Emanuel

I understand your disappointment. All that marketing seemed to me a joke all way round. There's the need to be rather serious when someone's else put their own money on it. Respect applies. We can't kid with sensitive stuff, especially when there's money involved. And reputation. A whole industry's. If not major players, small ones like myself and my own ventures. As much as you and your great product : ) We don't deserve this, neither the hours spent with our hard work : -)

Link fixed now: https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/03/16/cinemartin-to-close-due-to-bankruptcy/ Confirmed by Johnnie: https://***URL not allowed***/cinemartin-is-closing-its-gates-due-to-bankruptcy/ Sounds fishy. How Señor Martin didn't know what's going to happen just a couple of months back along such that last announcement?! I wouldn't even classify them as industry players. I'm sorry if I look like elitist but let's give credit to whom is worthy. And serious. : -)

I don't find it that way to be honest, here's a sample shot on P4K from a PXY file:

You're welcome : ) You kaylee or anyone here who may have the need, don't refrain to drop a bell in these pages or feel free to send me a PM at least. A friendly hug even at the distance of a keyboard when not else is possible at the moment can warm someone needing for support of another fellow user. That's the real meaning of community, there's life beyond cameras and the heart of a filmmaker geek (E : -)

Yes, 4K: DCI and UHD. OK, so let's set up 5:1 compression as big screen requirement for 4K then. I've also arrived to similar conclusion as reported. Which means better to avoid lossy compression in-camera? I meant quality-wise. .braw seems lower quality, I bet. Competition is part of the game. Impossible to not compete if you offer something better. Does this mean the lower resolution the lower compression needed? Why not with Blackmagic cameras too? How to not see it as serious contender to the .braw workflow?! : ) Won't this save disk space in the end? If so, how much will the ratio be? LOL I guess there's a quality freak inside each P4K owner... ; ) In conclusion, what's the best method to save bytes as highest quality as possible other than VFX? Lossless cDNG in-camera acquisition + Lossy 5:1 as for instance? Or some other compression ratio? -- What else then? 4:1 or 3:1 cDNG (any of both obviously lossy modes) in-camera recording + slimraw later on towards to archive / post? -- If so, what setting route? Lossless (slimraw)? What additional compression ratio? Let's put big screen and intense color correcting / grading without the need of VFX as only paradigm now.

PS as disclaimer: I obviously intend to let clear that equivalent minutes length only comes later at post and under GBs form, of course. But, these new SSD of nowadays are true digital camera magazines as matter of fact, isn't it? ; -)

Very useful indeed. Easy to understand as well. My hat, mate : ) I see you have new customer(s) here, I believe. I am looking for three levels quality to know: Quality A / QA: - Green screen for VFX work; Quality B / QB: - Motion picture acquisition for intense grading work towards movie theater screening; Quality C / QC: - Casual shooting for further use as stock footage to fit any serious professional project later on wherever platform is (including big screen/broadcast, printing stills, etc). I had found Q0, 5:1 and Q5 respectively the .braw answer to my needs. What about slimraw? You wrote: "When shooting a Blackmagic camera which allows for both lossless and lossy raw with the intent of passing the raw footage through any of the slimRAW lossy compression modes it is best to record lossless CinemaDNG in camera". Does this mean should we avoid to record cDNG 4:1 or even 3:1 in-camera? You also say there: "But if you are doing recompression (for example, when the source is Blackmagic lossless CinemaDNG) the resulting ratio will depend on the level of compression in the source files. For example, if the source is 1.5:1 losslessly compressed, and 3:1 is selected as target, then the result will be approximately 2:1 (or down 50% of the original size, for a total ratio of 1.5*2 = 3:1)." From that table: source: https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/ If we use your VBR HQ (for my QB usage above) let's take 3.5:1 as average compression, once cDNG compression by Blackmagic rounds 1.6:1, we'll end with about 80 minutes (more or less in the .braw range), correct? How can we extend that without losing any quality towards my QB table trying to match 5:1 at .braw side at least? Is it safe going with recompression? What slimraw setting? Would cDNG 4:1 or even 3:1 acquisition + VBR HQ be a possibility and safe enough to match my QB standard and goal?

Blackmagic RAW Player alternative for Windows (no setup): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfJnSErTaqQ

Post of the year : -D

Take two : -)

Yes. No idea how it goes with 4:1, even though, the idea is to keep the original 4:1 quality. So, is there more space to save on disk? Maybe Mihail @cpc may drop a word here. I've called him on here but he seems to be offline so far though : -)

What about the 6.1 firmware version + saving 63.3%? source: http://www.cineticstudios.com/blog/2015/7/slimraw-an-easy-method-to-save-space-with-cinemadng-footage.html According to my math you get 134 minutes of 4:1 into a 500GB SSD which is more space in disk than .braw 5:1 offers... Not bad if you have a capable machine to handle post, I guess, even though, slimraw promises a way faster workflow.

LOL Good one! : -) I loved that one! Now we're talking! : ) No worries man, wait to see a fair comparative test with lossy CinemaDNG 3:1, even though, I already guess the result and/or use slimraw to cut and end straight to 60% of bytes or increase equivalently the minutes length -- here's the table from where you/we can start to calculate ; -) https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/

No man, it was not involuntary at all : D I am joking with the terminology because they actually mean the same : ) I am not the one to firstly use it for sure ; ) Thus, there are market reasons to have it named differently (I wish, you wish technical ones to really justify it too!) as Mihail @cpc hinted on his own and above-posted. There are technical aspects but they are not the only ones to consider when we use certain terminology. And at times if not much more often than we'd like, those other ones count even more ; -)

I've used a pretty affordable Vivitar 28mm f2.0 coupled to a native F mount to MFT adapter along the P4K, aside flares, nothing else to declare : -)

PS -- To make it pretty clear: I meant both lossy formats, that is, the visually lossless : D .braw 3:1 (and Q0 too, why not?) vs CinemaDNG 3.1 (and 4.1). To compare CinemaDNG lossless is pointless.

Indeed : ) Not even need to go to eBay. You can buy them anywhere online. From a seller I found who had the original Pocket for EUR250 to sell on OLX I bought two of them (12mm f2.0 and 85mm T1.5) last month for EUR220 the bundle, go figure! : -)

The beauty is on eBay you're prone to find them at similar price. Without mention, no other brand put them as close as the Korean manufacturer. : -)

Faulty units are a bitch! https://www.bmpcc4k.tech/2019/03/08/old-news-braw-is-soft-with-aliasing-vs-cinemadng-proof-poof/ Sorry, couldn't resist : ) Aside the narrator looks like more biased to find .braw goodies this time, the low light approach this round seems to me more interesting and fair enough -- even though the equally sustainable overprocessing claims we may stand up against the new format to not leave to post department the task to handle noise: As someone says pretty accurately here in the comments section of the next comparative video: Something lossless vs .braw aka visually lossless by BMD "it is like comparing a boat and a car" -- what about apples to oranges and compare both lossy CinemaDNG 3:1 vs BRAW or .braw as you wish but 3:1 instead? Here, only one or another comment is worthy to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77nUZZKAlSY Finally, take a look on this: http://www.slimraw.com/ by @cpc I guess this might solve some headaches at post. Seems a good compromise between acquisition and post needs. You can keep your 6.1 firmware version then ; -)

PS: Dennis, I took some look on it in the meantime... I don't even agree with. The quality from highest bitrate on BRAW is simply amazing, makes ProRes obsolete for this camera : ) May CinemaDNG be better, no surprises here. The higher bit rate the better quality. What's new to see from this equation? BRAW is better than equivalent ProRes though. Let features alone. This is the news. On 6.1 you'll have CinemaDNG at your discretion, 6.2 something in-between BRAW and ProRes which means something much upper front than the usual H.264 crap, a delivery recipient BTW. ProRes was meant to be for intermediary use at post. Not BRAW, made for acquisition as well, this time. Where's a fair perspective for the subject matter?

Yes. WTH how did you guess, Glenn? LOL ; -)

Only?? Only to begin with... 10-bit vs 12-bit don't make any difference?! C'mon, let's drop pixel peeping sport in benefit of some positive vibe ; ) If has served Peter Jackson, it will likely fit me as well : -D

I know P4K is not a hybrid but I am puzzled how you all rule out the Queen outside of such task. Test one for a few days you won't want to look back. Ah BTW grabs from 4K 60p give lovely stills : ) 'cause video, guys, this device is one or two generations ahead, if not more : -)

6GB vs 8GB GPU memory seems to me the gap at first glance : -)

I understand you... but it is pretty unfair. Seems to me glass comparitives: the world is not divided between Fujian and Fujinons. Q0 is much different of ProRes HQ... Only to begin with.