Why, Atomos. Why.

The place for questions about shooting with Blackmagic Cameras.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Dalavi Tang

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:40 am

Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 3:35 pm

Nikon just paired with Atomos to provide external RAW recording on their Z6 and Z7 via HDMI to Ninja V, which records to ProRes RAW.

I guess probably Atomos has already paid a huge amount of royalty fee to Apple to get ProRes RAW on their external devices, so they might as well use it to its full potential. And indeed they are bringing affordable film-making to a whole new level.

But I don't really embrace ProRes RAW, since it is proprietary and I don't think it's coming to Windows or Linux any time soon. It seems that Apple is trying to buy people into their FCPX & macOS ecosystem with ProRes RAW.

Another really important factor is that Resolve does not support ProRes RAW yet. I asked a staff member at BIRTV last year about ProRes RAW support (which was before the release of BRAW), and she refused to give any information.

BRAW is perfect (if they can get it to BMPCC 4K ASAP it would be perfecter?) but for now the choice of cameras are limited to Blackmagic products. And BRAW is open source so I don't see BMD really trying to trick people into buying their products over other alternatives. But ProRes RAW (with Atomos promoting it like crazy) already supports all the cameras shogun has supported and now with the addition of Z6 and Z7.

I don't know, maybe BMD should team up with Convergent Design? I really wish to see BRAW reaching more and more cameras and recorders, and make budget film making even more friendly (without those very budget-unfriendly Apple stuff).

Just rambling.

Your thoughts?
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 3:54 pm

BRAW is NOT opensource.

With ProResRAW you need an external recoder.

Everybody wants to make some money, healthy competition is good, it gives us lower prices and more options.
Offline

Brad Hurley

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:42 pm
  • Location: Montréal

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 3:57 pm

Dalavi Tang wrote:It seems that Apple is trying to buy people into their FCPX & macOS ecosystem with ProRes RAW.


You could remove "It seems that" from your sentence above; there's little to no business case for them to provide Prores RAW for other platforms. What would they gain from it?

Final Cut is efficient and well thought-out, especially for editing, and now has much better color-grading tools than it did before, but it has two big strikes against it: 1) it's only available on Mac, and 2) its innovations (magnetic timeline, no tracks, etc.) are a barrier for people who work with traditional NLEs and are used to things working in similar ways across programs. Add to that the fact that the free version of Resolve is full-featured enough for many users, and it's cross-platform, and I think Apple sees the writing on the wall: if they want to continue making Final Cut attractive to prosumer and professional editors they need it to offer some features you can't get elsewhere. ProRes RAW is one of those features, and it might be enough to entice some DSLR owners to buy an Atmos monitor/recorder and Final Cut just so they can use it.
Resolve 15, Mac Pro 3.0 GHz 8-core, 32 gigs RAM, dual AMD D700 GPU.
Audio I/O: Sound Devices USBPre-2
Offline

Dalavi Tang

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 4:23 pm

MishaEngel wrote:BRAW is NOT opensource.

With ProResRAW you need an external recoder.

Everybody wants to make some money, healthy competition is good, it gives us lower prices and more options.


Oh I might have used the inappropriate wording, I meant that BRAW is...... free to use and implement?

Yes indeed healthy competition is good. Maybe I'm just being a bit too greedy haha

Brad Hurley wrote:
Dalavi Tang wrote:It seems that Apple is trying to buy people into their FCPX & macOS ecosystem with ProRes RAW.


You could remove "It seems that" from your sentence above; there's little to no business case for them to provide Prores RAW for other platforms. What would they gain from it?

Final Cut is efficient and well thought-out, especially for editing, and now has much better color-grading tools than it did before, but it has two big strikes against it: 1) it's only available on Mac, and 2) its innovations (magnetic timeline, no tracks, etc.) are a barrier for people who work with traditional NLEs and are used to things working in similar ways across programs. Add to that the fact that the free version of Resolve is full-featured enough for many users, and it's cross-platform, and I think Apple sees the writing on the wall: if they want to continue making Final Cut attractive to prosumer and professional editors they need it to offer some features you can't get elsewhere. ProRes RAW is one of those features, and it might be enough to entice some DSLR owners to buy an Atmos monitor/recorder and Final Cut just so they can use it.


Yes you are right, it's business after all and Apple surely wants to make profit out of their effort and it makes total sense. I don't know where FCPX is at now in terms of colour grading capabilities, but I think I'll be sticking with Resolve in the foreseeable future just because it's a powerful package at such a low price (free of charge for BMD camera owners) so it's no-brainer for me to use Resolve. I haven't used FCPX yet since I'm haven't had a mac, or even a hackintosh.
Offline

Aaron Green

  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 5:15 pm

MishaEngel wrote:BRAW is NOT opensource.

With ProResRAW you need an external recoder.

Everybody wants to make some money, healthy competition is good, it gives us lower prices and more options.


BRaw is open source. Unless something changed in the last few days.
Offline

Gavin_c_clark

  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:51 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 5:26 pm

The sdk to write apps to read it is open source. I’ve downloaded it and been through it

But as far as I’ve been able to find out, putting it on another brand camera is not an open source matter
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10707
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 6:21 pm

Correct Gavin, BRaw itself to encode files from the camera is Not open source, only the decoding SDK, to read BRaw files already recorded, are open source. This has caused some confusion when BRaw was first announced. Also BRaw is designed to record in camera and is tuned to the camera’s sensor, so not likely it would work in an external recorder, whothout having some of the encoding done in camera to get a useable signal that can be recorded as a “Raw” file.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 633
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 8:56 pm

Aaron Green wrote:
MishaEngel wrote:BRAW is NOT opensource.

With ProResRAW you need an external recoder.

Everybody wants to make some money, healthy competition is good, it gives us lower prices and more options.


BRaw is open source. Unless something changed in the last few days.


Please check exactly What is open source.
You have sdk and documentation to implement reading of braw from every softwares, not writing braw or creating with other sensors, if you see presentation and read some doc around it you can understand why is very difficult to add to other cameras or is near to impossible to add to a simple recorder. Half of debayering is done in camera, by camera. Many operation are tailored on sensor structure, is the reason that actually we have only Ursa Mini Pro braw, not actually in um4.6k (same sensor) and not actually for pocket. If the same Blackmagic Design need effort to add to their developed cameras you could understand how is difficult to add to other brand tools


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 9:37 pm

Why, Atomos?

Because they can. They can't record BRAW, it's camera dependent.

As BMD users we may love our cameras and Resolve and the possibility of BRAW, but we've bought into a relatively closed-loop ecosystem just as much as someone who chooses the Macos, FCPX, ProRes ecosystem. We have more choices on computers, they have more choices on cameras.
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Offline

Dan Sherman

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:07 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 10:00 pm

Raw is so over hyped. Every wannabe and their brother thinks they need to shoot raw, and that shooting raw some how makes their footage magical.

Many seem to forget that you need a lot more than just a $700 Ninja v.

  • You need a Ninja V or better
  • depending on the resolution, frame-rate, quality, and amount of footage you're acquiring, you will need a few hundred GBs to tens of TBs of ssds for the recorder.
  • You will need the same amount of disk space available on your editing rig.
X99-A II, 6850K 4.2 GHz, GTX 1070 FE (431.36), DDR4-2400 CL12-14-14 4x8 GB
Win 10 Pro 1809, Resolve Studio 16.0.0.044
Offline

Gavin_c_clark

  • Posts: 198
  • Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:51 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 10:23 pm

*deleted* I was going way off topic
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 10:35 pm

Just pick the codec that fit your needs.


Storage Features
Storage Type

2 x CFast 2.0

2 x SD UHS-II cards
Storage Rates

Storage rates based on 30 frames per second.

4608 x 2592

Blackmagic RAW 3:1 - 183 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 5:1 - 110 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 8:1 - 68 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 12:1 - 46 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW Q0 - 110 to 274 MB/s *
Blackmagic RAW Q5 - 27 to 78 MB/s **
CinemaDNG RAW - 391 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 183 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 - 137 MB/s
Apple ProRes XQ - 360 MB/s
Apple ProRes 444 - 238 MB/s
Apple ProRes HQ - 158 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 - 106 MB/s
Apple ProRes LT - 73.5 MB/s
Apple ProRes Proxy - 32.3 MB/s

3840 x 2160

Blackmagic RAW 3:1 - 127 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 5:1 - 76 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 8:1 - 48 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 12:1 - 32 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW Q0 - 76 to 191 MB/s *
Blackmagic RAW Q5 - 19 to 55 MB/s **
CinemaDNG RAW - 273 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 127 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 - 95 MB/s
Apple ProRes XQ - 250 MB/s
Apple ProRes 444 - 165 MB/s
Apple ProRes HQ - 110 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 - 73.6 MB/s
Apple ProRes LT - 51 MB/s
Apple ProRes Proxy - 22.4 MB/s

1920 x 1080

Blackmagic RAW 3:1 - 33 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 5:1 - 20 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 8:1 - 12 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW 12:1 - 8 MB/s
Blackmagic RAW Q0 - 20 to 49 MB/s *
Blackmagic RAW Q5 - 5 to 14 MB/s **
CinemaDNG RAW - 70 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 3:1 - 33 MB/s
CinemaDNG RAW 4:1 - 24 MB/s
Apple ProRes XQ - 62.5 MB/s
Apple ProRes 444 - 41.25 MB/s
Apple ProRes HQ - 27.5 MB/s
Apple ProRes 422 - 18.4 MB/s
Apple ProRes LT - 12.75 MB/s
Apple ProRes Proxy - 5.6 MB/s
Recording Formats

Blackmagic RAW Q0, Q5, 3:1, 5:1, 8:1 and 12:1 at 4608 x 2592, 4608 x 1920, 4096 x 2304, 4096 x 2160, 3840 x 2160, 3072 x 2560, 2048 x 1152, 2048 x 1080 and 1920 x 1080 with film, extended video or video dynamic range.

Lossless CinemaDNG RAW, RAW 3:1 and RAW 4:1 at 4608 x 2592, 4608 x 1920, 4096 x 2304, 4096 x 2160, 3840 x 2160, 3072 x 2560, 2048 x 1152, 2048 x 1080 and 1920 x 1080 with film dynamic range.

ProRes at 4608 x 2592, 4608 x 1920, 4096 x 2304, 4096 x 2160, 3840 x 2160, 3072 x 2560, 2048 x 1152, 2048 x 1080 and 1920 x 1080 with film, extended video or video dynamic range.

*

Constant Quality setting Q0 storage rates quoted are indicative only, based on a 2:1 - 5:1 compression range.

**

Constant Quality setting Q5 storage rates quoted are indicative only, based on a 7:1 - 20:1 compression range.

Actual storage rates are entirely dependent on image subject matter.


Since Q5 is better quality than ProRes 422 it's kind of easy to choose BRAW over ProRes.
Offline
User avatar

joe12south

  • Posts: 399
  • Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:14 pm
  • Location: Nashville, TN
  • Real Name: Joseph Moore

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 10:44 pm

Since Q5 is better quality than ProRes 422 it's kind of easy to choose BRAW over ProRes.

Assuming you have the one camera in the universe that records BRAW. ;)
Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUT system for the Black Magic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
http://www.pocketluts.com/
Offline

Dan Sherman

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:07 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 10:45 pm

MishaEngel wrote:
Since Q5 is better quality than ProRes 422 it's kind of easy to choose BRAW over ProRes.



This was about prores raw. and well, its not as great as so many are making it out to be.

Image
source https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/04/06/ ... w-is-here/
X99-A II, 6850K 4.2 GHz, GTX 1070 FE (431.36), DDR4-2400 CL12-14-14 4x8 GB
Win 10 Pro 1809, Resolve Studio 16.0.0.044
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 10:57 pm

joe12south wrote:
Since Q5 is better quality than ProRes 422 it's kind of easy to choose BRAW over ProRes.

Assuming you have the one camera in the universe that records BRAW. ;)


Yep, 2 of them and since it has BRAW the need for upgrading 3 of our old workstations is gone (we might upgrade the GPU's to 8+ GByte when the new AMD cards are cheap).
Offline
User avatar

Australian Image

  • Posts: 1922
  • Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:08 am
  • Real Name: Ray Pollanen

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 08, 2019 11:16 pm

Atomos and Blackmagic are somewhat in competition with each other, and I understand there's no love lost between the two, so it's not hard to understand why the former has gone they way they have.

I'll dump Cinema DNG the moment I can and good riddance.
https://australianimage.com.au/
Offline

Dalavi Tang

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostWed Jan 09, 2019 8:13 am

joe12south wrote:Why, Atomos?

Because they can. They can't record BRAW, it's camera dependent.

As BMD users we may love our cameras and Resolve and the possibility of BRAW, but we've bought into a relatively closed-loop ecosystem just as much as someone who chooses the Macos, FCPX, ProRes ecosystem. We have more choices on computers, they have more choices on cameras.


Yeah I can totally get the rationale behind the move, I'm just rambling haha. What you said about the two ecosystems makes a lot of sense.
Offline

Dalavi Tang

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostWed Jan 09, 2019 8:25 am

Dan Sherman wrote:Raw is so over hyped. Every wannabe and their brother thinks they need to shoot raw, and that shooting raw some how makes their footage magical.

Many seem to forget that you need a lot more than just a $700 Ninja v.

  • You need a Ninja V or better
  • depending on the resolution, frame-rate, quality, and amount of footage you're acquiring, you will need a few hundred GBs to tens of TBs of ssds for the recorder.
  • You will need the same amount of disk space available on your editing rig.


For me shooting cDNG or ArriRAW or anything that requires a ton of computing power and storage (especially storage) is worth a second thought, but when I have the option to shoot RAW at similar or even lower bitrates than ProRes with little compromise to performance, I will definitely shoot RAW.
Offline

Dan Sherman

  • Posts: 760
  • Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:07 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostWed Jan 09, 2019 2:08 pm

Dalavi Tang wrote:For me shooting cDNG or ArriRAW or anything that requires a ton of computing power and storage (especially storage) is worth a second thought, but when I have the option to shoot RAW at similar or even lower bitrates than ProRes with little compromise to performance, I will definitely shoot RAW.


Members of this forum have a better grasp on reality, more common sense, and knowledge of their gear.

The one that made me laugh yesterday was a guy that said he would shoot everything at 4k60 ProRes Raw HQ. He got fairly pissy with everyone when it was pointed out that neither the Z6 or Z7 will do 4k60, and that ProRes Raw HQ is roughly 1 GB every 4 seconds on average.
X99-A II, 6850K 4.2 GHz, GTX 1070 FE (431.36), DDR4-2400 CL12-14-14 4x8 GB
Win 10 Pro 1809, Resolve Studio 16.0.0.044
Offline

Stewart Fairweather

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:28 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostThu Jan 10, 2019 11:40 pm

I guess probably Atomos has already paid a huge amount of royalty fee to Apple to get ProRes RAW on their external devices,


Reports were, Atomos was like a junior partner in the development, which is why ProRes Raw is Apple and Atomos Only.

Given Atomos's track record of not finishing firmware, or dropping support for cameras that they've promised in press conferences with manufacturers reps,... I don't expect to see them to ever write code to support ProRes Raw for anything but their latest hardware.

As much as HDMI Raw Output is desirable, ProRes Raw doesn't have any of the advantages of CineDNG or Braw in MetaData, which is half of why we all want Raw output anyway.


BRAW is perfect


Not quite - it does the DeBayer in camera (leveraging the SOC's ability to do the processing), meaning it requires other camera manufacturers to implement it in their firmware.

A version of Braw that requires no changes to the camera firmware for those with Raw output on SDI connections, would be fantastic - all the advantages of recording to CineDNG, but in an much easier to work with file format.

Most GPU's currently on sale should have more then enough processing power to do the DeBayer.
I'd happily swap my Shogun for a Video Assist that recorded Raw from my Cion,..

Even If The Recorder Couldn't Display It While Recording.
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostFri Jan 11, 2019 1:13 am

Stewart Fairweather wrote:A version of Braw that requires no changes to the camera firmware for those with Raw output on SDI connections, would be fantastic - all the advantages of recording to CineDNG, but in an much easier to work with file format.


What you describe is CineformRAW, it's free, opensource and extremly low on computer resources.

https://github.com/gopro/cineform-sdk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineForm
Offline

Chris Whitten

  • Posts: 461
  • Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:10 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostFri Jan 11, 2019 2:40 pm

In defence of RAW, I shot raw almost exclusively on the original pocket. All I had were a few SD cards.
But I'm making three and four minute short films, not drama of long features.
I'm not a full time shooter and only started shooting video with the pocket, so raw bailed me out if I was in a difficult lighting situation, weird white balance, or in a panic I had set the wrong aperture and under cooked or overblown my exposure.
I've always edited on modest computers (iMac and MBPro). I have found RAW from the pocket very easy to work with, modestly grade and edit.
However, I'm excitedly waiting for BRAW because I don't think any part of my set up can handle 4K RAW from the new BMPCC4k.
Chris Whitten
Offline

Leon Benzakein

  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostFri Jan 11, 2019 3:27 pm

In the theater using the name of the "Scottish play" is bad luck and the remedy is to spin around three times and spit three times.

I suggest that you do the same thing.
How dare you use the name "Atomos" on the Blackmagic Design forum. :roll: :evil:

see:

"The Federal Court of Australia has upheld prohibitions against employees
using confidential information gained in the course of their employment in
Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd v Ian Overliese, Jeromy Young, Atomos Audio Pty
Ltd and Clare Young (2010) 84 IPR 505. The judgment is also important as it
emphasised the need for employers to be specific when creating noncompetition and copyright obligations for employees under employment
contracts."

http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/jour ... Watson.pdf
Television: Lighting/Cameraman, O.B. Camera Operator, Grip, Lamp Operator
Film: Grip, Lamp Operator
Theater: Lighting Designer, Light board Operator, Stage Electrician, Stage Management
Offline

Stewart Fairweather

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:28 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSat Jan 12, 2019 12:48 pm

MishaEngel wrote:What you describe is CineformRAW, it's free, opensource and extremly low on computer resources.


Now if only there was a product out there that uses it in an external recorder. :lol:
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSat Jan 12, 2019 3:12 pm

Stewart Fairweather wrote:
MishaEngel wrote:What you describe is CineformRAW, it's free, opensource and extremly low on computer resources.


Now if only there was a product out there that uses it in an external recorder. :lol:


The problem is support from NLE's and hardware vendors.

Atomos doesn't pay for ProResRAW, they get paid by Apple to implement it in their recorders, same is valid for camera manufactures (sony, pana, nikon). Only Nikon really benefits from this (they have no pro-video line).

KineRAW ~ CineformRAW and not supported by any major NLE because of commercial reasons.

Let's hope that the goverments of China and India (3 billion consumers) will push this opensource codec and break the consortium against the opensource Cineform(RAW).
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10707
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSat Jan 12, 2019 6:15 pm

MishaEngel wrote: Atomos doesn't pay for ProResRAW, they get paid by Apple to implement it in their recorders, same is valid for camera manufactures (sony, pana, nikon). Only Nikon really benefits from this (they have no pro-video line).


What is your source for this info Misha? If Apple pays to implement ProResRaw, then the same would be true for ProRes? I think I read where Graham indicated BM had to “buy” a license from Apple for ProRes, as do the other manufacturers using ProRes for recording, not the other way. Pana, Sony, and the rest of the consumer high end video gang, are not using ProRes for internal recording.
Cheers
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline

Dalavi Tang

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSun Jan 13, 2019 4:37 pm

Leon Benzakein wrote:In the theater using the name of the "Scottish play" is bad luck and the remedy is to spin around three times and spit three times.

I suggest that you do the same thing.
How dare you use the name "Atomos" on the Blackmagic Design forum. :roll: :evil:

see:

"The Federal Court of Australia has upheld prohibitions against employees
using confidential information gained in the course of their employment in
Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd v Ian Overliese, Jeromy Young, Atomos Audio Pty
Ltd and Clare Young (2010) 84 IPR 505. The judgment is also important as it
emphasised the need for employers to be specific when creating noncompetition and copyright obligations for employees under employment
contracts."

http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/jour ... Watson.pdf


Oh I didn't know about that before. But I do now.

I promise I'll never say "Macbeth" again haha
Offline

Dalavi Tang

  • Posts: 13
  • Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:40 am

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSun Jan 13, 2019 4:51 pm

Chris Whitten wrote:In defence of RAW, I shot raw almost exclusively on the original pocket. All I had were a few SD cards.
But I'm making three and four minute short films, not drama of long features.
I'm not a full time shooter and only started shooting video with the pocket, so raw bailed me out if I was in a difficult lighting situation, weird white balance, or in a panic I had set the wrong aperture and under cooked or overblown my exposure.
I've always edited on modest computers (iMac and MBPro). I have found RAW from the pocket very easy to work with, modestly grade and edit.
However, I'm excitedly waiting for BRAW because I don't think any part of my set up can handle 4K RAW from the new BMPCC4k.


grading and editing 25p cDNG form the Pocket 4K on my laptop (7700HQ + 1070 Max-Q) is acceptable (for me at least), so I do shoot RAW in very challenging lighting (shooting a sunrise for instance), but I'm not a big fan of image sequences so I tend to use RAW only for specific situations. But I surely will appreciate the size reduction brought about by BRAW, and the fact that it's wrapped in a single file, so I can see myself using RAW more often (if not always haha) (if only BM can deliver RAW update ASAP)
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSun Jan 13, 2019 6:07 pm

Denny Smith wrote:
MishaEngel wrote: Atomos doesn't pay for ProResRAW, they get paid by Apple to implement it in their recorders, same is valid for camera manufactures (sony, pana, nikon). Only Nikon really benefits from this (they have no pro-video line).


What is your source for this info Misha? If Apple pays to implement ProResRaw, then the same would be true for ProRes? I think I read where Graham indicated BM had to “buy” a license from Apple for ProRes, as do the other manufacturers using ProRes for recording, not the other way. Pana, Sony, and the rest of the consumer high end video gang, are not using ProRes for internal recording.
Cheers


ProRes is a defacto standard in the movie industry (because of Steve Jobs), ProResRAW is absolutely nothing in the movie industry so they have to fight their way in, to get momentum. ProRes can be used in any major NLE, ProResRAW only works in FCPX hence, when you buy a ProResRAW recorder you also have to buy an Apple Computer(benefit for Apple). Why would camera manufactures pay for ProResRAW on consumer camera's when they can get other compressed RAW formats for free?
For their Pro camera's Sony hax X-OCN(not supported by FCPX), ARRI,Pana and Canon have CODEX, RED has .R3D, BM has cDNG and BRAW(not supported by FCPX) and Kinefinity has KineRAW(cineformRAW)(not supported by any) and cDNG.

All major RAW formats have free SDK's(for implementing it in NLE's) except ProResRAW.
Offline

Denny Smith

  • Posts: 10707
  • Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:19 pm
  • Location: USA, Northern Calif.

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSun Jan 13, 2019 6:49 pm

OK, I see,where you are coming from in this, but this is not the same as buying a license from Apple to use ProRes ecosystem in a camera. As for ProRes Raw, only Atomos currently has access, and since they helped go-develop it along with Panasonic to use it on the EVA1, I doubt they paid Apple or the other way round.

I do not think ProResRaw is not not going to get a wide user base (especially not in the Movie Industry), until Apple releases it to other sources and NLE makers. BRaw has its SDK for decoding released, but so far only one other NLE developer has implemented it outside Resolve.
Cheers
Last edited by Denny Smith on Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:43 am, edited 3 times in total.
Denny Smith
SHA Productions
Offline
User avatar

Rakesh Malik

  • Posts: 2528
  • Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:01 am
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostSun Jan 13, 2019 7:31 pm

Denny Smith wrote:OK, I see,where yiu are coming from in this, but this is not the same as buying a license from Apple to use ProRes ecosystem in a camera. As for ProRes Raw, only Atomos currently has access, and since they helped go-develop it along with Panasonic to imply it on the EVA1, I doubt they paid Apple or the other way round.


I suspect that Misha's right; Apple probably funded the R&D effort. Honestly, I suspect that had Apple not paid for it, ProResRaw wouldn't exist at all, since being FCPX only there wouldn't be much incentive for anyone to put in the effort.

I do not think ProResRaw is not not going to get a wide user base (especially not in the Movie Industry), until Apple releases it to other sources and NLE makers. BRaw has its SDK for deciding released, but so far only one other NLE developer has implemented it outside Resolve.
Cheers


Well, if the other NLE vendors don't get on board with braw, it will just help BMD grow its Resolve user base. :)
Rakesh Malik
Cinematographer, photographer, adventurer, martial artist
http://WinterLight.studio
System:
Alienware M15 Hexacore + Radeon VII + Razer Core
HP Spectre x360 Kaby Lake-R
Offline

Leon Benzakein

  • Posts: 928
  • Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 pm

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostMon Jan 14, 2019 3:27 pm

Dalavi Tang wrote:
Leon Benzakein wrote:In the theater using the name of the "Scottish play" is bad luck and the remedy is to spin around three times and spit three times.

I suggest that you do the same thing.
How dare you use the name "Atomos" on the Blackmagic Design forum. :roll: :evil:

see:

"The Federal Court of Australia has upheld prohibitions against employees
using confidential information gained in the course of their employment in
Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd v Ian Overliese, Jeromy Young, Atomos Audio Pty
Ltd and Clare Young (2010) 84 IPR 505. The judgment is also important as it
emphasised the need for employers to be specific when creating noncompetition and copyright obligations for employees under employment
contracts."

http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/jour ... Watson.pdf


Oh I didn't know about that before. But I do now.

I promise I'll never say "Macbeth" again haha


You can say that name as many times as you want. Just not to a Thespian in a theater.
They are likely to go into shock or strangle you with your socks.

See what happens if you say Atomos 3 times at the Blackmagic design booth.
If you live please let us know the outcome.
Television: Lighting/Cameraman, O.B. Camera Operator, Grip, Lamp Operator
Film: Grip, Lamp Operator
Theater: Lighting Designer, Light board Operator, Stage Electrician, Stage Management
Offline
User avatar

carlomacchiavello

  • Posts: 633
  • Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:04 pm
  • Location: italy

Re: Why, Atomos. Why.

PostTue Jan 15, 2019 8:32 pm

Stewart Fairweather wrote:
MishaEngel wrote:What you describe is CineformRAW, it's free, opensource and extremly low on computer resources.


Now if only there was a product out there that uses it in an external recorder. :lol:


in past (2010) there was a Cinerecorder that record Cineform and cineform raw, but when go pro buy cineform disappear, and most of its strong power is shutdown.
i'm ones of original user with active metadata, 3d active alignment and more...
Actually is a living dead the free cineform codec.

Return to Cinematography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Iain Bason and 8 guests