I've been thinking about the conclusions of this video with regards to BlackmagicRAW seeming more processed. According to Blackmagic the demosaic algorithm used for BRAW is supposedly a lot more advance than the any of the real-time demosaic algorithms that occur in editing software, because it is handled by the the hardware FPGA's in the camera vs a software solution that must operate in real time. The result is that things like a greater sample radius can in theory be used for more accurate inter pixel color estimation. What does this mean? It would in theory mean the demosaic would result in fewer residual artifacts in the final image giving the footage an overall smoother and less noisy look, but with, in theory, more accurate colors (excluding the white balance correction issue, as that is a unrelated issue ), but this smoothness could potentially be misinterpreted as if noise reduction had been applied. So this raises the bigger question that actually wasn't answered in this video: How does a post denoised version of ProresRAW compare to a post denoised version of Braw? This is ultimately the real question more so than how much noise was retained, because noise that doesn't add anything meaningful to the final image is just useless noise. In this video we were shown that BRAW cleans up significantly better than H.625, but it is never shown if ProresRAW cleans up as well or better. If ProresRAW cleans up better than Braw then that is the win, but if they clean up nearly identically then that would mean Braw got rid of useless noise information likely due to a more sophisticated demosaic algorithm and that they are equal from an end result standpoint; however, if Braw were to clean up better than the ProresRAW then that would imply the demosaic was actually better, and despite showing less noise in the initial footage could potentially be considered the superior format, because again it's the end result that really matters. My suspicion is that they will likely clean up nearly identically making them more or less equivalent outside of meaningless noise, which would mean the Braw was just better demosaiced and noise reduction was likely not used.
honestly I lost my mind . I have different camera for photography but recently I decided buying Blackmagic ursa mini pro 12k , but some of the person said oh Blackmagic need a lot of time to grow up like Sony like red like canon . some of the person said you can change raw formate to prores raw , I heard tons of tons different story . I searched a lot of camera red a lot of about the camera . using different Nikon camera but recently bought Nikon z9 as well my question is is Blackmagic ursa mini pro is ok for documentary ? I am not professional cinema director making movie for cinema . . I like your video very much explain all the details most of the camera like Sony fx6 or fx9 is very much expensive like canon Eos mark lll
The it’s is a bit bulky for doc. I’d go for something lighter for sure. It also depends on what you have in mind in terms of doc. The FX6 would be a great option for example
It's the reason I subscribed. They're so good. Your infographics are clean, concise, and clear and I walk away knowing more than I learned in most of my cinematography classes. I think any other youtuber would have put that information in some sort of "masterclass" that they charge money for.
This is a good idea actually… but won’t be an accurate comparison as it needs to be coming from the same sensor. And there’s no sensor out there that can record both formats
One thing that BRAW offers that very few people seem to realize is that you can trim your files and save them back to BRAW in Resolve (without any compromise or loss whatsoever), so you can minimize file size once your editing is done. It means you can easily record all day and fill up your 1 TB SSD if you need to.... then trim all the unnecessary moments and end up with only the ones that you need, and still have access to RAW data. Brilliant, and a total game changer! I truly don't know if you can do the same with ProRes RAW, but I doubt it.
The file size is more acceptable and you also have the hand on the white balance in kelvin and ISO metadata, it make some tweak possible with a smaller size than DNG RAW or Prores RAW , convert that in 16 bit open EXR ACES is really easy and make long term archive more easy. The BRAW are also normaly open source Hope more software use it.
You're absolutely right on your partial debayering theory regarding BRAW. The reason being is that Black Magic does that to get around RED' RAW patent of pure internal RAW. That's why prores Raw is only acquired through external devices.
That doesn't make sense. Canon has their own perfectly functional internal "pure raw" with no issues. Red raw isn't "Pure raw" either, it goes though it's own proprietary process to lower file size. Pure raw is cinema DNG, or any other special file type that is literally just pure code from the sensor and those files are even larger then redcode. Apple sued RED because Apple patent trolls everybody it possibly can. They lose these cases all the time.
@@luisa9628 sorry my bad I meant pure compressed RAW. Cinema DNG is uncompressed. Braw gets around this by partially debayering the image. If Apple won the suit it would have benefited us not Apple. It was a major lawsuit google it. In fact Sony got sued by RED for its internal compressed RAW in F65 F55 cameras.
Nerd parts are exactly why we come to watch your videos. Pretty much no one goes this deep with information and testings like you! You save us so much time to figure all this out on our own. Thank you!
Hey Sherif, are you going to buy the Lumix S5 IIx? If you do, are you able to share your findings on the BRAW quality for it? I’m curious if it’s worth the upgrade from the S5 II 😊 By the way, do know what’s the size difference between internal H265 vs braw vs ProRes raw for an hour of footage?
Can you do a test on how "real" is the 12 bit color?? I'd love to see is BRAW is equal in that respect. I'm recording for HDR content specifically, and because of the 10 bit color end space, I need 12 bit as a starting point to edit from without artifacts or banding.
Has there been any changes in BRAW since this video? I wish for a workflow using RAW that doesn’t require me to jump through hoops or forego quality for convenience. Jumping through hoops is shooting in ProRes RAW, WB in Final Cut, then grading in Resolve. Or as an alternative, shoot in ProRes RAW, convert to cDNG, then import to Resolve - more hoops! Foregoing quality is using BRAW just so I can avoid aforementioned workflows and import directly to Resolve. Seriously, this nightmare has been going on for far too long and it’s a ridiculous burden on the end user.
Yeah, I hate those company feuds where the only loser is the consumer. I think there has been some improvements that fix the white balance in the Panasonic, but I haven’t tested it personally so I won’t be able to comment on this. Maybe try it yourself and let me know
Nice comparison! I would love to see a comparison between the two formats in regards to workflow. Things like editing performance, compatibility with software, and file sizes.
One additional comment - I don't believe that Blackmagic will solve the Debayering issue. They purposely designed it this way so that the files can take some pressure off of the editor and make it very easy to smoothly edit high resolution "raw" files. When I was using the BMPCC 4K, I was recording raw in C-DNG files, and it basically retained all the noise from the original recordings, but when Blackmagic design updated the camera to record BRAW, the files were immediately softer and less noisy because of this "in camera" debayering process. I knew what was happening, but it was a life saver for editing "raw" clips quickly, while retaining WB and exposure controls. Plus the flexability to use BRAW in Adobe Premiere and Davinci are a win too, since I do not own a MAC. Since I do not own a MAC, I don't even have a choice - BRAW wins this contest for me.
I remember debates on "lossless" compressed CDNG vs uncompressed CDNG on Blackmagic Cinema camera 2.5k, and I saw the reduction in quality too) It is very sad that BM completely removed uncompressed CDNG options in all their contemporary cameras.
Blackmagic Design make all manner of profound hardware. The TV industry are supposed to be formulating the next best thing. A decade has gone by. It's not Apple against Microsoft. It's Apple against Blackmagic Design! Very strange. Australian companies are protected from monopolisers. ProRes and Avid and Apple and Adobe best pull their head in. Competition laws in Australia are profound.
The quality is pretty much the same, but It’ll become HUGE in size in a folder structure instead of a single file. CDNG is the most inefficient codec out there
UPDATE: FW 2.6 is released and they claim they fixed the WB issue I pointed out. I didn't test it out yet. I only got a verbal confirmation from Panasonic. av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/global/cs/dsc/download/index4.html
I haven't tested it yet no. That’s why I was saying “it should”. Will confirm once I do I edited the statement to make it clearer that I didn't test it
@@THEDPJOURNEY No problem man, I just thought you might have tested it 2 days later. No rush at all. My guess is that it's only better, not completely fixed, since Panasonic say ''improved'' and not ''fixed''.
Excellent analysis but I should point out that the subtle noise reduction baked into BRAW has been known from the beginning and was a subject of much discussion on Blackmagic forum. But from this I would make the OPPOSITE conclusions to yourself. As your charts show, we get half the noise from BRAW at the cost of some loss of detail. But with BRAW we also gain a smoother workflow and a better external recorder in the case of the Lumix S series. Is it worth giving up all these advantages for the subtle detail loss? That's the core question. The best way to answer is to ask whether lack of detail is the big problem with digital video footage? I'd say the opposite! That's why many DPs use ProMist or other filters, plus post-production techniques to reduce over-sharp imagery and get a more film-like naturalistic look. In summary, BRAW sacrifices (to a very small degree) the one characteristic we can most afford to compromise on, while providing all the other benefits.
Thanks for the comment Robin, you have very good points and totally agree. I have a feeling you didnt watch the episode till the very end though. I cant remember saying that all DPs should choose ProRes RAW over BRAW,. All I said was I "Personally" would choose ProRes RAW "at present", mainly was due to the WB issue it had, which was already fixed. Check 16:06 till the end if you have another min, you'll see how we both agree. especially at 16:33 Thanks again for watching
I did watch the video to the end, plus a few of your other excellent videos too. That should help your analytics. :-) I never made a claim about you stating something for all DPs... not sure where that comment comes from? I am merely venturing a different conclusion that might help other readers.
Hahaha, no such thing as adding noise in camera. Noise is just fleeting electrical charges with random pattern that affects the sensor in a pixel level. Brands are fighting for reducing this phenomenon, not adding it
BRAW compressed, we would have to use one of the compressed ProRes Raw codecs then compare. Until BRAW comes in a uncompressed format it will be processed simply due to compression. ProRes HQ files aren’t compressed= simple.
- 2:37 There are cameras that output 16 bit raw, and there's a recorder that records 16 bit linear. Checkout the Sony AXS-R7 External 4K RAW Recorder for VENICE, PMW-F55 & F5. - 7:37 Thanks for the tip. - Thanks for the whole video. You answered lots of questions that I had about braw & prores raw.
People are saying DNG files from BMPCC4K are much better than BRAW since its launch. If you compare BRAW to DNG photo files from my BMPCC6K the difference is night and day, in my opinion, and it is sad to not be able to enjoy this option (and ProRes RAW).
that wouldve been great, But i guess Denoiser in Davinci Resolve is enough to state a point, plus this DP dude is not much of a premier user I believe.
I think BRAW uses raw data as a monochromatic video signal with some moderate bitrate mpeg-like compression so it causes this softness and macroblocking (which you called mushiness where you don't see every single pixel). It's interesting to know what type of compression inside of ProRes raw with same bitrate levels.
I found some in-depth reverse engineering investigation: cml.news/g/cml-raw-log-hdr/topic/braw_codec_analysis/25749037 In short, image stores in in both formats, where first format is half resolution R-G1-B (or RGB transformmed to YCC) video which can be viewed fast and without complexity computing (which can be called as debayered), and the second is "fourth" green G2 component, which is added to compute "full resolution" if we do full quality debayer. Very smart move) It reminds me C500 external 4K raw, where R-G1-B-G2 was stored as a four 2K RGB + "Alpha" via 2 SDIs. But it was not compressed except of log curve applied.
Thanks for this video. I am deciding right now whether to get the Black Magic or the ProRes (via Ninja V). Question: at 10:46, the BRAW, looks sharper than the ProRes, and despite what you stated that the BRAW must have some noise reduction processing at some point. Noise reduction should reduce detail (?). Will you be doing an analysis on the dynamic range of these format?
From what can be seen, sharpness =/= more details, they have a pass of noise reduction and a pass of sharpness to compensate for the loss that occurs with NR, it gives the illusion of a more detailed image but it's just micro contrast boosting, you can see it everywhere once you notice it. (dark edges around brigt details and the opposite as well)
Thank you for this! I’ve been waiting to see a good comparison of ProRes RAW vs BRAW from the same sensor. As I suspected BRAW is not actually RAW, but a nice 12-bit yCbCr-like codec. I’ve settled on the Sigma fp for the ProRes RAW, and real 12-bit uncompressed CinemaDNG if needed.
@@THEDPJOURNEY look what I found: cml.news/g/cml-raw-log-hdr/topic/braw_codec_analysis/25749037 In short, image stores in in both formats, where first format is RGB (or RGB transformmed to YCC) which can be viewed fast and without complexity computing (which can be called ad debayered), and the second is "fourth" green component, which is added if we do full quality debayer. Very smart move) It reminds me C500 external 4K raw, where RGBG' was stored as 2K RGB Alpha via 2 SDIs. But it was not compressed except of log curve.
My thoughts: 1. As a DP, my White Balance is always in the set using Kelvin, and in the ballpark of where I want the image to be eventually. The BRAW limitation isn't a major issue (for me) 2. Davinci Resolve. 'Nuff said 3. BRAW Compression codecs are a major factor for choosing BRAW, especially for documentary style work where something like a 8:1 compression ratio might be a data saver while not compromising on quality 4. The menus and interface on the BM recorders are fantastic, plus External SSD / Internal Dual SD Card options make it more flexible for scaling up or down when shooting.. so essentially, a matter of the recorder along with the format.
when Blackmagic introduced bRAW they explained how it works very detailed as far as I remember. and as far as I remember they also mentioned the intermediate layers of processing the data and image... Me personally still prefer the good old DNG format (with 3:1 compression). I think that was (that is) the best format for RAW.
Hey there :) Great video, thanks! Is that white balance issue still thing with modern Blackmagic Cameras like those announced at NAB? Same question for the raw fidelity you mentioned? I am currently a Sony user but kind of annoyed by the lack of internal raw options an we are considering making the switch to Blackmagic and their new Ursa cine 12k. But since it now only records in BRAW I wondered if those issues still exist?
Thank you for video, I have a question, I was using Panasonic last 7-8 years now I am using Sony A7SIII, I love and hate this camera, I cant do the same color as I did on Panasonic, and it is really bothering me. I want to switch again to Panasonic but there is one issue here the stops me to buy Panasonic, it is autofocus, which is important for me as an Automative Videographer. if I decide to switch which one are you recommend?
@@THEDPJOURNEY I hope GH6 will have good AF, i will wait for that and your review too, Thank You, waiting for more video. i will be happy if you give me some advice for Sony color, I am using Slog 3 +1 exposing, recorder Ninja V 5inc
That was a surprise! I’ve always thought that black magic & pro red raw process the noise the same way! Watching the raw war is pretty fun Can’t wait to see how it will develop
The world will be so much better when the Red RAW patent(s) expires in a few years. Never should have been granted for something so obvious. It's held everyone back. Meanwhile, I don't see companies jumping on the bandwagon of Prores RAW like they do with regular Prores. BRAW technically seems better, but we will have to see how things play out. My bet is on BRAW for now
Assimilate scratch is amazing for transcoding from Prores Raw to DNxHR or ProRes - you can pipe through with correct colorspace interpreting and tagging as slog2 cinegamma or whatevever you want. So you get exactly the same files from Scratch render as if shooting in DNxHR or prores native, but with better quality and bit depth. Also perfect if you add Neat video OFX in the Scratch pipe. This works perfectly in a YRGB davinci colormanaged workflow. The color "management" in PP or FCPX or pretty much non existing, which makes working with prores raw native maddening. If been saying for years now that not supporting ProRes raw is going to be the downfall of blackmagic design ... :-) lets see ...
Way too extreme of a WB comparison as you said, how do you make that mistake and have that equipment, slightly illogical. And as you also said, maybe a better name is raw hybrid and it's about the end result. It's for the time you don't need raw but would like some benefits from it. I would understand if you "bashed" it for the way it advertised itself, since it's not raw, but for it's merits? It hold up already as a pretty useful tool. I've only shot braw once, and mostly shoot international across camera brands, also the only BM thing I own is Resolve, so I'm not a fan boy, just to clarify.
Your videos are so insightful! 🙏🏽 Just watched 4 in a row. I hope you do make the one about noise post production that (I think) you mentioned. And one about Canon’s R5C, or Canon RAW Light.
In Visual Effects for keying and compositing, noise makes a considerable difference in pulling a clean alpha from a greenscreen or bluescreen. It's usually a better idea to shoot with all the original sensor's noise preserved so that you can denoise the footage in-comp before keying, which gives far more flexibility without the risk of losing detail from the camera's internal denoising. This means that ProRes Raw is certainly better for this. However, we really shouldn't get too caught up in this... A good artist can pull a flawless looking key off of subpar footage, and artists will rarely ever receive a "perfect plate" to key from. There are so many other things to factor into what falls under a good greenscreen plate. Color depth is the bigger factor here, so any 10-12 bit footage will allow a good range to pull a key in a well lit studio where noise shouldn't be overt enough to contaminate the key. At the end of the day you should always decide which format to shoot based on your project budget and level of production. Most importantly, if you do have to do greenscreens or any VFX work, hire a VFX supervisor to ask questions!! It is an investment that is well worth it and will save you TONS of money on the back-end when you can eliminate potential issues on-set.
Thank you so much for the comment, I use neat video for the noising. It has a basic and advanced level in all cases. The basic level is pretty good out of the box
Really helpful and well presented review. I really like the smooth and interesting graphics used and found the 'nerd alert' part, the most fascinating - though great to have it announced beforehand as an option to skip, if it's not the right time to 'get into it' in the moment. For me, one very big part of the equation is the significantly much higher cost of Adobe Premiere and the fact it is on a subscription model. It is much more attractive and cost effective to purchase another monitor for BRAW at $800 than pay for Premiere and use that for Prores Raw using my Ninja V. Let alone the extra time and work required to process the Prores Raw file in Premiere first, before re-rendering it to then use in Davinci Resolve as the preferred editing software.
Thank you so much Marc for your kind words. Glad you liked the “Nerd alert” bit. Yeah the option of Resolve is looking much better than Adobe Pr. I’ll still be talking more about this topic. That’s just a start anyway
why did you base the winning point of the black magic monitor on the fact that it has 5'' and 7", th eatomos also has a 5" and a 7". black magic calls them the same, atomos calls them 2 names.
The thing ProRes Raw needs to work on is compression sizes. They have a giant HQ size and a still large standard size, but no smaller sizes like Blackmagic Raw. They should implement a 8:1, 12:1, constant quality options like Braw and it'll be more versitile for those who can't necessarily tell the difference between slightly more compressed images and don't have the budget for ginormous file sizes.
Great video. Been looking for a comparison of the formats for a while. As a PC user, and davinic user, braw is the only option for me for now. I also love how lightweight it is, and now we know why. I look forward to seeing how the wb issue is in the s5 update coming soon. But not an overall deal breaker for me.
I really like your channel, and once again you are sharing great information. Just don't understand how you are saying that's no camera recording or outputting 16 bits, because there are and I work with 16-bit depth footage everyday, such as from the Sony Venice. If there's a visible difference between 16bits and 12 bits for the human eye, that's another subject.
It not clear where the prores RAW file was shot internal in the camera or also in external recorder. If internally then I think this is why it performed better for noise etc.
I'm curious if the same amount of denoise/sharpening is present in other BM camera's using BRAW. I'm using the UMP12K and the noise is absolutely different from how the pocket6K noise behaves. The pocket6k has this clean look to it, might run some tests to look into it later. Do you know if regular proress does any sharpening/de-noising in the debayer proces?
Its very possible the URSA 12K processing is different. I assume blackmagic probably did more NR on the P6K and 4k as they are more consumer targeted where noise is often looked down on, especially when they have to compete against heavily noise reduced images coming form other cameras in the 1-2k price range.
Yeah...BRAW is not RAW. ProRes RAW is hardly RAW but much closer... Compare them to REDCODE 5:1 or ArriRAW or CinemaDNG that have immense bitrates....H.264 is a distribution codec designed for the internet... Not for recording. Even log is only for inferior cameras that can not record RAW... But this gen of filmmakers grew up with log, and believe that it is the way to go. It's a compromise and basically crap.
Great video man as always. Just to comment on the noise discovery. This is something that Blackmagic themselves even said when they announced BRaw. BRaw partially debaters some information (I.e. baked information into the image) and noise reduction was one of the things that they decided to allow to be debayered in camera along with Lens corrections amd other small things. This is how Blackmagic was able to bypass RED Raw patent and avoid paying them the license fee. ProRes Raw being a full Raw codec does not and Apple has to pay RED the fee. That is why you see less noise in BRaw compared to ProRes Raw.
@@JonPais he actually does. Go back amd watch the video. Grant Petty said “we moved the heaviest processing work into the camera to be debayered there” the heaviest part of the processing is noise reduction and sharpening for most cameras. And given the fact that the OP of this video is seeing this backed into the camera, the facts back it up.
@@JamesJacksonFilmz you are making up stories again. Please stop your misinformation campaign. Petty never mentions anything about denoising or lens corrections. There is enough misinformation spreading around the world today creating chaos. Bye.
@@artemus80j.4 wild is that NOBODY is talking about it!!!!! Anywhere!!! The consequences may possibly be a (more expensive albeit more useable) BMPCC4K!!!
@@artemus80j.4 yeah, I got my ninja v on the ready for it. I dying to see one thing... The highlight recovery tab in Resolve 17 come to life. Somewhere I was told that the GH5S and the BMPCC4K are the EXACT same sensor except BMD literally flipped it upside down and cropped it a little. Side from processing... If this is true and we shoot a true RAW of the sensor... We might see some extremely good gh5s results.
Clearly the fundamental issue is a true (and usually obvious) judgement call: are these nearly invisible visual differences justified by the actual things you're shooting (e.g., wedding videos for most people arguing about this?). After accepting that irrelevance, it comes down to file size and performance, where BRAW is the obvious (and less pernicious, considering Apple's brand paranoia) winner.
ProRes RAW "[more] pernicious"?? 😂 Never mind that PRRAWs performance is in fact *much* better than that of BRAW. And that, while being *actual RAW* and, as we now know, better quality (as much as you'd like to shift the goalposts to conveniently make that "irrelevant"). As well as the file sizes being virtually identical. You merely have one more, superfluous compression ratio with BRAW. But sure… let's not forget the perniciousness! 🤣
@@postpros-e I'm not joking. The Apple Corporation (besides other unethical practices) lobbies for ProRes RAW with an iron fist (and deep pockets, fronted by a ravenous accounting department) whereas BRAW is considerably more open source (i.e., less greedy). Whatever you're shooting -- wedding videos probably, for tech squabbles like this -- almost definitely offsets the nearly imperceptible quality differences between BRAW and ProRes RAW, because of the lenses and skills you lack (and you're not shooting feature films for gigantic-screen projection). Meantime, BRAW users are saving tons and tons of file storage space, and dealing with an honest -- and yes, not pernicious -- company.
