Old News! BRAW Is Soft With Aliasing vs CinemaDNG. Proof! Poof!

Apparently when BRAW was released to UMP users late last year the softness and other issues were noted. Here is a great review that notices the inferior performance and there wasn’t an uproar because CinemaDNG was not removed from the camera at that point. The issues that many BMPCC4k users have noted is NOT NEW. Let that sink in for a minute. What is new to BMPCC4k users is the removal of CinemaDNG in exchange for BRAW. This doesn’t affect UMP users because they have both codecs as long as they don’t upgrade. That is the reason UMP users are not negatively reacting because they have both codecs.

This particular review was published October 2018 and if you skip to 8:18 min mark the softness is noted and he even defends himself that he didn’t change the focus! That’s how noticeable it was.

I have received a few comments stating that my tests were flawed because Davinci Resolve default settings were to blame for the sharper CinemaDNG image so I decided to change the settings and here are the results. Only on CinemaDNG files have the sharpness reduced to 0.

click photo to enlarge
click photo to enlarge
click photo to enlarge
click photo to enlarge

Even dropping the CinemaDNG files sharpness to 0 it still outperforms BRAW 3:1 and Q0. The extent of how much it outperforms BRAW can be concluded by each user. But to deny that BRAW is less sharp is complete and utter denial. Moreover, BRAW also has more aliasing/moire which is noticeable in the lines. The reviewer also noted color noise which has yet to be tested. Keep in mind these issues may not affect Youtube videos or online content due to high compression ratios. The debate of whether it is cinematic or whatever else is a moot point since personal preference should be the deciding factor on what codec to use.

Some may argue zooming in 200%-300% reveals details that viewing audiences will never notice which I agree with. But when testing lenses and codecs it is routine to zoom in 200%-300% to discover quality, flaws, strengths, weaknesses, and latitude in detail. It is completely responsible to thoroughly test equipment and then decide whatever works best for you.

The point of these articles and videos is to inform users of the quality and changes to their equipment with this new codec and arbitrary removal of CinemaDNG. I have said it over and over BRAW is equal, in quality, to Prores HQ and many people enjoy and solely shooting Prores which is fine. But we must not mistake BRAW as an equal of CinemaDNG because that is unrealistic and contrary to the facts. Using the argument that Prores was used in “….place blockbuster movie title here….” so it’s good enough for me is a defense from the absurd.

The debate over the codecs has become heated and even some users have used vulgarity and threats on both sides which is completely uncalled for. Differences and preferences are a human right but negatively attacking or bullying people online is wrong. I have seen a surge in forums and groups and we should take a stand against that behavior. We can agree to disagree. Filmmaking is a creative art and should not venture into destructive acts, words or behaviors.

Keep the magic alive,

MT
editor/founder

error: Content is protected !!