I translated the article with google...

It seems to say that BRAW is a step further away for a true RAW format but has the benefits of reducing/eliminating morie, providing smoother skin rendering and a more film like noise structure. The noise reduction like processing artifacts are providing a more visually pleasing image while keeping access to some of the image adjustments that RAW provides, while providing a much more manageable file size and reduced decoding requirements.

Basically the BRAW process makes the image look more filmatic and offers workflow benefits that are preferred, but makes some consessions with adjustments (sharpness for one) when compared to a true RAW format.

Bottom line: the majority of people will prefer using BRAW over Cinema DMG RAW with the URSA Mini Pro.

It seems to me the conversation in the private meeting went like this:

BM: Sure, we have a new recording format we are calling RAW, but for the intents of your RAW patent, it's not really RAW so don't embarass yourself by trying to sue us.

RED: so then don't call it RAW.

BM: Sorry, if you want us to buy your company some day, once we have further weakend it by taking away the rest of your sales with our future 8k product releases, then watch your tone.

RED: Fine, we'll pull Jim Jannard out of retirement and have him challenge Grant Petty to a winner take all wrestling death match, center stage at NAB 2019 - at the Blackmagic booth of course, because your booth is bigger than ours.

BM: don't be silly, Grant is from Australia and he wrestles alligators in his boxer briefs - Jim does not want any of that action.

RED: OK - just don't let anyone on the online forums know that we came to an understanding about you working around our patent as other manufacturers will hear of it and may do the same thing.

BM: ...and when they do, they will to have pay us because we hold the patent on pseudo RAW split de-mosaic processing, which is cornerstone of us taking over the acquisition, post and broadcast industry.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev: OK, now I see how it is dangerous - good point.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev your answer lies here as to why BMD doesn't owe Red one red cent....

https://cml.news/g/cml-raw-log-hdr/topic/braw_codec_analysis/25749037

BRAW is not wavelet based encoding

It seems like it has worked. Maybe in actuality, the new Panasonic camera announcement tomorrow will have a 22.5mm diagonal sensor, that can easily mount all the current m43 lenses, and has a 2x crop factor but is full frame! Incredibly Panasonic have been able to make a full frame camera with a m43 size sensor.

This is all very strange. BRAW may or may not be a 'true' raw codec, however BM clearly state that there are no fees for either the playback, or camera encoding payable to BM.

Otherwise, most BM cameras have a multitude of formats, (and CinemaDNG).

Actually CinemaDNG is JPEG92 still images.

Two great links regarding compressing raw video / images:

Apertus raw encoding report: http://supragyaraj.com/dev/gsoc-2018/

CinemaDNG file structure: https://thndl.com/how-dng-compresses-raw-data-with-lossless-jpeg92.html

I would be most interested in how BM does do its encoding for braw. I haven't downloaded the public SDK, but I would prefer a white paper etc.

I wonder which agreement Sony and Canon have with Red… Well, here come my observations with an UM46P:

Performance

Decoding is fast, even a humble laptop that is miserably stuttering along with DNGs can play the clips smoothly. So, I tested some 4.6K files in a UHD timeline on an iMac with the Radeon Pro 580 and this computer was fully capable of working smoothly with such files, while it never reaches realtime – even without any grading nodes – with DNG. I tested with a fast SSD-array, so it is definitely the CPUs which can’t keep up decoding, not data throughput. While they run at near 100% with DNG, playing BRaw is just showing each around 45%. I even made a test with a UHD recording @ 25 fps in an HD timeline on the smallest MacBook Pro 13“ with Intel GPU only. When performance mode was activated I could even add a first-light correction to clips with BRaw 5:1 or smaller. So, you could finally work on a rough cut with such a small laptop without wasting time and space for generating proxies as would be the case with DNG sequences. Add an eGPU and you could even do serious work with it.

But the new codec is not only less demanding on the computer, but on storage too. It’s offering 4 levels of CBR encoding from 3:1 to 12:1 and two levels of VBR encoding, called constant quality, at Q0 and Q5. With a very demanding scene Q0 can generate very high data rates, more than 3:1, so you’ll need fast media for that. But with 8:1 VBR we could record full resolution at 30 fps to a fast SD card (type U3) labeled for 95 MB/sec – you could never do that with DNG, not even 24 fps at 4:1. Some values to compare: a CFast card of 128 GB will hold 6 minutes of uncompressed DNG or ProRes 444 XQ. With ProRes 422 HQ about 15 minutes, but BRaw 12:1 will give you 54 minutes. If the camera is set to constant quality you’ll get a pretty good estimation from the camera based on the current scene after a few seconds. Q0 will range from 7 to 25 minutes on that card and Q5 from 25 to 166 (like talking heads with soft background).

Image Quality

So, your decent middle-class computer just got faster and your memory cards got bigger and/or cheaper – but what about the pictures? Is all this really for free? I tested image quality with a critical scene, all the frame full of autumn leaves (I’ll post only a small 1:1 crop). The scene was demanding enough to push Q0 about one third over the data-rate of CBR 3:1, while an actor with a blurred background would be more like 5:1. Well, at first view the BRaw pictures look a bit softer than DNG, which is not only sharper, but also rougher, more ‚digital‘. What was really surprising is the fact that one can only differentiate between 3:1 vs 12:1 by passionate pixel-peeping – see for yourself with the attached samples. One can assume that BM is improving compressibility by a mild pre-filtering – which in turn should also reduce noise to some degree. And, indeed, the Braw footage shows less noise for the same scene, obviously due to smoothing and clearly visible in the waveform. In firmware 6.0 for the UM46P they even added the option of 3.200. The new color science 4 is always applied to BRaw and with the new „Extended Video“ you may even show your footage to a client without any grading.

RAW Video = non-debayered data is still adjusted for white balance setting (and gamma?), full sensor bit depth is then compressed and end result is stored? Or sometimes it's still somwhat debayered as well?

Benefits: higher bit depth than intermediate/delivery codecs, "color space"/color bandwith is preserved straight from the sensor?

A adequate summary?

"Red ... is recommending 8:1 for 8K" Seems to me BRAW 12:1 will be what makes 8k recording to SD Cards, possible on the Pocket 8k Cinema Camera. Imagine they will announce the USRA Mini Pro 8k before they will announce the Pocket 8k Cinema Camera.

Cineform did raw recording, maybe not even first, but before Red. How does one overturn their patent?

Sony and Red were suing each other. And settled out of court. The Red Bayer recording patent was part of it. You notice new Sony and Red sensors giving similar performance after. Sony did a cross licensing agreement with Aptina/micron, whom I believe might have been the Red sensor source.

Raw, is raw data from non Bayer or Bayer sensors. Raw Bayer images are what we are talking about.

It's late and I can't review all the images But 1, I have learned that BM does ad some sharpening to dng. So, it is hard to do a real comparison. But looking at the first test image, there seems a distinct kiss of contrast and detail resolution in Braw. But us that real, or BM CDng making it look so?

Good point about the useless multiple image requirement to bypass patent

I believe they mainly use JPEG to produce waveforms that line up, but pass through the pixel's data points, which allows raw reconstruction, but is also partial de-mosaicing. It allows it to be displayed more easily.

The Sigma fp can shoot BRAW externally or DNG RAW internally. So, we can compare the two formats from the same sensor. For fp owners the question is, what is the point of shooting BRAW, which needs an external recorder? For others, it is whether not being able to shoot in DNG RAW and having to use BRAW matters for IQ. This video was shot in BRAW and DNG RAW using the same settings.

In particular:

The BM Video Assist 12G was used to record BRAW from the Sigma fp via HDMI. The highest quality setting for BRAW was used (highest constant quality). DNG RAW was recorded to an SSD attached by USB-C cable to the Sigma fp.

The settings for both: ISO 3200 (native), F8.0, Auto WB, 4K 30p.

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 in Full Frame and Crop Mode. In Resolve, the input gamma and gamut was set to BlackMagic Film Generation 4 for both.

The shots do look different, and the BRAW files are smaller, but is there any improvement from BRAW, or is there actually some loss?

Blackmagic RAW version 2.1 improves CPU decoding for URSA Mini Pro 12K footage, adds support for footage captured with Nikon (Z6 II and Z7 II) and Panasonic (Lumix S1H, S1 and S5) cameras via the Blackmagic Video Assist, and improves both performance and reliability of the Blackmagic RAW Adobe Premiere Pro plugin.Also brings native support for use on Apple’s M1 computers.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/support/family/professional-cameras