-
X native support for Braw?
-
That I haven’t looked into, so I have no idea what I’m missing, if anything.
Well, I actually just did (unscientifically), and I have to say… I’m not impressed.
https://youtu.be/-gcx2Ujtn6o?t=154
Unless someone else can show me anything better to change my mind? Otherwise, at this point, I won’t be missing or shedding a tear over it.
Actually, I’m most surprised that it has to be rendered. Wha? How is the data not simply APPLIED? It makes no sense to me.
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
That Blackmagic gyro demo is good in that it’s mild and seems to avoid frame blurring or other artifacts. Here is a brief test I did with my Sony FX6 using Catalyst stabilization at 23.98 and 59.94 fps, both with 180-deg. shutter angle. Both were hand-held at 280mm which is a pretty severe test. Lens-based optical stabilization was off. This required a separate pass through Sony’s Catalyst Browse utility before importing to FCP, so Resolve’s integration of their gyro-stabilized clips is nice.
https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/598896853/2bde2933ac
-
Examining another Blackmagic gyro-stabilized 24 fps clip shows it has the same unavoidable issue as Sony. So that 1st demo was not representative. Starting at 1:45 in this video the frame blurring is obvious in the stabilized case. It’s nice to have that option, the integration with Resolve is handy but it’s not a magic solution which eliminates other types of stabilization (at least at 24 fps). If everything you shoot is 60 fps and 1/120 shutter, I’m sure it works better, just like on Sony.
https://youtu.be/WkyeOXMQxZU?t=106
Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.
-
59.94 isn’t bad, the 23.98 definitely has mush coming into the clip from the stabilization. I have found that the worst thing is additive stabilization ‘Mush’ so if you use IBIS with lens optical you have to be really careful. I came across an example of this on a recent project, and admittedly the shooting situation was fringe – hand held from a motorcycle with both IBIS and optical, in some cases the combined camera and vehicle movement swamped each stabilizer resulting in MUSH. In the same situation a C300 Mk2/18-80 Canon with optical on and no IBIS was vastly better.
-
I find Physical stabilization whether gimbal, Wescam, stedicam, steadicam gimbal hybrid almost always better than stabilization with IBIS or optical. frame rates, as Joe points out are also a very big factor.
-
Many of the better gyro stabilization videos I’ve seen suggest using 90° or even 75° shutter angle to avoid issues with motion blur.
It would seem the best use of it is when you’re working with a prime lens without its own OIS when going handheld so one would have the forethought to use a much higher shutter speed. Its purpose is basically just to get rid of the micro jitter one would get otherwise. On BMD this might be a common need. I’d imagine this would be less important on Sony cameras given their IBIS.
From what I understand BMD Gyro isn’t an option in Resolve if you have a lens with OIS and it’s enabled. So they put the kibosh on that (so far… Resolve 18 is beta after all).
-
Instead of speculation about it being entirely up to BMD, here’s the word from the BMD employee behind Blackmagic Raw. https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=99200&p=745483#p744864
“We have tried a couple of times to get permission to do the work ourselves and develop a plugin to support Blackmagic RAW in FCPX like we do for Premiere/Avid. If users really want to see it then it may help to send more requests to Apple.”
The SDK required to create that type of plugin isn’t publicly available and Apple isn’t sharing it with BMD.
-
BMD provided the plugins for Braw to both avid and Premiere. But it’s not possible to make one for fcp without Apple’s permission. A BMD said some time ago.
Apart from this, I can only speculate that Apple’s arrangement giving atomos exclusivity is a hindrance because If BMD opens resolve to PPraw it will in fact give the external recorders market to atomos or at least a large portion that will also affect its camera division.
Don’t know if you know that atomos was founded by an ex bmd employee and after a failed lawsuit there is bad blood between both companies.
Why did Apple give atomos exclusivity? maybe because they could shoot two birds with one bullet. 1, make PPraw available to all . 2, Hold braw back. All without showing their teeth.
-
So it’s ok for color finale to build a FCP plugin to render braw into prores in conjunction with fcp which is a bit short of handling braw natively in FCP.
-
Color Finale is just transcoding and doesn’t need the Apple SDK and therefore doesn’t need Apple’s approval.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up