iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

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

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • 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: 11649
  • 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 17.4.2 , macOS 12.0.1
MacBook M1 Pro, 32 GB RAM
Speed Editor
Offline

Howard Roll

  • Posts: 1493
  • 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: 1977
  • 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: 7862
  • 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: 1977
  • 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: 7862
  • 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: 1977
  • 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: 7809
  • 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: 1493
  • 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: 1977
  • 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: 7862
  • 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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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: 7862
  • 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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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: 7862
  • 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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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: 1493
  • 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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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 1846 times
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • 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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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: 7862
  • 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: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

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: 1977
  • 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: 7862
  • 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".
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 26, 2021 1:01 pm

An excellent read about ProRes, from its inception to the iPhone 13, by Ben Allan.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/10/26/ ... ll-matter/
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 26, 2021 2:10 pm

While Apple has always been a little tight-lipped about exactly how ProRes is able to outperform so many other codecs, the basics are pretty straightforward.


ProRes doesn't really outperform other intermediate codecs. It's solid, well optimised etc, but there is absolutely nothing novel or unique there. If anything it's time to actually look for possible improvements. I want to see eg. REAL RGB mode, like DNxHR or Cineform do.
So much hated by many fact about Apple controlling ProRes is actually one of its main strengths and this is the key reason why ProRes is used so often. It simply works regardless of application, which is not always the case for DNxHR, Cineform etc.
It's not amazing technically at all. Its implementations are controlled, all are decent and this is main beauty.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 26, 2021 4:21 pm

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:
While Apple has always been a little tight-lipped about exactly how ProRes is able to outperform so many other codecs, the basics are pretty straightforward.


ProRes doesn't really outperform other intermediate codecs. It's solid, well optimised etc, but there is absolutely nothing novel or unique there. If anything it's time to actually look for possible improvements. I want to see eg. REAL RGB mode, like DNxHR or Cineform do.
So much hated by many fact about Apple controlling ProRes is actually one of its main strengths and this is the key reason why ProRes is used so often. It simply works regardless of application, which is not always the case for DNxHR, Cineform etc.
It's not amazing technically at all. Its implementations are controlled, all are decent and this is main beauty.
Apple is absolutely not hated by professionals in the industry for anything to do with ProRes at all. Let me be perfectly clear: never in my life have I heard any professional in the industry say anything negative about Apple in relationship to ProRes. Not once. Not by Deakins, not by anyone. On the contrary, the professionals I'm familiar with embrace ProRes. The best cameras in the world have ProRes, from ARRI to RED to Panavision to the Sony Venice to Blackmagic to the 4D. Apple products and Apple customers are very important to the success of Blackmagic. As recently as last month, Grant Petty felt compelled to take a stand against some of the malicious falsehoods being spread online about Apple and Apple's products. Most professionals I'm familiar with have nothing but positive things to say about Apple and Apple products. And that includes Ben Allan:

"After years of pleading with Apple to put ProRes into an iPhone, there was a niggling bit of doubt when I heard the news that they had actually done it. What if the theory didn’t hold up? What if it actually didn’t look much better than 10-bit HEVC? Luckily ProRes has yet again, not let me down.

As the test footage that has been doing the rounds has already shown, there is a visible difference straight out of the camera with the more gentle compression. But when the iPhone ProRes images come into post and start getting manipulated in FCP or Resolve, the difference is mind-blowing. In fine details, there is a visible lack of “shimmering” as the temporal inter-frame compression of h.264 or HEVC tries to hang onto details between compression key frames. Even more noticeable is how smooth gradations like skies and walls can be controlled using power windows with silky smooth results showing no banding or blocking. Another issue with highly compressed formats is that they behave less predictably with specialized LUTs such as film emulations which distort the dynamic range in a non-linear way and differently across the color channels. Finally, a highly compressed original will almost always suffer more from high levels of compression for delivery such as required for streaming and almost all content created now will be streamed at some point to a variety of devices in a variety of data rates and codecs.

Of course when all of these factors are combined the results multiply the effects, so footage with a film LUT applied, fine detail, high dynamic range, and gradients applied to skies or walls is one of the most difficult things for a compressed image to survive, especially when rendered back to a format like h.264. So of course that’s one of the first things I wanted to test. In these test shots which were captured with the standard camera app in UHD 4K, ProRes HQ you can see how easily it handles all of these potential downfalls. The fine details are preserved consistently over time, even in dark shadows, the sky is smooth and natural and the film emulations behave exactly as I would expect from a professional camera".
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostTue Oct 26, 2021 6:04 pm

Well you have not spoken with developers years ago.
Most of the were furious as the could not get ProRes license from Apple (regardless if you were well established and recognised company). Those who were lucky had to deal with restrictions, like eg. only Windows Servers OS were allowed to run encoding. It was long and in the same time not that long time ago.
Now it's all past and settled, but use to be very different :)
Myths are still live though and you hear everyday that you need to pay millions for ProRes encoding license :D

Of course ProRes looks better, but still iPhone image is what it's (over-processed etc.).
Apple could simply raise bitrate for h264/5 or introduce I only mode and have basically same end effect. Of course Apple wants to promote their tech + they already had ProRes implemented on the chip.

ProRes RAW would be way more interesting, just purely due fact it could save space, but for those who want to shoot movies on iPhone ProRes is good.

If David had such a $ and corpo behind Cineform there would be probably no ProrRes today as from technical point it represent nothing special at all. Cineform still represent most advanced tech (with dynamic metadata, RAW mode with debayering 'in codec' etc) even if it's such an old technology.
As I said- ProRes is liked for other than tech part reasons. It's good, but don't see any reason to praise it so badly. In last 15 years there has been nothing done in terms of intermediate codecs and there is a LOT what could be.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 12:38 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Well you have not spoken with developers years ago.
Most of the were furious as the could not get ProRes license from Apple (regardless if you were well established and recognised company). Those who were lucky had to deal with restrictions, like eg. only Windows Servers OS were allowed to run encoding. It was long and in the same time not that long time ago.
Now it's all past and settled, but use to be very different :)
Myths are still live though and you hear everyday that you need to pay millions for ProRes encoding license :D

Of course ProRes looks better, but still iPhone image is what it's (over-processed etc.).
Apple could simply raise bitrate for h264/5 or introduce I only mode and have basically same end effect. Of course Apple wants to promote their tech + they already had ProRes implemented on the chip.

ProRes RAW would be way more interesting, just purely due fact it could save space, but for those who want to shoot movies on iPhone ProRes is good.

If David had such a $ and corpo behind Cineform there would be probably no ProrRes today as from technical point it represent nothing special at all. Cineform still represent most advanced tech (with dynamic metadata, RAW mode with debayering 'in codec' etc) even if it's such an old technology.
As I said- ProRes is liked for other than tech part reasons. It's good, but don't see any reason to praise it so badly. In last 15 years there has been nothing done in terms of intermediate codecs and there is a LOT what could be.
Never have I heard anything about anyone having to pay millions to anybody and it is simply not so that professionals in the film industry harbor ill will toward Apple or ProRes; and we really need more Grant Pettys in the world to step up and quell this sort of misinformation on the internet - which can do real harm - as he did in no uncertain terms last month. If someone were to utter these half truths at a SMPTE conference they would be roundly ridiculed by the entire industry.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Frank Engel

  • Posts: 728
  • Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 11:09 pm
  • Real Name: Frank Engel

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 1:19 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Apple could simply raise bitrate for h264/5 or introduce I only mode and have basically same end effect.


Going "I only" with h.264 would make the footage worse unless it is accompanied by a much later increase in bitrate. This is because the individual I-frames would take more bandwidth and if the bit rate is still limited they would need to be compressed much more heavily, throwing away a lot more data that could have otherwise been retained.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 2:30 am

Nothing could be further from the truth than to argue that Apple has been complacent with regard to ProRes, as the new MacBook Pros with M1 Pro and M1 Max chips and their ProRes encoders and decoders strikingly illustrate.

Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve has added support for Apple's new M1 Pro and M1 Max chips, which developers claim runs 5X faster on the new MacBook Pros. Developers can make their apps take full advantage of the more powerful CPUs and GPUs of the chips. Resolve now supports hardware acceleration for the Apple ProRes codec.

And to imply that Apple is standing still when it comes to video codecs would be an outright fabrication. Apple and Atomos announced ProRes RAW just three years ago and by the end of 2023, it will have been implemented on nearly 50 cameras, supported by a half dozen NLEs and monthly activations will exceed 2,600/month.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 9:10 am

Frank Engel wrote:
Andrew Kolakowski wrote:Apple could simply raise bitrate for h264/5 or introduce I only mode and have basically same end effect.


Going "I only" with h.264 would make the footage worse unless it is accompanied by a much later increase in bitrate. This is because the individual I-frames would take more bandwidth and if the bit rate is still limited they would need to be compressed much more heavily, throwing away a lot more data that could have otherwise been retained.


This is exactly what I’m saying :D
Increase bitrate, so quality is improved. Also add I frame only mode to have easier editing.
Apple went ProRes way which is understandable.
Last edited by Andrew Kolakowski on Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 9:16 am

JonPais wrote:Nothing could be further from the truth than to argue that Apple has been complacent with regard to ProRes, as the new MacBook Pros with M1 Pro and M1 Max chips and their ProRes encoders and decoders strikingly illustrate.

Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve has added support for Apple's new M1 Pro and M1 Max chips, which developers claim runs 5X faster on the new MacBook Pros. Developers can make their apps take full advantage of the more powerful CPUs and GPUs of the chips. Resolve now supports hardware acceleration for the Apple ProRes codec.

And to imply that Apple is standing still when it comes to video codecs would be an outright fabrication. Apple and Atomos announced ProRes RAW just three years ago and by the end of 2023, it will have been implemented on nearly 50 cameras, supported by a half dozen NLEs and monthly activations will exceed 2,600/month.


Shame that Resolve is the last NLE not to have ProRes encoder on Windows. Do you know how much headache it’s for so many? Greatest codec, not present in greatest grading tool…
It also looks like Apple will never license a transcoding plugin which sole purpose is encoding ProRes. I thought about it, but others also already had such an idea. Unfortunately Apple won’t allow for Resolve ProRes encoding plugin. Fact that Resolve now allows for export plugins helps not much here. People on Windows are still facing extra step when clients ask for ProRes masters ( which is very often).

ProRes RAW is not implemented in a single camera itself.
It’s implemented in Atomos recorders exclusively and also in DJI recording module ( not camera itself). Not aware of anything else.
As far as I know ProResRAW was Atomos idea not Apple’s. Apple helped them, as the see more $ in it.
Every support for new camera is Atomos + camera manufacturer work, not Apple’s. Apple’s work is ProRes on chip, but with their resources it’s fairly easy task.
Offline

JonPais

  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:17 am
  • Warnings: 2

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 9:50 am

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:As far as I know ProResRAW was Atomos idea not Apple’s. Apple helped them, as the see more $ in it.
Every support for new camera is Atomos + camera manufacturer work, not Apple’s. Apple’s work is ProRes on chip, but with their resources it’s fairly easy task.
I’m not in the mood for playing whack-a-mole any longer, I’m out.
https://daejeonchronicles.com
Offline

Andrew Kolakowski

  • Posts: 7862
  • Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:20 am
  • Location: Poland

Re: iPhone 13 Pro and ProRes

PostWed Oct 27, 2021 9:58 am

It's hard to fight facts.

Return to Post Production

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ellory Yu, Google Feedfetcher and 18 guests