Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

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

Neil Abeynayake

Neil Abeynayake

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
584
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Location
Los Angeles
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Are they using RED algorithms under license or something Blackmagic guys developed?
 
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?
 
Neil Abeynayake said:
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?
Click to expand...

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/US20180367775A1/en?assignee=blackmagic+design&oq=blackmagic+design&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.
 
Alex Stolpakov said:
Lets ban Blackmagic for advertising.:furious3:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Phil Holland said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
It took BMD 3 years to develop BRAW and it was already 2 years in development before Apple announced ProResRAW in april 2018.
I still haven't seen ProResRAW implemented in high end camera's like RED, ARRI, Canon, Sony or Panasonic and till today it's only implemented in some prosumer models with an external Atomos recorder.(afaik)

Z-CAM is still developing ZRAW and Kinefinity is still promising KineRAW2.0.

ProRes is a defacto standard, ProResRAW isn't and it wouldn't surprise me if BRAW is more widely used than ProResRAW at the moment, those pocket camera's are pretty good value for money.
 
jake blackstone said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
Grant Petty has had some harsh things to say about ProRes Raw, which is interesting.
Click to expand...
Wow, color me shocked Grant isn't a fan of ProresRAW:violin:
Marc Wielage said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it never was about the money, as Prores license is completely FREE to all comers, except BMD. It's all about BMD stepping on Apple's toes left and right. It's bad enough Resolve competes directly with FCPX. BMD directly rips FCPX lock stock and barrel as a SECOND editor in Resolve and now they trying to directly compete with with Apple ProresRAW codec. Apple has long memory and can be very vindictive. nVidia is a good example and in comparison, BMD is just a small pimple on nVidia's ass. What are the chances of Canon, Nikon, ARRI and other camera manufacturers choosing ProresRAW for their cameras vs the same companies choosing BRAW?
I rest my case...
 
Yes, when Apple dropped NVidia as prefered supplier for the GPU's in 2013 NVidia's stock price was at ~ $15, today it's $250. Not to bad.
Not many companies earn money when selling to Apple (Qualcomm being the exception).
 
jake blackstone said:
Wow, color me shocked Grant isn't a fan of ProresRAW:violin:

No, it never was about the money, as Prores license is completely FREE to all comers, except BMD. It's all about BMD stepping on Apple's toes left and right. It's bad enough Resolve competes directly with FCPX. BMD directly rips FCPX lock stock and barrel as a SECOND editor in Resolve and now they trying to directly compete with with Apple ProresRAW codec. Apple has long memory and can be very vindictive. nVidia is a good example and in comparison, BMD is just a small pimple on nVidia's ass. What are the chances of Canon, Nikon, ARRI and other camera manufacturers choosing ProresRAW for their cameras vs the same companies choosing BRAW?
I rest my case...
Click to expand...

Prores playback may be free on all platforms. But writing Prores is not for non-apple platforms. It is built in to OSX, everybody else has to negotiate a license. Apple is opening up full licensing a bit more than they used to, but it is far from universal.

I prefer Cineform. Lightworks has implemented Cineform support for internal proxy workflow and/or DI mastering. I normally transcode everything to Cineform masters for editing.
 
Misha Engel said:
Yes, when Apple dropped NVidia as prefered supplier for the GPU's in 2013 NVidia's stock price was at ~ $15, today it's $250. Not to bad.
Not many companies earn money when selling to Apple (Qualcomm being the exception).
Click to expand...

And AMD's price at the time was $3.50, today it's $52. What's your point?
 
David Rasberry said:
Prores playback may be free on all platforms. But writing Prores is not for non-apple platforms. It is built in to OSX, everybody else has to negotiate a license. Apple is opening up full licensing a bit more than they used to, but it is far from universal.

I prefer Cineform. Lightworks has implemented Cineform support for internal proxy workflow and/or DI mastering. I normally transcode everything to Cineform masters for editing.
Click to expand...

The license to write Prores on any platform to all software manufacturers is also free.
And, yes, it's up to Apple to decide whom they license Prores to. Pretty much all software companies, who asked to be able to write Prores got it, with a lone exception of BMD.
 
Marc Wielage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Uncompressed CDNG is not a practical editorial codec. It is much better to treat it as a negative and transcode to DI masters for editing.
The lighter raw codecs are much more NLE friendly.
 
jake blackstone said:
And AMD's price at the time was $3.50, today it's $52. What's your point?
Click to expand...

AMD earned their money and current stockprice with PC and Server CPU's, not with selling GPU's to Apple.
NVidia makes it earnings with the GPU's in the gaming, server and AI business.

When you want to earn some money on Apple be a monopolist like Qualcomm, no other company gets a descent price for their products/services while selling to Apple or using Apple standards.
Apple is in the game for earning all the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top