Jump to content

Fuji GFX 100 ProRes RAW?


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Sharathc47 said:

Yeah, regarding Prores Raw licencing, I read somewhere about implementation of PRORES RAW internally in MAVO edge 8K camera, whether there were any issues regarding patents. Kinefinity replied that "Patents are restricted to US but not in other countries and we don't sell any products in US."

ProRes, as a compressed undebayered video signal, needs a license from RED, since RED has a U.S. patent on factually any device that records compressed RAW video. Atomos bought such a license from RED after major legal threats from the company. (They were substantial enough for Atomos to describe them as a risk for its entire business in its IPO document.)  The press release on Atomos' license agreement with RED is here: 

https://www.atomos.com/press-releases/atomos-and-red-are-pleased-to-announce-a-royalty-based-licence-agreement

Consequently, camera manufacturers only avoid license payments to RED for ProRes RAW if the format is not recorded in-camera, but externally in Atomos' recorders.

RED's patent is also the reason why Blackmagic removed (compressed) CinemaDNG from its cameras - and why, conversely, the Sigma fp can only record uncompressed CinemaDNG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Z-CAM with ProRes RAW is in many way more useful on that camera, because you need to add the screen anyway, and it doesn't have a standard or widely supported internal RAW codec, so you may as well us

Speaking as an experienced FPGA design engineer, if you can implement it in an FPGA you could put into an ASIC (or into software, depending on how fast you need your processing to run). There is

Yes! Beta firmware enabling Ninja V ProRes RAW recording from the GFX100 was made available today (also Sigma fp).

Posted Images

I've been wondering that. BMD have already built the profile for the EVA1 to record Braw on the new Video Assists. 

I would imagine if it ever does become internal, Panasonic will charge for it. Like that paying extra for Vlog bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What's to stop BRAW being used by Panasonic internally?

I think it would be the smartest move they could do, besides adding more reliable AF technology to their cameras.

Imagine having a GH or S camera with PDAF and BRAW internal at 8:1 And 12:1. The 400Mbps ALL-I they use is still very very good, especially on S1H.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

I've been wondering that. BMD have already built the profile for the EVA1 to record Braw on the new Video Assists. 

I would imagine if it ever does become internal, Panasonic will charge for it. Like that paying extra for Vlog bullshit.

I'm almost certain I recall Blackmagic RAW is free to license. I'm not so sure they could specifically charge for it. Of course that wouldn't stop them from simply charging more for the camera.

I've played around with the codec and really like it. I would love for it to be in a Panasonic camera. This would definitely drive me to purchase a GH6 and finally a copy of Davinci Resolve Studio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billdoubleu said:

I'm almost certain I recall Blackmagic RAW is free to license.

I could be wrong, but the SDK for NLEs to work with the files is free. They didn't publicly say anything about companies using it to capture.

The codec is built individually for each sensor, so Braw for the Pocket 4k will be different to Braw for the Pocket 6k and every other camera that currently records it. I would imagine BMD will keep that development part behind closed doors.

Prores raw, as far as I know, is more generic (for want of a better word) and will turn wrap any raw signal. The Atomos recorders don't need to know which camera it's plugged into, but the VA do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

The codec is built individually for each sensor, so Braw for the Pocket 4k will be different to Braw for the Pocket 6k and every other camera that currently records it. I would imagine BMD will keep that development part behind closed doors.

I do recall reading that, and wondered how much of that statement was marketing spin. In the case of the EVA1, I wonder if BM worked with Panasonic to bring BRAW to that camera? Or was it possible for BM to figure out what they needed to know of the sensor independently? It would be interesting to know what specs they need to make things work.

It's also unclear to me in these cases which company's "color science" is favored. Or does that just come into play in one's color suite? I understand BRAW as not a true raw signal, so I imagine some influence on color is baked in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anaconda_ said:

The codec is built individually for each sensor, so Braw for the Pocket 4k will be different to Braw for the Pocket 6k and every other camera that currently records it.

Nope.

BRAW is just a codec, it has nothing to do with sensors or camera models. It requires BMD's FPGA for the encoding.

Same for ProRes RAW, Apple has licensed the encoder to Atomos and DJI, it can encode any incoming RAW signal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then why can't you take a camera that could record external ProRes raw, plug it into the VA and record Braw? If you can, then why is their EVA1 support even a thing? If that's correct, by default BMD also support any other camera that can output raw over HDMI.

I'm under the impression that the VA can't wrap any raw signal into Braw. BMD need to know the sensor data for their partial de-mosaic stuff. With that said, I still feel that Braw is sensor specific.

Of course, please correct anything that's wrong here. Would love to understand it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

But then why can't you take a camera that could record external ProRes raw, plug it into the VA and record Braw? If you can, then why is their EVA1 support even a thing? If that's correct, by default BMD also support any other camera that can output raw over HDMI.

I'm under the impression that the VA can't wrap any raw signal into Braw. BMD need to know the sensor data for their partial de-mosaic stuff. With that said, I still feel that Braw is sensor specific.

Of course, please correct anything that's wrong here. Would love to understand it better.

Most cameras that output ProRes RAW at the moment are mirrorless cameras with HDMI output, and Atomos developed the RAW over HDMI protocol, they only license to camera manufacturers for free.

For those that output RAW over SDI, BMD need to develop support for the their RAW spec (EVA1 outputs 10bit Log-encoded RAW, Sony CineAlta outputs 16bit linear RAW). And the same applies to Atomos, but Atomos has its RAW over HDMI protocol and it's being widely adopted, so they pretty much have full control over the RAW spec.

So instead of saying BRAW is sensor specific, you can say it's brand specific.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, androidlad said:

For those that output RAW over SDI, BMD need to develop support for the their RAW spec

So if say Panasonic releases a new camera with SDI on board and 10-bit LOG RAW (as the EVA1 has) BRAW would be technically supported? If the new camera outputted 12-bit linear instead of what EVA1 does then it would be up to BMD to implement BRAW for that new output format for that brand of camera?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Blummin heck. So you can begin to see what roadblocks the manufacturers face when it comes to RAW codecs.

If BRAW is tied to Blackmagic FPGA that is a completely 360 degree turn away from ASIC and your power economy goes out the window.

If ProRes RAW encoding also needs FPGA hardware, the heat management and battery life problems again scupper that.

If RED's patent prevents decent compression, then we have a situation where costs increase or a licensing / patent transfer takes place. Canon RAW is compressed but file sizes still huge. And RF mount on Komodo suggests that compression wasn't free of charge. Sigma Fp uses uncompressed Cinema DNG, so again file sizes are an issue there too.

H.265 ALL-I 10bit is a good solution if you look at it that way.

And is good enough for 99% of cases. Maybe RAW is overrated when you actually compare the graded end results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andrew Reid Hallo Andrew, regarding slim but powerful codecs, slashcam has a nice article out. Their mates from AG Dok tested a variety of cameras for use in documentary enviroment. S1 and S1H with their 150mb 10bit Inter Codecs still impress on the codec side. As I am still without the update on my S1, I can only relate to that coming from my experiences with the GH5. That codec was mightily impressing me back then. Right now I am in prep for a short and pending between a few great cameras (no red nor arri though due to non budget and no sponsorship:). The problems are not in the cameras but in the pending:) Pending without sufficient prep so far. Wish me luck.:)

 

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

H.265 ALL-I 10bit is a good solution if you look at it that way.

And is good enough for 99% of cases. Maybe RAW is overrated when you actually compare the graded end results.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

@Andrew Reid Just a quick reply. They discuss some odds with testing method in the forum. Still, the Panasonic 10bit 150mbit codec is a feat, which has been treating filmmakers very well. Even pixel peeping professors like deezid found it to be impressive. Here is the link to the original test from Dec 2017, showing the qualities of this codec: https://www.agdok.de/de_DE/kameratest20172

A quick translate in deep l will do. I have been at Felix Trolldeniers grading suite once in Berlin, showing us footage on his color calibrated projector and screen. Really something. AG Dok did a screening at moviemento back then with their test results. Your friends at slashcam are really some kick ass people!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

The eye video is extremely revealing.

I encourage everyone to give this a pixel peep.

Had expected Blackmagic URSA G2 to do a lot better in the shadows at -9 stops.

It's one of the worst in the test for dynamic range. Worse than Sony's codec.

MAVO does really well... Proper RAW look to it.

Arri is a bit iffy in the highlights.

S1 definitely best bang for buck.

X-T3 seems to outperform C500 II

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

From Slashcam / DeepL translated:

1934-codecs-codecs.jpg

Observations

The Mavo LF still offers the best performance in low light. Its handling is a bit difficult to get used to, but the camera seems to work reliably even under adverse conditions (after experience in the team). It was tested here again, as the 2019 test with the Sigma Cine Primes and DNG-RAW showed strong aliasing. However, in this test with Prores4444 recording and 6K we could not observe this artifact any more. The development of the DNG recording is not yet finished.

Sony FS7II clearly falls behind in the test field. The comparable EVA1 remains the more modern alternative. Also in the S35 segment, the Amira still shows its superior dynamic range and convincing color reproduction. It has at least two f-stops more dynamic range than the other cameras. Even the latest FX9 and C500II full-format cameras are still unable to catch up here, despite the sensor development of the last ten years in Japan.

With the higher native ISO of 4000, the FX9 offers better, low-light images with less noise than FS7. Further ISO levels do not amplify the image signal in Cine-EI mode, but only affect the viewfinder image. The autofocus works very reliably in clearly defined situations when the face is clearly visible, e.g. for interviews or when someone walks towards the camera. However, when the camera is moving in documentary situations, despite various menu options, you cannot rely on the camera to select the correct plane of focus, here this can only be used to support manual focus adjustment. Disappointingly, the autofocus does not work in S+Q mode (SloMo). From the ergonomics, operation and menu navigation, the relationship to the FS7 is obvious. Fortunately, there are TC and genlock inputs on the housing, so that the purchase of the Extension Unit is not absolutely necessary for professional work. The old XAVC-I codec, known from the FS7, has a limiting effect. Striking is the yellowish tone of the FX9 (with s709 LUT) and its relatively soft picture.

Both Sony and Panasonic generally have a somewhat casual approach to LUTs. Panasonic offers a "Varicam LUT", which hasn't been changed for years and is also used for EVA1, S1H and even S1, although different sensors have been installed here. So even Sony's 709 LUT, originally offered for the Venice, doesn't seem ideal for the FX9.

It looks as if the developers are giving up on the last few meters here. It also remains unclear how the colors were intended by the engineers, or if at all, beyond the technical parameters of the sensor, individual aesthetics play a role. Arri has been using the same sensor since 2010, and can afford to use practically the same LUT.

The C500II shows a particularly sharp image with good exposure, but loses detail with increasing underexposure. Canon's "Light-RAW" codec generates a strong, coloured noise, reminiscent of the C200 and C700 images. Canon doesn't specify a native ISO for the camera, we chose 800 ISO because Canon recommends 800 ISO at log-gamma "to obtain the recommended Dynamic Range" (400 ISO at HLG or Wide DR, 160 ISO at Rec709). The autofocus works reliably after you understand the complicated menu navigation in this respect, helped by the fact that you can select the focal plane via touch screen. This requires, however, that the viewfinder screen is not used with an eyepiece as a viewfinder, which is limited in that it is not possible to connect the Canon monitor and the Canon external viewfinder at the same time, but a third-party viewfinder. However, the developers would work on the problem.

By keeping the well-known ergonomics, operation and menu navigation of the C300/C500 series, the changeover is uncomplicated for Canon users. The sound inputs are integrated into the housing. This allows the camera to be made more compact after removing the handle. In contrast to the previous models, the camera is equipped with an interchangeable mount. You are no longer limited to EF-mount lenses, but can now take advantage of the wide range of lenses with PL-mount.

The Blackmagic Pocket CC 6K competes with the older and more expensive Ursa G2 from the same company. This latest Pocket is more sparsely equipped than the Ursa, but pleases with a slightly improved dydydamic range and, thanks to its dual native ISO, copes much better with low light situations. The Ursa also shows a clear drift into the green in the shadows.

In low light the performance of S1/S1H is hardly inferior to the Mavo LF. However, the Mavo LF offers more resolution, even compared to the S1H in 6k. The reason for the difference will partly be the codec: Prores4444 with almost 2GBit/s of the Mavo LF compared to the 200Mbit/s h265 of the S1H. An S1 or S1H with an external recorder would be an interesting retest. In our tests the 400Mbit UHD codec did not offer any advantage over the 150 so far.

An S1 or S1H with external recorder would be an interesting setting for a further test. In fact, a new firmware from May 2020 should also enable external recording in RAW in connection with the Atomos Ninja V Recorder. Thus the camera closes the gap to professional LF cameras in technical terms and extends its range of application.
Overall, S1 embodies the best ratio of image quality and price and is suitable for free camera work with its sensor stabilizer. The GH5, especially with focal reducer, is still the cheaper and lighter alternative, with known limitations due to the much smaller sensor. This is reflected in lower dynamic range and a poorer image in low light. Eva1, S1, S1H, GH5, GH5s owe their attractiveness among other things to the efficient 10bit 422 150Mbit-h264-based codec, which we have already praised in the past.

The Fuji XT3 in the same price range, but with a slightly larger APS-C sensor, pleases with good colors in sufficient exposure, but records with a cut-unfriendly 265/HEVC codec that requires hardware decoding. Similarly compressed is the 6K h265 200Mbit codec of the S1H.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Still, the Panasonic 10bit 150mbit codec is a feat, which has been treating filmmakers very well. Even pixel peeping professors like deezid found it to be impressive. Here is the link to the original test from Dec 2017, showing the qualities of this codec: https://www.agdok.de/de_DE/kameratest20172

Exactly.
I hope they'll continue to develop it and introduce this kind of codecs into their future cameras, as well.

44 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

S1 definitely best bang for buck.

Seconding that.

 

To me, Panasonic S1 is a hugely underrated tool.
Everyone quickly jumped to the S1H bandwagon and forgot all about the basic model.

If I were to upgrade from X-T3, most likely I'd choose the S1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...