty much all BMD cameras can record Prores and until recently, Cinema DNG was used for RAW recording. As it was correctly pointed out, Cinema DNG has some quality issues and it's kinda EOL. So, BMD had a decision to make what codec to use for RAW recording in their new cameras. They could just use Prores RAW and call it a day. It would have been easy to do and it would have been much cheaper to let Apple to do all development heavy lifting and just pay a small license fee.
    Actually, if you watch last year's NAB speech by Grant Petty, he says they felt it was "more efficient" (which I think means "more cost-effective") just to develop their own codec instead of paying anybody the per-camera royalty for any of the competing Raw formats. He has had some harsh things to say about ProRes Raw, which is interesting.

    I never have gotten a clear answer as to why they dropped CinemaDNG Raw, but I have to say BM Raw is not that bad to work with. And the other story is why Apple will not grant BMD a license to render ProRes under Windows. I have been told that money alone is not the biggest issue -- clearly, Adobe was able to do it, and yet they compete (heavily) with FCPX and other Apple products.
    marc wielage, csi • colorist/post consultant • daVinci Resolve Certified Trainer
    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