{"id":207766,"date":"2025-10-01T12:50:01","date_gmt":"2025-10-01T10:50:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitalproduction.com\/?p=207766"},"modified":"2025-12-09T12:36:19","modified_gmt":"2025-12-09T11:36:19","slug":"prores-raw-vs-braw","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digitalproduction.com\/2025\/10\/01\/prores-raw-vs-braw\/","title":{"rendered":"ProRes RAW vs. BRAW"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Source: Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Or in short, the BMPCC 4K, is the first camera by BM to get the option of shooting ProRes RAW (PRR in short) by installing the 9.8 Public Beta firmware<\/a>. Not a big risk, since you can always go back if that beta is not performing as expected. Filmmaker Christoph Janetzko<\/a> from Berlin has kindly sent us a few samples to compare, shot at maximum quality in BRAW Q0 and ProRes RAW HQ (PRR for short) under identical conditions. We wanted to have a closer look at resolution and noise, since BRAW is based on partial debayer and ProRes RAW might retain some more information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shooting conditions and metadata<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Both were shot at full DCI 4K from the sensor in 25 fps, which generated around 1.150 mbps in PRR, but only around 878 in BRAW. This is for identical scenes, in this case the focus chart, but these codecs are quite adaptive to image detail. For resolution, both were shot with a Minolta 50mm\/1.4, stopped down to f5.6. It’s vintage, but still a damned sharp lens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The clips show more metadata in both formats than the iPhone 17 in our recent test<\/a>, like shutter speed (or angle), of course no focus data from a manual lens. What is missing in PRR, even from electronic lenses, is gyroscope data<\/a>. In BRAW, these work with manual lenses too, if you remember to set the focal length in the camera.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Colors from the BMPCC 4K are equally good in both codecs.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Resolution and noise<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Some users claim that BRAW is pre-filtering the image to improve compression, which might lead to loss of detail. From our test chart, we could neither prove that, nor a tendency towards aliasing with the unfiltered PRR footage. From the start, they look a tiny bit different, even if both decoded as BMD Film generation 5 (which can’t even be changed for the PRR clip). After some minor corrections of contrast and luminance, they look virtually the same, even as a 2x center crop. There’s also no aliasing with the unfiltered PRR shot. Can you tell the difference? There was no correction of colors applied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"A<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

For the noise test, we underexposed considerably, but of course identically. This camera has been around for a long time, and it’s not really a low-light monster. We raised the ISO from the recorded value of 400 to 1.000, which is the maximum for BRAW. ISO can be raised to 25.600 for PRR, but that would be a ridiculous level for these shots. Instead, we had BRAW raised by another stop with the Exposure slider, and raised PRR to a similar level in the waveform. BRAW is offering 5 stops here, while PRR has just one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"A
Not all of these parameters are available for ProRes RAW.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What’s missing for PRR shots in the RAW tab: the tint slider, white balance presets, and the Highlight Recovery option. A correction for the tint axis in particular would be desirable, our camera would have needed about +10 for either clip, but that can easily be corrected elsewhere in DR. If your clips were recorded externally with a Ninja V, some cameras and their color space plus gamma are identified, but adjustments are also very limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
You get even less from clips recorded by an Atomos Ninja.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"An<\/figure>\n
BRAW on the left is showing a smaller noise carpet.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

These shots confirm some mild pre-filtering in BRAW, resulting in a much smaller noise floor. So, at the cost of around 30% higher data rates, maybe there’s a tad more detail from PRR in the shadows. Sensors with more photocells may expose more of a difference, but I’d say this is still a matter of taste, not only storage space. Some may appreciate the mild softness of BRAW. With some noise filtering applied (more on that below), PRR can look cleaner than unprocessed BRAW. This also proves that the pre-filtering in BRAW is quite restrained. Of course, you can also filter BRAW if needed, but that needs extra time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
ProRes RAW after Neatvideo 6 will look cleaner than unfiltered BRAW.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Denoising compared<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Looking at those extreme night shots in part one<\/a> and noticing that new ML Denoise feature in Apple’s Compressor, we decided to compare with Neatvideo 6 (NV 6 for short) and with the internal noise reduction in DaVinci Resolve (DR for short). Of course, next to image quality, speed is crucial, since none of the best denoisers is realtime. It has been a while that we evaluated Neatvideo 5, which has always been our “go to” solution for noisy footage. We have prepared 5 second clips at an ISO of 8.000 in ‘small’ HD (1.280 x 720) to compare, which you can download from a Google Drive. The first, without any NR, is just below. These are 1:1 center crops from the main camera of the iPhone 17, as seen in our last article. Please download the following ones and play as a loop to judge the quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Noise Reduction – the orignal <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n