Blackmagic Forum

Its that wonderful time of the year...

https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/docs/Apple_ProRes_RAW_White_Paper.pdf

Been a while since a RAW intermediate codec was made available..

Great news and bad news.
Compressing RAW makes way more sense than "final" video. You save bandwidth and storage this way for given end quality.
Even if data rate is about the same, you should be getting better quality for ProRes RAW (as final video) compared to the same ProResHQ recording . Not only compression ratio is lower (RAW data is monochrome), but also you are most likely to get better debayering in your app than the one in cameras.

I rather had Cineform RAW used in cameras than this, but I can already see that this is going to be very popular.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Great news and bad news.

Hey Andrew. Wrote this thinking you'll answer

I Agree... about the bad news part. Though in this example, as long as decoding is supported on non Mac systems most users should be happy.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote: I rather had Cineform RAW used in cameras than this, but I can already see that this is going to be very popular.

Indeed. I also had hopes for that codec and regretted its loss...

Looks like compression ratio is between 3-4:1 which means end results should be very good.
I think 3:1 can be treated as "lossless" and in the same time saves 3x storage and bandwidth. It does make a difference in real life and simplifies things for camera manufactures.

FCP X wil most likely get decent and fast debayering (or it may be even implemented on Mac OS level like current ProRes encode/decode), so Mac users should be very happy. On PC side it will be down to each app manufacture to implement it, but maybe Apple will provide some SDK.

For camera manufactures it should be very easy to switch to PropRes RAW as they already have core code for encoding ProRes ( I assume actual algorithm is the same or very similar). They just have to take RAW data instead of debayered. Small adjustments in encoding may be needed, but it will be way less work than in case of Cineform RAW (still no hardware implementation available).

I'm counting on ARRI or BlackMagic to deliver first ProRes RAW camera

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:I'm counting on ARRI or BlackMagic to deliver first ProRes RAW camera

Nope... Apparently it will be Atomos recorders, and I read somewhere DJI drones. Which as a colorist is something I definitely hope for.

Yes, but those are not "cameras"

I prefer software that is not intentionally biased against certain hardware platforms, I also prefer choices. Give Apple's record with ProRes I am not optimistic about ProRes RAW.

I think a situation where content creators and post production firms are forced to buy Apple hardware because content and distribution firms only allow Apple based codecs where alternatives are clearly just as good is a highly undesirable.

Technically the question is how it was designed?

In Apple's whitepaper about it they state:

"Apple ProRes RAW is based on the same principles and underlying technology
as existing ProRes codecs, but is applied to a camera sensor’s pristine raw
image data rather than conventional image pixels. "


So it appears they simply mangled raw data into ProRes Y'CbCr compression and then unmangle it back as raw data.

An effective codec is partly based on compression techniques that are perceptual. Things that humans do not readily notice tend to be compressed more.

The question is how much of that perception based compression in Y'CrCb or RGB could be correctly mapped to raw data without debayering?


The whitepaper: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/doc ... _Paper.pdf

It simply takes RAW pixels and encodes them (like REDCODE or DNG). It doesn't "convert" them to YUV or RGB as this is already debayering.
ProRes is intermediate codec and it doesn't use heavy perceptual engine as at those bitrates it's not needed (this is where h264, h265 VP9 shines). Knowing Apple they most likely done a good job and adjusted algorithm for Bayern pattern data. Remember that this data is monochrome, so at given bitrate you can encode it way more efficient. It's definitely way better approach than debayering in camera and encoding as final ProResHQ video. It will deliver better final quality.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:It won't "convert" them to YUV or RGB as this is already debayering.

Of course, that why I used the term mangle.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:It's definitely way better approach than debayering in camera and encoding as final ProResHQ video. It will deliver better final quality.

Provided they use applicable technology to compress Bayer pattern data and not use mangled ProRes for this.

I would like to wait for actual test results, just because something has the name ProRes or Apple is not a convincing argument to me.

I really, really hate Apple. The only good news coming from them would be a Chapter 11 filing and pink slips for every employee.

Jim Simon wrote:I really, really hate Apple. The only good news coming from them would be a Chapter 11 filing and pink slips for every employee.

It often feels "really, really " hating something is almost as biased as "really, really " loving it...

As someone nearly indifferent to it I'm curious...
Why such a passionate hate statement Jim?

Hector Berrebi wrote:Why such a passionate hate statement Jim?

Macs make up only about 7 or 8 percent of the non-mobile computers in the world. Windows makes up more than 90%. It is the de facto worldwide "standard".

Yet in this industry, Macs make up probably 70 or 80 percent of systems. This makes it nearly impossible to advance in one's career without having to use that non-standard, maddening abortion of an operating system.

Cary Knoop wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:It won't "convert" them to YUV or RGB as this is already debayering.

Of course, that why I used the term mangle.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:It's definitely way better approach than debayering in camera and encoding as final ProResHQ video. It will deliver better final quality.

Provided they use applicable technology to compress Bayer pattern data and not use mangled ProRes for this.

I would like to wait for actual test results, just because something has the name ProRes or Apple is not a convincing argument to me.

Bayer pattern looks the same as video- just bit "pixelated". Maybe you can optimise some codec for it, but in the same time there may not be such a need (no real gain). As far as I know Cineform doesn't use anything special for RAW mode and results are good.

ProRes is not new. DNxHR is newer and still doesn't really outperform it.
Apple simply done a decent job with ProRes architecture and I think PorRes RAW may become very popular (if licensing won't be expensive). ProRes RAW won't have same issue as ProRes as it's not delivery codec. Resolve, Scratch, Premiere etc will have decoder and this is all what you need in this case.
I would still prefer Cineform RAW to become more popular and hardware implemented.

Jim Simon wrote:I really, really hate Apple. The only good news coming from them would be a Chapter 11 filing and pink slips for every employee.

So basically you're totally ok with 47,000 people losing their jobs just because you don't like Apple's operating system.

Boohoo...sounds like baby didn't get his hug today.

It's more like 130K people, not 47K.

Jim Simon wrote:

Hector Berrebi wrote:Why such a passionate hate statement Jim?

Macs make up only about 7 or 8 percent of the non-mobile computers in the world. Windows makes up more than 90%. It is the de facto worldwide "standard".

Yet in this industry, Macs make up probably 70 or 80 percent of systems. This makes it nearly impossible to advance in one's career without having to use that non-standard, maddening abortion of an operating system.

Good stats-now think why it's this way
There is a reason and it's not because Macs are shiny and aluminium made

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Apple simply done a decent job with ProRes architecture and I think PorRes RAW may become very popular (if licensing won't be expensive).

Technology wise yes however there is more to it than only technology.

I prefer codecs that can be applied to multiple platforms with equitable license conditions.

Cary Knoop wrote:I prefer codecs that can be applied to multiple platforms with equitable license conditions.

You mean like .r3d?

Nothing has really changed. It's a new ProRes capture codec. Just like you can now read ProRes files in various Windows apps, you'll be able to read ProRes Raw once the software developers add the capability. ProRes encoding will probably still remain limited to the few apps that can do it in Windows, but you can still export as DNx, Cineform, or whatever other codec you want to on Windows just like you do now. I think a bigger deal about it is being made than is warranted, since nothing has really changed other than a new capture format being introduced like we get every year or two from someone anyway.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
Bayer pattern looks the same as video- just bit "pixelated".

....and black & white

Cary Knoop wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Apple simply done a decent job with ProRes architecture and I think PorRes RAW may become very popular (if licensing won't be expensive).

Technology wise yes however there is more to it than only technology.

I prefer codecs that can be applied to multiple platforms with equitable license conditions.

I would also prefer Cineform RAW, but those codecs don't actually "need" WIN or Mac or Linux. They are hardware implemented and Apple has no problems with this- we have plenty hardware using ProRes.

Frank Glencairn wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
Bayer pattern looks the same as video- just bit "pixelated".

....and black & white

Yes, this is why you can gain a lot of quality for given bitrate (compared to "normal" video encode).
Looks like ProRes RAW is 12bit, which may not be enough for some cameras. Apple's white paper is bit simple and doesn't provide a lot of info.

Based on the ATOMOS page info ProRes RAW will average ratio of 3:1 for HQ mode and about 5:1 for normal mode. Theoretical lowest and highest ratio will be around 2.3:1 and 8.4:1 (overall for both profiles).

If we take lowest ratios (for very difficult frames) for standard and HQ modes as 3.5:1 and 2.3:1 then it means we can record UHD up to 90fps for HQ mode and 140fps for normal using standard SSD (500MB/sec). If recorder/camera uses some RAM caching then this will most likely push those values bit higher.

Average bitrate for 4K 24p HQ mode is around 110MB/sec (+-30MB/sec margin for easy/difficult frames) and roughly 65MB/sec (+-30MB/sec) for normal mode. Range for normal mode is the same (or even bit bigger) than for HQ mode, so it means this mode is more sensitive and will "more likely" adjust bitrate based on scene nature.

DJI is First To Adopt ProRes RAW
https://nofilmschool.com/2018/04/dji-nab-prores-raw

Founder & CEO of Atomos about ProRes RAW - REDSHARK
https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=rx6i0CgEOTB1BYwe&u=/watch%3Fv%3D8DfFaNf796g%26feature%3Dem-uploademail

No offence...
What the heck?

The problem I see (at least for now) is that you don't have raw controls (like ISO/WB etc.) implemented.
So it's pretty much useless, from a coloring standpoint, it will color like normal ProRes on the RGB level with your colorwheels only - no serious raw tab. But the whole point of raw is, that you have access to the raw parameters.

Maybe they change that later in FCPX and hopefully in a SDK for other applications.

For now it's only a niche within a niche anyway. Only one NLE on one OS can use it, and it is implemented in zero cameras - so let's wait and see what happens.

Little more info from here -



Okie, lets see if I got what was being said through there.... Apple, Atomos and DJI will be the only ones with ProRes Raw for at least then next half year or so.

And there seemed to be a bias towards HDR, which IMHO looks a bit **** - crushed shadows and highlights on non-HDR screens,... which is 95 to 98 % of what's out in the real world.

Frankly I'd be happier with more CineDNG support (yeah, Cion Owner, they dropped support for us,..) actually being completed, and more Non-Proprietary CoDec's, like Cineform, being made available.

Our media and files should not be limited to one OS or one NLE, but independent and accessible by all.
Looks like BMD has already learned this with the ExFat support and the SSD recorder for the Ursa Mini range.
Thought Atomos had too, with ExFat and SSD's,... but they seem to be aligning themselves with Apple.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:There is a reason and it's not because Macs are shiny and aluminium made

Yes, and it's all Marketing and Habit Building - provide cheap Macs and FCP to Universities and kick-backs to lecturers, and they will only teach editing on those same Macs and and NLE,.. and then the students are molded in to believing that the gear they learn on is the Only Way.

Then when they get jobs they want to work on those same machines because they become resistant to change once the habit has been built. When they move up to the jobs where they have the corporate buying power, they go to the platform they have habitually used.

The same habits is how religious indoctrination works.

Smart Marketing, sure, but not necessarily a better product.

Canon and Red have done the same.

Reason why many institutions use Macs is because they are easier and cheaper to maintain in long terms (aka IBM story). Same was in my old work place- they have all OSes (they can't escape it), but they definitely prefer to maintain Mac and Linux over Windows.

I don't like exclusive deals and all other bits. It's all business though- no place for sentiments.