Adobe supports ProRes Exports - what about Resolve?

Hi there,

This here is a major seller: https://theblog.adobe.com/adobe-pro-vid ... RPigjdaLw8

I hope Resolve (who supposedly works well with apple) will follow this lead.

Cheers

...would be great!

Just received confirmation from my local Adobe tech guy, saying that Premiere Pro, After Effects and Media Encoder now supports ProRes export on Windows 10!

Apple certainly don't need the licensing fees and PPro does pretty much everything FCPx can do, so what´s going on here?

Perhaps Apple is ditching FCPx and buying Adobe?

Just received confirmation from my Premiere Copy it indeed does prores on Windows- Encoder also.

Now just waiting for confirmation from my Resolve Copy - One can dream. But it certinally is more plausible today than it was yesterday it seems

Yep, it's fact now:

https://www.adobe.com/products/premiere ... &mv2=accc#!

All seems to work fine. There are all modes (including XQ) and support for alpha.

Just received confirmation from my local Adobe tech guy, saying that Premiere Pro, After Effects and Media Encoder now supports ProRes export on Windows 10!

Apple certainly don't need the licensing fees and PPro does pretty much everything FCPx can do, so what´s going on here?

Perhaps Apple is ditching FCPx and buying Adobe?

I think it has more to do with Mac OS preparing to ditch all other mastering codecs but ProRes (per the last FCP X update's info), and Adobe is making sure Windows platforms aren't isolated from Mac platforms in the future.

Although, I don't think that it matters if an OS supports a codec, as long as the program inside the OS supports said codec. (Premiere/Resolve won't stop supporting Cineform or DNxHR.) So who knows...

Either way, I hope Resolve is able to follow suit! ProRes is a great great option to have.

I think it has more to do with Mac OS preparing to ditch all other mastering codecs but ProRes (per the last FCP X update's info), and Adobe is making sure Windows platforms aren't isolated from Mac platforms in the future.

I don't think that's the reason.

Adobe has been denied prores win licensing for years, simply because PPro is a product similar to FCP, and the same goes for Avid, Blackmagic and others.

Apple has suddenly found some kind of incentive for letting Adobe touch their goodies, and this change of policy is a strategic business decision. I just wonder what they're up to...

I really hope that it comes to Davinci as soon as possible.

Adobe has been denied prores win licensing for years

(Almost) Everyone has, not just Adobe. The only legal way to create ProRes files on Windows prior to the new Adobe update was with the stand alone Fusion.

Or Scratch, Nucoda... Scratch was expensive, but nowadays not so much. Still more spendy than Resolve, but so is almost everything.

Sent from my H1A1000 using Tapatalk

Apple has suddenly found some kind of incentive for letting Adobe touch their goodies, and this change of policy is a strategic business decision. I just wonder what they're up to...

I totally agree. Prores encoding has been available in Windows all along on some products like Fusion, Clipster as well as Linux Flame, Mistika, Resolve, etc. But these products weren't necessarily going after the same market as the Creative Cloud.

I have no idea what's behind this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe paid a handsome licensing fee in efforts to slow down expansion of Resolve in the prosumer market.

I wonder if this is a trade for adding ProRes RAW support?

The other Windows' prores licenses go back years. Adobe probably paid a fortune for it, in the face of losing market share to -- guess what product? I wouldn't hold my breath to see this in Resolve.

Countering Resolve is a more likely guess, I suspect.

Black Magic has its sights set on Avid, and as such is just barreling through the competition by combining hardware-subsidized development with the oddball thing of actually listening to users.

Adobe needed *something* that it could point to as a feature it offers that Black Magic doesn't.

Sent from my H1A1000 using Tapatalk

This will also help Adobe get out ahead of the dropping of support for Avid codecs in future MacOS releases.

It is good that more Proress support is coming to Windows, but I wished that the industry could move over to a codec that is less connected to Apple.

I hased DNxHR for the last 5 years and have been happy with them.
I cannot say I trust Apple much these days, never know what feature/support they will drop next.

/Andreas

The elephant in the room is Cineform, it's opensource, lowest on compute resources, highest quality/space ratio, highest possible bit-depth, etc..

Pixel formats supported:

8/10/16-bit YUV 4:2:2 compressed as 10-bit, progressive or interlace
8/10/16-bit RGB 4:4:4 compressed at 12-bit progressive
8/16-bit RGBA 4:4:4:4 compressed at 12-bit progressive
12/16-bit CFA Bayer RAW, log encoded and compressed at 12-bit progressive
Dual channel stereoscopic/3D in any of the above.

Compression ratio: between 10:1 and 4:1 are typical, greater ranges are possible. CineForm is a constant quality design, bit-rates will vary as needed for the scene. Whereas most other intermediate video codecs are a constant bit-rate design, quality varies depending on the scene.

But sadly, every one is protecting it's own codec.

I will need to check on my CC..

But i still wish i can do it in resolve....

The elephant in the room is Cineform, it's opensource, lowest on compute resources, highest quality/space ratio, highest possible bit-depth, etc..

Pixel formats supported:

8/10/16-bit YUV 4:2:2 compressed as 10-bit, progressive or interlace
8/10/16-bit RGB 4:4:4 compressed at 12-bit progressive
8/16-bit RGBA 4:4:4:4 compressed at 12-bit progressive
12/16-bit CFA Bayer RAW, log encoded and compressed at 12-bit progressive
Dual channel stereoscopic/3D in any of the above.

Compression ratio: between 10:1 and 4:1 are typical, greater ranges are possible. CineForm is a constant quality design, bit-rates will vary as needed for the scene. Whereas most other intermediate video codecs are a constant bit-rate design, quality varies depending on the scene.

But sadly, every one is protecting it's own codec.

It does not matter much how good is s codec if the final client does not want it: if Netflix and Amazon ditch officially prores for dnx (or cineform), prores will be dead.

You need latest update- 13.0.2 and most likely WIN10.

post deleted. I didn't see there were 3 pages or replies before sending my message.

Cineform indeed does not support various resolutions on Resolve.
I have been told that the solution is simple, that may be so, but the bottom line is that resolution dependancy hinders it for being used as a mezzanine format.

It's all Resolve issue.
Cineform is fully resolution independent (it has been from day 1, but current code has mod 16 restriction for width).

It does not matter much how good is s codec if the final client does not want it: if Netflix and Amazon ditch officially prores for dnx (or cineform), prores will be dead.

Problem is that many content providers/owners use ProRes as their preferred format. Amazon or Netflix is not enough. Netflix doesn't support ProRes delivery for 2K/UHD anyway.
People use it because of its reliability which is actually linked to Apple been so strict about implementations. Whole licensing/implementation etc. issues are in the same time reason of ProRes success

It's all Resolve issue.
Cineform is fully resolution independent (it has been from day 1).

I am probably wrong but I seem to remember browsing the source code and spotting a check for mod 8.

It's all Resolve issue.
Cineform is fully resolution independent (it has been from day 1).

I am probably wrong but I seem to remember browsing the source code and spotting a check for mod 8.

At the moment Cineform supports 0x0 upto 16,384x16,384 and it is a standard through SMPTE as VC-5.

As a delivery codec AV1 will be dominant because everybody who matters in the delivery industry supports it.

This will also help Adobe get out ahead of the dropping of support for Avid codecs in future MacOS releases.

I don't think that will be an issue at all since all major NLE:s have or will implement support directly for the codecs instead of depending on the old QuickTime 7 framework.

I think it has more to do with Mac OS preparing to ditch all other mastering codecs but ProRes (per the last FCP X update's info), and Adobe is making sure Windows platforms aren't isolated from Mac platforms in the future.

I think that probably has a lot to do with it. Published today:

https://support.apple.com/en-md/HT209000

I'd love support for it. At least with Adobe support I can just make a watch folder in media encoder for the times I do need prores instead of needing to keep a Mac handy

It's all Resolve issue.
Cineform is fully resolution independent (it has been from day 1).

I am probably wrong but I seem to remember browsing the source code and spotting a check for mod 8.

Actually there is something in current code which enforces width to be mod 16, so this is why 1998 doesn't work in Resolve (and other tools). Maybe I never tested random sizes properly- just big ones

One of the reasons I do most of the work in Resolve is because its SO MUCH faster than Premiere...so i'm really not looking into double rendering. So come one BMD...get it goin'.

A silly problem that has yet to be solved: Gamma Shift with .mov!

It's all Resolve issue.
Cineform is fully resolution independent (it has been from day 1).

I am probably wrong but I seem to remember browsing the source code and spotting a check for mod 8.

Actually there is something in current code which enforces width to be mod 16, so this is why 1998 doesn't work in Resolve (and other tools). Maybe I never tested random sizes properly- just big ones

Quote from David Newman:

"We do have a mod 16 horizontal limit (not vertically.) Always had this. We might change this one day. Fortunately all the standard horizontal resolutions are divisible by 16: 320, 360, 704, 720, 960, 1280, 1440, 1920, 2048 and so on"

Second to last post in this thread:

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/us/forum/free-cineform-codec--85264/

Quote from David Newman: "...Fortunately all the standard horizontal resolutions are divisible by 16....."

He is wrong about that.

Came here to campaign for ProRes on Windows too.

Fortunately all the standard horizontal resolutions are divisible by 16.....

He is wrong about that.

That's David Newman's quote, not mine.

Fortunately all the standard horizontal resolutions are divisible by 16.....

He is wrong about that.

That's David Newman's quote, not mine.

Indeed and corrected in the prior posting.

It's all Resolve issue.
Cineform is fully resolution independent (it has been from day 1).

I am probably wrong but I seem to remember browsing the source code and spotting a check for mod 8.

Hello,
+1
I have not taken the time to read all the code but very (very ..) often in the code there is:
// Processing loops may require an integral number of eight word blocks
assert ((king.width% 8) == 0);

% 8 => modulo 8 == 0 or the size divided by 8 should result == (strict) 0

Depending on whether size% 8 == 0 or size% 16 == 0: sometimes the code is not the same ...

You can always use Shutter encoder.

You can always use Shutter encoder.

Personally: everything Davinci Resolve offers me is suitable => it is necessary to adapt its workflow to avoid as much as possible different encodings. (loss with each encoding, everyone does as they wish, after: do not complain)

You can always use Shutter encoder.

Quite a handy (FFMPEG front-end) tool for format conversion though - thanks for bringing attention to it.

Countering Resolve is a more likely guess, I suspect.

Black Magic has its sights set on Avid, and as such is just barreling through the competition by combining hardware-subsidized development with the oddball thing of actually listening to users.

Adobe needed *something* that it could point to as a feature it offers that Black Magic doesn't.

Sent from my H1A1000 using Tapatalk

Adobe has plenty of features to point to. Ignoring them doesn't make it any less so.

You can always use Shutter encoder.

Quite a handy (FFMPEG front-end) tool for format conversion though - thanks for bringing attention to it.

It really is a great tool and it has many more options than just conversion. Best of all - it is free

@Jean Claude how many conversions are we talking about? In theory - yes- every new encoding drops the quality, but how much? Is it visible even if you pixel peep on a still frame?

I've had no issues of not having ProRes export on Windows. NLEs read it with no problem. No TV in my country demands ProRes, most clients - if not all - want mp4. In some business circles they have older laptops and HEVC doesn't play so well. So basically I'm delivering h264.

So I guess one export from Resolve in 10 or 12 bit DNxHR and then using a tool like Shutter encoder to encode an equivalent ProRes file is not a problem, for me.

Black Magic has its sights set on Avid.....

What is the inference and basis for making this statement exactly ? Is this something that has come from BMD themselves or merely an opinion ?

So I guess one export from Resolve in 10 or 12 bit DNxHR and then using a tool like Shutter encoder to encode an equivalent ProRes file is not a problem, for me.

Having seen how DNxHR_444 behaves at the pixel level, no I wouldn't do that.



Origin: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=79163&p=446826#p445540

Likewise DNxHD_444. And it's the same behavior in Media Composer, so nothing peculiar to Resolve. Put me right off the Avid codecs it has.

Yes, I too would welcome ProRes export in Windows Resolve.

You can always use Shutter encoder.

You can, but why not simply learn the command line options and make scripts.

Never understood the aversion against using command line processing, often it is the most effective way of doing things.

If I were to use a 'GUI' for transcoding to ProRes, I'd be more inclined to use VirtualDub2 which allows setting a 'quality level' on a scale of 2-31 for different the ProRes variants.

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=81390&p=451990#p451023

The 'quality level' appears to correlate with the 'qscale' parameter (when specified in the FFMPEG command-line) based on the resulting encode bitrates. Presumably (untested) 'Shutter' encodes with the default FFMPEG ProRes settings. And how that matches up with the equivalent bone fide Apple encoder rendering, I don't know. Never tested it.

Also, neither 'GUI' adds the '-vendor apl0' tag that simulates the reported 'Writing Library' as being 'Apple' instead of 'Lavc'. If that's important, then using FFMPEG command-line is a must.

Wouldn't it be so much better to export bone fide authorized ProRes ?

Having seen how DNxHR_444 behaves at the pixel level, no I wouldn't do that.



Origin: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=79163&p=446826#p445540

Likewise DNxHD_444. And it's the same behavior in Media Composer, so nothing peculiar to Resolve. Put me right off the Avid codecs it has.

Yes, I too would welcome ProRes export in Windows Resolve.

Thanks for this info. Interesting it is.

@Cary Knoop you are talking about ffmpeg?

@Bryan Worsley oh my, I have forgotten the days of VirtualDub. I'm downloading VirtualDub2 to check it out, thanks.

I had a colour shift on certain colours working with vdub2 prores exports. I didn't remember what the exact settings were but I didn't get the same colour shift with cruncher prores export.

Black Magic has its sights set on Avid.....

What is the inference and basis for making this statement exactly ? Is this something that has come from BMD themselves or merely an opinion ?

So I guess one export from Resolve in 10 or 12 bit DNxHR and then using a tool like Shutter encoder to encode an equivalent ProRes file is not a problem, for me.

Having seen how DNxHR_444 behaves at the pixel level, no I wouldn't do that.



Origin: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=79163&p=446826#p445540

Likewise DNxHD_444. And it's the same behavior in Media Composer, so nothing peculiar to Resolve. Put me right off the Avid codecs it has.

Yes, I too would welcome ProRes export in Windows Resolve.

I think the assumption that they are targeting Avid has a lot to do with how they're positioning the product, and the types of people they're pushing it to.

They certainly aren't pushing it to YouTubers like Adobe, or targeting education like Apple. The YouTube fandom is just a side effect of there being Free/Cheap SKUs and it being chic to hate on Adobe.

Resolve seems targeted more where Avid is still strong.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Problem is that Resolve as an NLE is far from AVID.

Thanks for this info. Interesting it is.

Well, some might call it 'pixel peeping' - what you are seeing there on the scopes is effectively an amplification of what's happening at the pixel level. The 1920 x 1080 checker pattern is made up of 5x5 pixel blocks so that every second border falls in the middle of a color sub-sampled region.

I searched for more information to explain why DNxHR_444 (and DNxHD_444) behaves that way. Best I could find was a Lift Gamma Gain forum post, referenced here:

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=79163&start=50#p446056

"DNx was optimized to be more visually lossless while ProRes to be more mathematically lossless. So DNx adds a slight blurring in some instances to tame artifacting and aliasing in the original image. This can cause regeneration problems, but you have to go like 8 generations to see it."

Maybe so, but for my purposes, if I'm going to use an 'intermediate/exchange' export format I want it to be closer to mathematically lossless. I don't want intentional blurring and this behavior was evident in the first DNxHR_444 export of the checker pattern, not after multiple generations.

That's my perspective on this anyway. Others mileage might vary.

@Bryan Worsley oh my, I have forgotten the days of VirtualDub. I'm downloading VirtualDub2 to check it out, thanks.

I think you'll find it somewhat more advanced than the original VirtualDub.