4 ms·
Given Blackmagic is a brand well-known for using their own proprietary format, for actually selling cameras boasting CinemaDNG support that they after the fact
by strogonoff 2y ago
Given Blackmagic is a brand well-known for using their own proprietary format, for actually selling cameras boasting CinemaDNG support that they after the fact quietly disable in favour of BRAW, they are hardly a good choice for someone who cares about interoperability and open standards.
- tecleandor 2y agoWhat I see from the PR [0] is that it's using a new BRAW version ('The new Blackmagic RAW Immersive file format...)'. So it's as open as BRAW, that is, not much. But at least (I guess/hope...) you should be able to export each "eye" separately in a different format. Converting to the "Apple Vision Pro" format is the last step on the pipeline, after editing. 0: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/release/20241217-01
- formerly_proven 2y agoWasn’t that due to RED patents?
- strogonoff 2y agoCinemaDNG is an open standard. I am using a camera with CinemaDNG support. It came out around the time BM did the bait-and-switch. Another model came out a couple years later, also with CinemaDNG support. It shows that BM is using RED as an excuse to lock people in.
- vanchor3 2y agoRED has a patent on compressed RAW. Apple tried to invalidate it but failed, so anyone who wants to use the concept of compressed RAW has to license it from RED.
- strogonoff 2y agoRaw is not an acronym. CinemaDNG is not a compressed format. It is a directory with DNG files. DNG is an open raw photo format. Both DNG and CinemaDNG predate REDCODE. My camera records 4K 12-bit CinemaDNG with no compression and is in the same price segment. If BM, given options they had (which also include things like “pay RED” or “recall products”), chose to silently remove the support for CinemaDNG in cameras that they sold advertising CinemaDNG support, I doubt blaming RED is anything but a PR tactic.