![]() ![]() I do not see how partially de-mosaicing or any de-mosaicing can reduce moire, which is due to the lack of an optical low-pass filter in the camera and perhaps line skipping to go from 6K to 4K. So, I could have rolled off the whites, but as you see, the whites are not over the top. In principle, anything the BM VA does to the RAW stream, Resolve can do also, maybe better. So, the greater whites for DNG RAW is all me and the software, since I could use the controls in Resolve to muck around with highlights for both. Resolve was set to process both files with the same transform, and I could see that highs were rolled off in BRAW without any further changes. BRAW is partially de-mosaiced by the BM VA as you say and then fully processed by DaVinci Resolve. Third, highlight "rolloff" is a property of the de-mosaicing, which is all done in DaVinci Resolve for DNG RAW. Second, lost detail cannot be brought back. The question still remains whether there is any advantage to shoot ProResRAW (or BRAW) when one can shoot internally 12bit DNG RAW on the Sigma fp and compress them to 40% (or less) of the original size in Thank you for looking, closely. To get any RAW from the EV1 or the S1H you MUST use the Ninja V. I own it, so I can do it - I have no bias based on the fact that it is the only option for RAW, like it is for the Panasonic cameras. One can use a Ninja V on the Sigma fp, just like on the Panasonic S1H, to get ProResRAW. And as computers get faster and programmers get more sophisticated, in the future the compression - without loss - may be greater. So, if the lossless ProResRAW files are 40% the size of lossless DNG RAW files, there is no size advantage to ProResRAW at all at all. If you are willing to go "virtually" lossless then you can reduce to 25%, just like you can do for ProResRAW. You can losslessly compress DNG RAW files using Slimraw on a computer and reduce the file sizes to 40% of the originals (a reduction of 60%). I am hoping for a long and continued development with it and am glad to see it spread across Thanks for the info. It is far more flexible and powerful than many people who don't know their way around FCPX have said on the internet. ![]() Whatever Apple and Red have worked out internally (again, sorry I "don't know much too", lol) - Pro Res Raw is not de-bayered in camera. I don't need you to invest in anything.I was initially responding to someone above ( hardimpact ) who said PRR was partially de-bayered in camera to avoid a red lawsuit, which is false. I have nothing against CDNG, but for me, with an Eva1, or hopefully soon S1H, or any one of a bunch of other cameras using Atomos recorders gives me an amazing PRR file that I can cut immediately in FCPX with greater control for color and finishing than the internal codecs. There is no noise reduction in ProRes Raw, either - and Apple made a Denoise plugin specifically for ProRes Raw in FCPX because raw logically tends to be noisier since no in camera noise reduction is happening. Codecs evolve, files get smaller, "virtually losslessly". Redraw, Canon Cinema Raw Light and ProRes Raw are all smaller than CDNG, yes? They are all raw, yes? That is the point I am getting at. I don't know what Blackmagic is doing, either, but I know they're partially de-bayering in camera, unlike the other three. You are correct I don't know the math used to compress raw that RED, Canon or Apple are using. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |