iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

Do you have questions about Desktop Video, Converters, Routers and Monitoring?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Sep 14, 2021 8:03 pm

iPhone 13 Pro will record ProRes up to 4K 30p (ProResRAW would be actually more fun).
Offline

Uli Plank

  • Posts: 11265
  • Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:48 am
  • Location: Germany and Indonesia

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Sep 15, 2021 7:00 am

But not with Resolve ;-)
Don't approach Resolve with your expectations from other NLEs! They are all different.
Resolve Studio 17.4 and Fusion Studio 17.2.1, macOS 11.6
Mac mini M1, 16 GB RAM
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 1465
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Sep 22, 2021 10:35 am

Wouldn’t Prores Raw require a Ninja? Last time I checked, Apple fought the law and the law won. They’d need to cook up something raw-like similar to Braw or Canon Raw Light.

Good Luck
Offline

Hendrik Proosa

  • Posts: 1939
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Estonia

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 23, 2021 3:16 pm

Howard Roll wrote:Wouldn’t Prores Raw require a Ninja? Last time I checked, Apple fought the law and the law won. They’d need to cook up something raw-like similar to Braw or Canon Raw Light.

Good Luck

They could just dump the raw image planes to prores422 and call it developed raw. One can then ”undevelop” it 8-)
I do stuff.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 23, 2021 3:49 pm

That would break RED patent- still storing pure RAW pixels.
You would have to mess with RAW data a bit, so it's not pure RAW anymore (then compress). Do it the way so it's reversible and at the end you can still have real RAW pixels if needed.
Offline

Hendrik Proosa

  • Posts: 1939
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Estonia

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Sep 29, 2021 9:14 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:That would break RED patent- still storing pure RAW pixels.
You would have to mess with RAW data a bit, so it's not pure RAW anymore (then compress). Do it the way so it's reversible and at the end you can still have real RAW pixels if needed.

Flip the last bit, call it YUV data, done.
I do stuff.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Sep 29, 2021 9:58 pm

Not sure if you are aware but RED in reality is bunch of lawyers and they will never go with such a primitive trick :) They go crazy when it comes to their patent as it's protecting their business (which is not doing that great these days).
Offline

Hendrik Proosa

  • Posts: 1939
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Estonia

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 30, 2021 6:48 am

This is the problem of RED patent, it is pile of garbage. One can devise gazillion ways to do developed raw though, for example: do bilinear interpolation of photosite values per color, which is a simple method of debayering. Then downscale the result of red and blue by factor of 2 by bilinear filter. Store with pseudo-log curve encoding and compression of choice. I’m not a mathematician and can’t tell but I have a hunch that doing bilinear for interpolation and downscale could make original values recoverable pretty well. Even better would be nearest neighbor downscale but this is too… primitive
I do stuff.
Offline
User avatar

Marc Wielage

  • Posts: 7713
  • Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:46 am
  • Location: Hollywood, USA

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 30, 2021 8:22 am

Hendrik Proosa wrote:This is the problem of RED patent, it is pile of garbage. One can devise gazillion ways to do developed raw though, for example: do bilinear interpolation of photosite values per color, which is a simple method of debayering.

Sony's X-OCN recording on their Venice camera has not been sued by Red, as far as I know. That should mean there are ways to work around the Red patents.
marc wielage, csi • VP/color & workflow • chroma | hollywood
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 1465
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 30, 2021 9:15 am

Part of the language of the patent is that the chroma information must necessarily be less than the luma component. It wouldn’t matter what container one used if the raw data were still accessible pixel for pixel it would be a bust.

Sony’s raw and x-ocn are both via external recorder so I don’t think the patent applies the same way.

Kinefinity has Kineraw in-camera which is Cineform based. I think they get around the patent by being a Chinese company with no US distribution, and by not giving 2 squirts about the nuance of American patent BS.

Good Luck
Offline

Hendrik Proosa

  • Posts: 1939
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Estonia

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 30, 2021 10:04 am

External recorders don’t apply, as I understand it too. Patent covers in-camera compressed raw.

If you take R and B channels as pseudo-chrominance components, they already have less resolution than green component (pseudo-luminance). I doubt even RED lawyers can argue that interpolation of values is not a form of debayering.
I do stuff.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostThu Sep 30, 2021 10:36 am

If I remember well it's not only in-camera although they keep using word "camera".
If it would apply only to camera then ATOMS would be laughing and not paying RED a penny.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8872933B2/en


Also- as far as I understand this is just US patent, so doesn't apply to eg. Europe. Probably it would be enough to do actual sell of the camera/recorder in Europe and still avoid this patent.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 4:37 am

Hendrik Proosa wrote:This is the problem of RED patent, it is pile of garbage. One can devise gazillion ways to do developed raw though, for example: do bilinear interpolation of photosite values per color, which is a simple method of debayering. Then downscale the result of red and blue by factor of 2 by bilinear filter. Store with pseudo-log curve encoding and compression of choice. I’m not a mathematician and can’t tell but I have a hunch that doing bilinear for interpolation and downscale could make original values recoverable pretty well. Even better would be nearest neighbor downscale but this is too… primitive
I know, right? Imagine a company thinking they could patent a Raw imaging system, let alone a heat management system!
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 8:35 am

Another way is splitting frame into chunks as their patent specifically mentions above HD (or 2K) resolution.
I think Sony was at war with RED but Sony holds a lot of patents around compression and RED had to give up.
RED patent as it stands ( way not specific enough) should be never granted, but now no one wants to admit it.
RED goes also after recorders otherwise ATOMOS would never pay a penny them. Atomos doesn’t touch camera in any way- those are strictly external recorders.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 9:26 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Another way is splitting frame into chunks as their patent specifically mentions above HD (or 2K) resolution.
I think Sony was at war with RED but Sony holds a lot of patents around compression and RED had to give up.
RED patent as it stands ( way not specific enough) should be never granted, but now no one wants to admit it.
RED goes also after recorders otherwise ATOMOS would never pay a penny them. Atomos doesn’t touch camera in any way- those are strictly external recorders.
It's so unjust that a two trillion dollar mega-corporation ($700,000/min.) lost to a tiny upstart!
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 11:10 am

No- it lost against government which won't accept fact that they made mistake in the past.
Fact that RED is "made" of lawyers is also important here.

Not sure what exactly it means but:
2028-04-11 Anticipated expiration

so not that long left.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 11:23 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:No- it lost against government which won't accept fact that they made mistake in the past.
Fact that RED is "made" of lawyers is also important here.

Not sure what exactly it means but:
2028-04-11 Anticipated expiration

so not that long left.
Right - Apple can’t afford good lawyers.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 1465
  • Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:50 am

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 11:29 am

Red was sitting on the Patent for about 7 years before anybody started making any fuss over it. I think that played a major part in their legal success. Blackmagic came to the party almost a decade later and wanted to challenge Red’s IP? I can see how the judgment went in Red’s favor. If the patent had been challenged by Silicon Imaging/Cineform I think we’d have seen a different outcome.

At this point it’s a win for mfr’s because they can iterate their product lines with compressed raw in 2026. The downside is that they’ll be free of the Red yoke only to don the Apple version as Prores Raw slowly becomes the defacto standard over the next 5 years. Apple is happy to share their IP as long as they can harvest the associated data.

Good Luck
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 11:45 am

Howard Roll wrote:Red was sitting on the Patent for about 7 years before anybody started making any fuss over it. I think that played a major part in their legal success. Blackmagic came to the party almost a decade later and wanted to challenge Red’s IP? I can see how the judgment went in Red’s favor. If the patent had been challenged by Silicon Imaging/Cineform I think we’d have seen a different outcome.

At this point it’s a win for mfr’s because they can iterate their product lines with compressed raw in 2026. The downside is that they’ll be free of the Red yoke only to don the Apple version as Prores Raw slowly becomes the defacto standard over the next 5 years. Apple is happy to share their IP as long as they can harvest the associated data.

Good Luck
You’d think Apple could already collect all the data they like seeing as there are billions of iPhones worldwide. Your argument has zero merit.
Last edited by JonPais on Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 1:48 pm

FilmicPro ProRes recording bit rates.

ProRes Proxy will deliver a max bitrate of ~170Mbps at 4K
ProRes LT delivers a bitrate of ~360Mbps at 4K
ProRes 422 delivers a bitrate of ~540Mbps at 4K
ProRes 422 HQ delivers a maximum bitrate of ~735Mbps at 4K

ProRes picture quality is much cleaner, more detailed than with HEVC.

Screen Shot 2021-10-05 at 8.34.49 PM.jpg
Screen Shot 2021-10-05 at 8.34.49 PM.jpg (921.47 KiB) Viewed 790 times
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 2:26 pm

JonPais wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:No- it lost against government which won't accept fact that they made mistake in the past.
Fact that RED is "made" of lawyers is also important here.

Not sure what exactly it means but:
2028-04-11 Anticipated expiration

so not that long left.
Right - Apple can’t afford good lawyers.


If you fight against government then lawyers quality means not much :D
They can easily rule against you, specially when it comes to things like patents (not some murder case etc. which can make angry general public).
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 2:31 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
JonPais wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:No- it lost against government which won't accept fact that they made mistake in the past.
Fact that RED is "made" of lawyers is also important here.

If you fight against government then lawyers quality means not much :D
They can easily rule against you, specially when it comes to things like patents (not some murder case etc. which can make angry general public).
Apple has successfully overturned over 200 patents, but for some reason, the government won't cooperate when it comes to RED? Whatever you say, Andrew! As a matter of fact, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has been dubbed the death squad because it has invalidated more than 2,000 patents since it began work in 2012. Your argument has no merit whatsoever.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 3:44 pm

If you read a bit of RED patent you can see it's a very broad patent. Those don't get easily granted. Most patents are related to very specific subject/novel way of doing things. RED patent is far from it, so fact that they ever been granted it for me stinks. But at the end I don't care much about it :D
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 361
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 1

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 05, 2021 10:53 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:If you read a bit of RED patent you can see it's a very broad patent. Those don't get easily granted. Most patents are related to very specific subject/novel way of doing things. RED patent is far from it, so fact that they ever been granted it for me stinks. But at the end I don't care much about it :D
Apple argued that RED’s patent was not patentable because it was an obvious invention and their case was thrown out. End of story. Your contention that RED has been able to prevail because they are ‘all lawyers’ is preposterous, as Apple has an army of upwards of 500 lawyers - greater than the entire workforce of RED combined - with an astronomical budget of one billion dollars. Apple has sparred with tech giants like Samsung thousands of times larger than RED; if their case had any merit at all, they could squash RED like a little bug on a windshield. Yet even with all that ammunition, Apple was unable to show that RED’s patent should be overturned. We established beyond any reasonable doubt that the statement "...it lost against government which won't accept fact that they made mistake in the past." was patently false, as the courts have overturned thousands of patents. We also discredited the ludicrous theory that Apple uses ProRes RAW to harvest data. LOL What Graeme Nattress did when the other major players were dozing off was nothing short of revolutionary. As a matter of fact, what is indefensible are the pathetically weak attempts seen online to belittle RED’s achievement; efforts that, one by one, have all been proven to have no basis in fact.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Hendrik Proosa

  • Posts: 1939
  • Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:53 am
  • Location: Estonia

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 06, 2021 5:05 am

JonPais wrote:What Graeme Nattress did when the other major players were dozing off was nothing short of revolutionary.

Which part of their compressed raw was revolutionary from technical view? Raw sensor data? Jpeg2000 based wavelet compression? Saving files on solid state storage? Color processing of raw data? Uber is also revolutionary but patenting ”driving taxi” would be interesting…
I do stuff.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7702
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 06, 2021 11:07 am

JonPais wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:If you read a bit of RED patent you can see it's a very broad patent. Those don't get easily granted. Most patents are related to very specific subject/novel way of doing things. RED patent is far from it, so fact that they ever been granted it for me stinks. But at the end I don't care much about it :D
Apple argued that RED’s patent was not patentable because it was an obvious invention and their case was thrown out.


I'm saying it helped them to get patent (and helping then now as well because they have knowledge without going to 3rd party). If they were bunch of engineers then maybe they would never even apply for a patent in first place.

What you are saying suggests RED patent is well deserved (as no one can invalidate it) and they done something very innovative which deserved it. Somehow I have feeling that most of the industry is not agreeing with it (regardless if they have any interest in it or not) and this is they whole point of RED patent "story".

Return to Post Production

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests