Blackmagic Forum

The ProRes codec leverages the power of the fcpx/MacOS/CPU to give fcpx huge bandwidth advantages over other NLEs when using optimized media. That's the whole reason ProRes exists in the first place, and this is why we transcode other codecs into optimized ProRes media to work faster in fcpx.

It stands to reason that ProRes RAW delivers the same ProRes formatting advantages on fcpx.

If that is so, then it also stands to reason that fcpx could transcode BRAW into ProRes RAW. Neither is actual RAW anyway, being compressed formats etc, but both retain Raw-like abilities to change ISO, WB etc.

So if the fcpx answer is to transcode BRAW into ProRes Raw, then there is no threat to ProRes RAW, in fact it becomes an extra justification for its existence. They do not have be competitors in the fcpx workflow, but coexist.

And given that people with blackmagic cameras already have Resolve free, doing something like this is probably a better way to make inroads with BM customers to stay with fcpx, so it probably helps Apple more than it hurts Apple.

If you look at the original white paper Apple posted in April 2018 you will see this benchmark for performance :

So 8 streams of 4K @23.98fps (non-HQ).
We did testing on a similar iMac Pro 18 core (Vega64) back then and at higher resolution (4.6K) we could get around 12.7 streams @24fps which is shown on our website:

I haven’t done formal testing of the handling of various flavours of BRAW but even on my problematic topic-of-line iMac 27” late 2015, I was processing ProRes 444 and BRAW Q0 UHD without generating optimized media for the narrative pilot.

Now I’m on the Mac Pro 2019 16-core with Vega II, I don’t expect to be taking Apple’s offer for the 90 day trial of FCP X because of any productivity gain. My producer wants me to grade footage she edits with FCP X, so I may pick up the free FCP X to learn the details of ingesting FCP X footage into Resolve.

rick.lang wrote:My producer wants me to grade footage she edits with FCP X, so I may pick up the free FCP X to learn the details of ingesting FCP X footage into Resolve.

It's pretty straightforward, actually, and Ripple Training has a good short, free video walking you through the process. The main stumbling block seems to be compound clips exported from FCPX, which show up in Resolve without a codec, will not render-cache, and will not generate optimized media. However, there's a solution: delete all compound clips from Resolve's media page to make any compound clips in the timeline go offline. Then simply right click on the timeline and reconform from bins, which will turn all the compound clips into normal clips.

The basic procedure for exporting a project from FCPX to Resolve is to open a project in FCXP, press Command-2 to make the timeline active, and then from the File menu choose Export XML. Then you launch Resolve and create a new project with an empty media pool and timeline. Press Shift-Command-I to call up the Import Timeline dialog box and navigate to the XML file that you exported from Final Cut. There are some settings to review. More details:

https://www.rippletraining.com/articles ... -and-back/

ProRes whatever is very compute intensive compared to it's open-source Cineform whatever counter part.

Cineform is still the best overall codec (YUV,RGB(A),compressed-RAW) only beaten by REDCODE-RAW with respect to the compression/quality ratio by around 25 % (Cineform-RAW is upto 7x less compute intensive than REDCODE-RAW at the same quality levels).

So what do most(higher end, not AVC or HVEC, etc..) codec user do... not use the best codec, but the one that is push the hardest by a PR-machine(ProRes-something PR'ed by Apple).

MishaEngel wrote:open-source Cineform

Open source doesn't mean license free. And cineform raw is not free in cameras. And not well supported in apps. It only went open source in 2017. It was too late. Maybe if they had done it earlier they would have had a chance. Their dead now.

For 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 in camera encoding we are completely patent free, so hardware vendors are welcome to build CineForm compliant encoding and decoding of all formats except for RAW. The direct using of the CineForm-SDK software, the Apache 2.0 license grants patent rights including RAW for those software products. However for hardware implementations CineForm RAW the licensing would be for SMPTE VC5 which grants RAW patent for custom implementations. Very roughly, the license for VC5/CineForm RAW cameras is $20 per camera in the professional market.

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2017/10/ci ... 6256120171

Steven Abrams wrote:

MishaEngel wrote:open-source Cineform

Open source doesn't mean license free. And cineform raw is not free in cameras. And not well supported in apps. It only went open source in 2017. It was too late. Maybe if they had done it earlier they would have had a chance. Their dead now.

For 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 in camera encoding we are completely patent free, so hardware vendors are welcome to build CineForm compliant encoding and decoding of all formats except for RAW. The direct using of the CineForm-SDK software, the Apache 2.0 license grants patent rights including RAW for those software products. However for hardware implementations CineForm RAW the licensing would be for SMPTE VC5 which grants RAW patent for custom implementations. Very roughly, the license for VC5/CineForm RAW cameras is $20 per camera in the professional market.

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2017/10/ci ... 6256120171

Wednesday, October 25, 2017 it's 2020.

License Terms:

CineForm-SDK is licensed under either:
Apache License, Version 2.0, (LICENSE-APACHE or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
MIT license (LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
at your option.

Cineform RAW is ~ $20 per camera license fee.

When the license fee would be $1.000 for the end customer he/she could save him/her self a lot of money on the compute hardware needed to process the images.

i.o.w. Cineform RAW for $1.000 is cheaper then any free codec or other paid codec when you use it on a regular basis (not when you just shoot holiday video's).

BRAW is getting pretty close and the best alternative to Cineform at the moment.

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

I know that many are trying to kill Cineform, some by asking a license fee in the past (GoPro), some by huge PR-budgets(Apple) and some in other ways. At the moment the use of Cineform is growing again.

Hey, Brad, thanks so much for the guidance.

Regarding to the comments Apple dropping the ball.
Looking at the Applications they actually put to EOF you can clearly see they mainly came from external sources.
Motion (after acquisition Chalice) and Compressor where developed internally by Apple. FCP well that's their prestige software which then was redesigned from ground up. Apples marketing section defiantly dropped the ball on FCPX.

Aperture most likely thanks to the Adobe Windows based numbers.

I myself would also like to see BRAW for FCPX. Since Apple wants to sale hardware we will most likely see BRAW integration in FCPX before we will see ProRes RAW in any Blackmagic product.
Since DaVinci is the free Trojan to Blackmagic products I doubt we will something in the near future. But I am happy to be proven wrong by Blackmagic.

Regarding RAW preferences, I have received many request of ProRes then R3D or even ARRIRAW from colourist. Yes even from Arri itself. They can tickle so much from ProRes in DaVinci why even bother?

Now imagine ProRes RAW in Blackmagic hardware.

Thanks for reminding me about Aperture, my favourite tool for organizing photos. I created an Aperture.photoslibrary before upgrading to Catalina. Sure miss that excellent app and I’m unforgiving of Apple for abandoning such a good product rather than recoding it for their new architecture. It’s not like Apple could plead poverty as they count their beans.

Apple do seem to be letting fcp die, it really reminds of the last years of aperture. It’s been so long since we had a significant update with so much of the app feeling stale and out of date. I’ve been an absolute evangelist for it up until needing braw support, so moving to Resolve. The pace of Resolve development is light years ahead of what Apple have been doing. I’ve moved all personal project’s and my university over to Resolve. Fcp is the main reason we’ve stuck with Apple hardware, they are making such a mistake...

rick.lang wrote:Thanks for reminding me about Aperture, my favourite tool for organizing photos. I created an Aperture.photoslibrary before upgrading to Catalina. Sure miss that excellent app and I’m unforgiving of Apple for abandoning such a good product rather than recoding it for their new architecture. It’s not like Apple could plead poverty as they count their beans.

No problem!

Why update then, it will keep working? I still have a Mid 2012 Mac Pro with FCP7 rocket along.

Rrrbbb wrote:Apple do seem to be letting fcp die, it really reminds of the last years of aperture. It’s been so long since we had a significant update with so much of the app feeling stale and out of date. I’ve been an absolute evangelist for it up until needing braw support, so moving to Resolve. The pace of Resolve development is light years ahead of what Apple have been doing. I’ve moved all personal project’s and my university over to Resolve. Fcp is the main reason we’ve stuck with Apple hardware, they are making such a mistake...

This is something that I hear every year regarding FCPX. The last update was in March 2021. We received 4 updates in a year since 2018. I wouldn't call an App out of date that is more spearheaded and future-oriented then others.
In a professional environment usually you don't update during Post-Production or if not required.
At the moment the only justification for DaVinci Resolve we have is Fusion and grading. Which we have noticed that we only crack open on large projects that will require it. I guess sticking with standard formats (R3D, ProRes and ARRIRAW) and fast workflowis the more smarter choice for us. Reason why FCPX is at the moment the tool in our toolbox.
If you want BRAW support then you will have point your finger in the direction of Blackmagic.
Same could be said on ProRes RAW Support.

Blackmagic updates habit feels similar to Adobes strategy (buy and integrate). Looking over to Avid and co.

Also don't forget that Apple is going through major changeover in their hardware and software.

P.S. moving to Resolve is still better then Premiere.

Rrrbbb wrote:Apple do seem to be letting fcp die, it really reminds of the last years of aperture. It’s been so long since we had a significant update with so much of the app feeling stale and out of date. I’ve been an absolute evangelist for it up until needing braw support, so moving to Resolve. The pace of Resolve development is light years ahead of what Apple have been doing. I’ve moved all personal project’s and my university over to Resolve. Fcp is the main reason we’ve stuck with Apple hardware, they are making such a mistake...

Ah... dont get me started with Apple.
yeah, I had high hopes for them back when they bought Shake... just to see them dump it - selling the code to whoever wanted it for a short period at the end. (pretty sure this is how Nuke got started):p

I mean, if anyone is honest and remembers those days - there were speculation they would be coming out with their own "photoshop" due to the pace of acquisition and development of 'pro' apps across the board.

So - its interesting to me to see people that didnt experience that golden age, and youtubers who all swear by Apple as if they are 'king' of NLE software.

(Funny seeing Premiere as the PC king - I remember them as the app that got a facelift and new engine under the hood to turn it into a 'real NLE' that could finally be used... of course I got out of the industry in 05' - still...)

Having said that - getting back into the 'field' and trying Resolve, immediately thought:
* This is a no-brainer, cant see why anyone would still use Final Cut over this (Resolve) and same with Premiere (Adobe bloatware...)
- though to be honest, sticking with Fusion has been tough for an ex-AE user... but daughter really likes it, so Im sticking with it. :p

So yeah... go BlackMagic (all I need now is weather sealing for the cameras, as its dusty where I live - I mean really bad, and thats not including 'real weather') :p

Tim Franks wrote:Why update then, it will keep working?

I like to keep up with upgrades of the operating system and I waited until I was likely suffering from impaired judgment due to the pandemic isolation a year ago. I can use my Aperture library as I exported the library to a Photos library so going to Catalina just seemed part of the cost of no longer being able to update Aperture for some time.

I do have ON1 as well and that runs with macOS Catalina. And then there’s Resolve that I’ve been using for one client’s stills taken with the BMPCC4K. They both can manage the organization of resources, but not quite with the facility of Aperture’s structural choices.

Dhaylen wrote: cant see why anyone would still use Final Cut over this (Resolve)

While Resolve is a fantastic finishing app, the unique FCPX toolset — keyword/favorite/reject ranges + primary/secondary storylines + clip connections + roles/subroles — is in the most efficient option for creative offline editing. This demo of FCPX by Thomas Grove Carter shows how he leverages all those attributes for excellent (and speedy) results:


I do all my grading + finishing in Resolve after picture lock. But for all the logging, selects, and creative editing to get a sequence to picture lock, there is no better tool than FCPX.

While it's a minor bummer that FCPX doesn't support BRAW, I typically don't edit with original camera formats anyway and prefer to make ProResProxy dailies to use for offline editing, regardless of the source camera(s) and the NLE used.

Jamie LeJeune wrote:
I do all my grading + finishing in Resolve after picture lock. But for all the logging, selects, and creative editing to get a sequence to picture lock, there is no better tool than FCPX.

Thanks, Jamie - that is pretty detailed, and I agree with your assessment -

Suppose it would have been more accurate for me to have said, Apple hasnt earned my 'trust' back after gaining full momentum and then just abandoning their Pro line momentum, as mentioned above.

Its one of those things, coming back into it all - seeing and trying Resolve and saying, "you know what - I see where they were, what they now have... and heck, Ill stick with them as they probably will only continue to innovate and deliver"

Again, mileage may very...
With editing, personally, never was a really big deal. (Edited on Avid, Media 100 - horrible -, FinalCut Pro, Premiere, etc.) Used to love FinalCut over Avid - and was a full on Apple evangelist! lol!

What Resolve has done with the Cut page - pretty cool... not sure many editors have given it enough chance to see how it really shines.

(probably what Apple had hoped to do with that imovie stuff, back in the day... another reason Final Cut soured on some of us, as they tried to integrate that stuff in FinalCut, and features that we were used to disappeared over night... Im sure it has changed since then)

Sorry - not to sound 'bitter' or an old grouch about it... again, its a pretty piece of software, but at this point - they would have to do some "magic" to convince me back.

* truth be told - it would have to be major... I love NVIDIA, and we all know that Apple not only ditched them, but its not like in the old days where you could choose what went in your Pro machine - no Nvidia, they can have the best software and I wont switch.

I like AI/programming, and gaming - and Nivida covers both of those plus my video needs. lol!

Suppose it would have been more accurate for me to have said, Apple hasnt earned my 'trust' back after gaining full momentum and then just abandoning their Pro line momentum, as mentioned above.

I guess my problem with this is it’s literally been 11 years since this stuff happened, based on decisions by a guy who has been dead nearly that long. I feel like “winning my trust back” leads to unnecessary creative dead-ends, at least compared to, “What’s the best tool for the job now?” I’m certainly not saying this is you, but video editors and post-people keep falling victim to this calcification and inflexibility instead of constantly reevaluating and growing. It’s why I’ve tried to stay conversant with all the major options, though for pure editing, I prefer FCPx.

Now there’s something to be said with sticking with what you like - I mean, Bong Joon Ho edited Parasite on classic FCP, for crying out loud. But I believe it’s also important to not be tethered to old judgments, especially when they’re basically reactions to ancient bad marketing decisions.

Dhaylen wrote:

Rrrbbb wrote:Apple do seem to be letting fcp die, it really reminds of the last years of aperture. It’s been so long since we had a significant update with so much of the app feeling stale and out of date. I’ve been an absolute evangelist for it up until needing braw support, so moving to Resolve. The pace of Resolve development is light years ahead of what Apple have been doing. I’ve moved all personal project’s and my university over to Resolve. Fcp is the main reason we’ve stuck with Apple hardware, they are making such a mistake...

Ah... dont get me started with Apple.
yeah, I had high hopes for them back when they bought Shake... just to see them dump it - selling the code to whoever wanted it for a short period at the end. (pretty sure this is how Nuke got started):p

I mean, if anyone is honest and remembers those days - there were speculation they would be coming out with their own "photoshop" due to the pace of acquisition and development of 'pro' apps across the board.

So - its interesting to me to see people that didnt experience that golden age, and youtubers who all swear by Apple as if they are 'king' of NLE software.

(Funny seeing Premiere as the PC king - I remember them as the app that got a facelift and new engine under the hood to turn it into a 'real NLE' that could finally be used... of course I got out of the industry in 05' - still...)

Having said that - getting back into the 'field' and trying Resolve, immediately thought:
* This is a no-brainer, cant see why anyone would still use Final Cut over this (Resolve) and same with Premiere (Adobe bloatware...)
- though to be honest, sticking with Fusion has been tough for an ex-AE user... but daughter really likes it, so Im sticking with it. :p

So yeah... go BlackMagic (all I need now is weather sealing for the cameras, as its dusty where I live - I mean really bad, and thats not including 'real weather') :p

Not sure if you are referring to me as a YouTuber that didn't experience the golden age. Learning in a time where editing was still done on tape and YouTube wasn't a thing.

But, actually Nuke has been around since 1993 and it was a in house application at Digital Domain.
Apple purchased Nothing Real (Shake), which some technology is still being used today in FCPX and Motion.
There was a rumour that Apple was working on compositing application aka Phenomenon. Being a former heavy Shake users for comps, for me FCPX is the node editor with a digital mindset. While the others are still stuck in the good old analog paradigm. At least Adobe and Blackmagic are trying to sneak the FCPX Timeline in after hating on it.

Working with NLEs since 2001 there is not such thing as best NLE, just bad ones!
We or I try to be efficient in multiple NLEs just incase, but yes pick your favourite tool will get the job done. We should be editors and not software fan groups. But why would someone use FCPX over other NLE's. This is also a "no brainer" Learning curve, speed, stability and workflow. By the time Resolve has started up I am already in the middle of a rough cut in FCPX.
The most tasty part of Resolve is that you get a complete suite just like Adobe with no subscription model. Lets hope Apple and Blackmagic keeps it this way.

I also agree with

Jamie LeJeune wrote:While it's a minor bummer that FCPX doesn't support BRAW, I typically don't edit with original camera formats anyway and prefer to make ProResProxy dailies to use for offline editing, regardless of the source camera(s) and the NLE used.

we stick to the standards in our shop. Keeps things going and guaranty outside players are compatible .

Tim Franks wrote:
* Not sure if you are referring to me as a YouTuber that didn't experience the golden age. Learning in a time where editing was still done on tape and YouTube wasn't a thing.

* Working with NLEs since 2001 there is not such thing as best NLE, just bad ones!

* We or I try to be efficient in multiple NLEs just incase, but yes pick your favourite tool will get the job done.

*The most tasty part of Resolve is that you get a complete suite just like Adobe with no subscription model.

lol - no, Tim, definitely not referring to you... just in general what I've observed online.

yeah - I remember linear editing... but was spared from this. lol!
Not sure why we had it when we had a nice Avid suite... (think it was kinda there from the 'old days') :p

* Bad NLE - Media 100... (it was a nightmare and would never touch again... wish I didnt have to then)

* True - pick and choose, they all do the same thing.
Premiere, Avid, Final Cut, Resolve - really can jump between any of them.
(Certified Avid and FinalCut editor...)

Mentioned it somewhere else - but the trick, for me, has been going from AE to Fusion.
(not from one NLE to another)

* For me - went from Apple super fan boy - to disappointed with how they handled their pro line, (hardware and software) and now with NVIDIA gone... just have no need for them.
But then again, Im into AI/programming - Im an avid gamer - add into that video production, and you can see why I would choose a PC with Nvidia any day.

Trust me, when I say, I wouldnt mind Apple changing my mind... I liked Final Cut over Avid and Adobe.
Im happy I had a break of 15 years - or I might not have been open to Resolve... (people get stuck in their ways, and Im no different)

As for startup times... yeah, Resolve can be slow - (though its not bad at all on my newer machine)
* Though to be fair, Fusion crashes all the time - unless I save frequently.

"It’s been so long since we had a *significant update*". I'm not sure I would say tweaking youtube settings or stability warrant significant updates. The last BIG update was October 2019 when we got proper colour tools...

Anything but Premiere thoguh

Tim Franks wrote:

Rrrbbb wrote:Apple do seem to be letting fcp die, it really reminds of the last years of aperture. It’s been so long since we had a significant update with so much of the app feeling stale and out of date. I’ve been an absolute evangelist for it up until needing braw support, so moving to Resolve. The pace of Resolve development is light years ahead of what Apple have been doing. I’ve moved all personal project’s and my university over to Resolve. Fcp is the main reason we’ve stuck with Apple hardware, they are making such a mistake...

This is something that I hear every year regarding FCPX. The last update was in March 2021. We received 4 updates in a year since 2018. I wouldn't call an App out of date that is more spearheaded and future-oriented then others.
In a professional environment usually you don't update during Post-Production or if not required.
At the moment the only justification for DaVinci Resolve we have is Fusion and grading. Which we have noticed that we only crack open on large projects that will require it. I guess sticking with standard formats (R3D, ProRes and ARRIRAW) and fast workflowis the more smarter choice for us. Reason why FCPX is at the moment the tool in our toolbox.
If you want BRAW support then you will have point your finger in the direction of Blackmagic.
Same could be said on ProRes RAW Support.

Blackmagic updates habit feels similar to Adobes strategy (buy and integrate). Looking over to Avid and co.

Also don't forget that Apple is going through major changeover in their hardware and software.

P.S. moving to Resolve is still better then Premiere.

Let's not forget the history of ProRes RAW....

It was essentially a product that was co-developed by Atomos.

So far they are also the ONLY way to record ProRes RAW. Not a single camera has been released that can do ProRes RAW on board. (The DJI drone is a seperate recorder to the camera). Ot any other external recorder. You want ProRes RAW, there's only one way to record it. On an Atomos.

It may well be that Atomos did a deal of some kind with Apple for exclusivity on the recording side. This was almost certainly for the initial launch period.

ProRes RAW might ONLY be available in an Atomos recorder. It might not be able (allowed) to be implemented in-camera....Given that Atomos also has some unsavoury history with BMD as well further complicates this.

Is it because RED have made it impossible to implement internal ProRes RAW ?

Maybe they made Atomos PAY, who at the time this announcement happened, were about to go public....
https://ymcinema.com/2019/01/24/atomos- ... s-patents/

---though this is weird given Atomos only make EXTERNAL recorders and RED's IP seems to stick for working only on in-camera RAW recording...

And then there's this...
https://nofilmschool.com/apple-goes-war-red

Where apple tried to test RED's IP...AFTER they had ProRes RAW out for...a year ?

Apple are notorious with subjective and tight control of their codecs and hardware. JVC once announced at NAB many years ago they were going to do ProRes in a new model.....Err...Apple said no. Apparently JVC didn't think it would be a problem.

Very recently another camera maker yanked announced internal ProRes RAW support too....
https://ymcinema.com/2021/03/01/kinefin ... a-cameras/

Apple are strategic about these kinds of things. Imagine how many cameras Sony or Canon or Panasonic would sell if they actually did internal ProRes HQ ? Why is it that they haven't ? Is it because they don't want to OR, is it because Apple won't allow it?

So to recap....

Apple don't just let anyone do ProRes RAW or even ProRes....It's not a matter of paying...it's strategic...
Apple developed ProRes RAW in conjunction with a competing on board recorder to BMD....
Not a single camera has yet done internal ProRes RAW after...three years ? Why is that ?

My understanding is that NOTHING is stopping those that currently support BRAW to external recorders from doing it internal, other than the not insubstantial cost of developing the ASIC chips to do it.

Apple control what FCPx works with and FCPx users should be asking Apple why BRAW isn't supported.

My guess though would be that unless Apple open up ProRes RAW to others to be able to record with, then it won't be supported in Resolve any time soon.

BRAW and ProRes RAW are kind of similar except that BRAW seems to better in most ways that count. More optimised playback, smarter codec, better use of metadata and seemingly much more widely used. Things like the in-camera scaling on the 12K show what can be done with very tight integration of the codec and sensor. From BMD's point of view for their own cameras, it now makes sense to back a codec they can control themselves.

JB

John Brawley wrote:Let's not forget the history of ProRes RAW....

It was essentially a product that was co-developed by Atomos.

JB

This explains many thing except why hasn't sony or canon implemented braw? Only the cameras that don't sell that well have done so. Probably looking to increase market penetration. If they do maybe this will make apple change.

Ricardo Marty

ricardo marty wrote:
This explains many thing except why hasn't sony or canon implemented braw? Only the cameras that don't sell that well have done so. Probably looking to increase market penetration. If they do maybe this will make apple change.

Possibly the cost of development. Which MAY also be the same reason there's no ProRes.

BMD's cameras are FPGA based, so they are more programmable. (So is Alexa)

Most mass consumer cameras are ASIC based. They are cheaper per unit, use less power, BUT they take a LOT longer to code and are more expensive to develop up front. They might not want to pay for the development cost of it.

JB

John Brawley wrote:
ProRes RAW might ONLY be available in an Atomos recorder. It might not be able (allowed) to be implemented in-camera....Given that Atomos also has some unsavoury history with BMD as well further complicates this.

Is it because RED have made it impossible to implement internal ProRes RAW ?

So far I am aware we are not seeing ProResRAW do to RED patent and BRAW gets around this due its implementation of partial debayer. Maybe we will see a new flavour soft ProResRAW that is similar to ARRIRAW who knows... most likely not.

It would be nice to see one format on all cameras that is not a flavour of h264.

Tim Franks wrote:
So far I am aware we are not seeing ProResRAW do to RED patent and BRAW gets around this due its implementation of partial debayer. Maybe we will see a new flavour soft ProResRAW that is similar to ARRIRAW who knows...
.

ARRIRAW is simply uncompressed. It's not covered by the RED patent.

Maybe we'll see Arri do BRAW for when they want something compressed and not ProRes

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Why would Apple develop a codec that infringes a patent and then challenge it. I mean, what's the point of developing a RAW codec that can't be used the way most of us want to work.

JB

John Brawley wrote:

Tim Franks wrote:
So far I am aware we are not seeing ProResRAW do to RED patent and BRAW gets around this due its implementation of partial debayer. Maybe we will see a new flavour soft ProResRAW that is similar to ARRIRAW who knows...
.

ARRIRAW is simply uncompressed. It's not covered by the RED patent.

Maybe we'll see Arri do BRAW for when they want something compressed and not ProRes

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Why would Apple develop a codec that infringes a patent and then challenge it. I mean, what's the point of developing a RAW codec that can't be used the way most of us want to work.

JB

Thats what I meant an uncompressed ProRes Raw version.
Well Sony has tried so have others in the past. There is allot going on right now with RED and Patent claims, only the future will tell.
But if they lose it, then we might see new wave of formats or even (lets hope) a standard.

Arri producing something like BRAW not sure if this makes since they already have argument that ProRes is good enough when done right. And ee know where Arri is being used.

Tim Franks wrote:If you want BRAW support then you will have point your finger in the direction of Blackmagic.

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.

CaptainHook wrote: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.

Is it the same story for ProRes RAW in DaVinci?

I'm not with the Resolve team, better to ask in the Resolve forum or see if someone from the team has responded there already (I'm sure there's probably existing threads, I don't really check that section except to scan for Blackmagic camera or Blackmagic RAW questions/issues).

CaptainHook wrote:

Tim Franks wrote:If you want BRAW support then you will have point your finger in the direction of Blackmagic.

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.

Strange that they would allow a third party to do it. Color Trix are releasing their Color Finale Transcoder soon which will enable BRAW in FCPX.

Brad Hurley wrote:It wasn't mentioned; I think Apple would also need to release a new version of Final Cut for this to happen. It could be in the works: the FCPX Creative Summit is scheduled for November so it could be announced then, and there's also speculation that Apple may release a new version of Final Cut when the new Mac Pro becomes available sometime in the next few months.

On the one hand you could argue that Apple has no motivation to bring BRAW to FCPX since Apple's pushing its own Prores RAW, but on the other hand if they don't it'll just mean more people will abandon Final Cut for Resolve and Premiere.

Apple release a new version of FCPX? Ok, that’ll be 2029! lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Having worked for Apple for over 5 years. I 100% believe Apple will be brining out their own “prosumer” camera in the future.

Oh so controversial but.....

I worked with a colleague who’s name was James Ives. I can’t tell you how many times confidential information got sent to him by accident!

Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Having worked for Apple for over 5 years. I 100% believe Apple will be brining out their own “prosumer” camera in the future.

Leaked for Apple April event.

oh man that's incredible

roger.magnusson wrote:

CaptainHook wrote:

Tim Franks wrote:If you want BRAW support then you will have point your finger in the direction of Blackmagic.

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.

Strange that they would allow a third party to do it. Color Trix are releasing their Color Finale Transcoder soon which will enable BRAW in FCPX.

From a quick look it appears that it allows you to preview clips in FCPX, but still forces you to transcode on import to start editing with the footage (hence the transcoder in the name). So you won't be editing Blackmagic RAW files natively.

I think this is just a FCPX workflow extension and that SDK is available, but that doesn't allow you to develop native codec support - that is a different SDK not public.

CaptainHook wrote:From a quick look it appears that it allows you to preview clips in FCPX, but still forces you to transcode on import to start editing with the footage (hence the transcoder in the name). So you won't be editing Blackmagic RAW files natively.

I think this is just a FCPX workflow extension and that SDK is available, but that doesn't allow you to develop native codec support - that is a different SDK not public.

Agreed. It appears to be leveraging the new manual control over externally created proxy files in FCPX. I'd bet if users want to change the BRAW metadata of clips, the files would all need to be re-rendered.

Ah, yes I thought the name "Transcoder" was strange if it was indeed a true decoder plugin.

Craig Seeman wrote:

Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Having worked for Apple for over 5 years. I 100% believe Apple will be brining out their own “prosumer” camera in the future.

Leaked for Apple April event.

April 1994, right? The Apple QuickTake line (100, 150, and 200) was sold from 1994 to 1997; it had a 0.3 megapixel resolution. The actual cameras were manufactured by Kodak (the 100 and 150) and Fujifilm (the 200). Steve Jobs axed the project when he returned to Apple.

This article might be interesting:

Color Finale Transcoder - BRAW, ARRIRAW, DNG and CinemaDNG into FCP

Their marketing seems to have backfired on them since it wasn't clear from the first introduction video that it doesn't decode on the fly. People preordered based on that video and they are now very disappointed.

roger.magnusson wrote:Their marketing seems to have backfired on them since it wasn't clear from the first introduction video that it doesn't decode on the fly. People preordered based on that video and they are now very disappointed.

Yeah, bit of an odd product in my opinion. Based on the screenshots, it doesn't even appear to support all the features of the BRAW SDK (custom LUT control is noticeably absent, as are some of the log transfer function options). Given that the free version of Resolve will transcode the files quickly and will provide benefits like embedded reel names for round trip workflows, the only advantage to the extension that I can see is for those who literally just want to open FCPX and not have to think about another app.
I'm curious about what an exported XML will look like from projects made of media created by the extension. Will it include the correct file paths to the original BRAW files or not?

roger.magnusson wrote:Their marketing seems to have backfired on them since it wasn't clear from the first introduction video that it doesn't decode on the fly. People preordered based on that video and they are now very disappointed.

I guess I wasn't surprised at it since it is called Transcoder. I had a feeling it would transcode the footage and I was right. I have the plugin and it is fine for what it is, but nothing world changing for me as I primarily edit in Resolve anyways. Nice to have the option and I find that the transcoding is quite fast on my M1 Macbook.

Travis Hodgkinson wrote:Having worked for Apple for over 5 years. I 100% believe Apple will be brining out their own “prosumer” camera in the future.

It's called the iPhone. That wasn't much of a leak

I was just digging through Final Cut Pro's (10.5.3) new browser column and saw that it offers metadata support for BRAW. Someone is planning something.

Have you got Color Finale Transcoder installed? I'm pretty sure thats what adds the BRAW metadata columns.

It;s in BETA now!

https://brawtoolbox.io/

Isazaly Mohamed Isa wrote:It;s in BETA now!

https://brawtoolbox.io/

And work fine


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk