Support for ProRes Raw

There is 50% off till end of the year for Scratch and other products.
BM can afford Resolve pricing due to hardware sells (otherwise it would be simply impossible).

BM can afford Resolve pricing due to hardware sells (otherwise it would be simply impossible).

And that is why I don't see them supporting PRR. (though I hope I am wrong).

It seems that BM is a hardware company that developes and sells Resolve as an extra product.

They seem not to be interestsed in making a huge profit with Resolve, shown by the fact they actually give it for free, or for an impossibly low sum of money (basically 300 euro/dollar for a lifetime of updates, up till now).

So, of BM is intereste in selling Hardware, like their monitors/recorders, why would they ever add PRR, when they have their own competing Raw format, tied to their hardware, the main business.

BM can afford Resolve pricing due to hardware sells (otherwise it would be simply impossible).

And that is why I don't see them supporting PRR. (though I hope I am wrong).

It seems that BM is a hardware company that developes and sells Resolve as an extra product.

They seem not to be interestsed in making a huge profit with Resolve, shown by the fact they actually give it for free, or for an impossibly low sum of money (basically 300 euro/dollar for a lifetime of updates, up till now).

So, of BM is intereste in selling Hardware, like their monitors/recorders, why would they ever add PRR, when they have their own competing Raw format, tied to their hardware, the main business.

Imop the issue is that atmos have an exclusive deal with Apple so if bmd included prr it would be opening up a big market for its archrival and potentially big losses in hardware and software sales. BMD accused an ex-employee who help found atomos in court, accusing them of stealing bmd intellectual property though bmd lost in court it hasn't in grievance.

I'm sure that once the agreement with apple and atomos ends BMD will include prr. Both codecs can survive simultaneously because they serve different markets though sometimes they can overla.

Ricardo Marty

BM can afford Resolve pricing due to hardware sells (otherwise it would be simply impossible).

And that is why I don't see them supporting PRR. (though I hope I am wrong).

It seems that BM is a hardware company that developes and sells Resolve as an extra product.

They seem not to be interestsed in making a huge profit with Resolve, shown by the fact they actually give it for free, or for an impossibly low sum of money (basically 300 euro/dollar for a lifetime of updates, up till now).

So, of BM is intereste in selling Hardware, like their monitors/recorders, why would they ever add PRR, when they have their own competing Raw format, tied to their hardware, the main business.

Imop the issue is that atmos have an exclusive deal with Apple so if bmd included prr it would be opening up a big market for its archrival and potentially big losses in hardware and software sales. BMD accused an ex-employee who help found atomos in court, accusing them of stealing bmd intellectual property though bmd lost in court it hasn't in grievance.

I'm sure that once the agreement with apple and atomos ends BMD will include prr. Both codecs can survive simultaneously because they serve different markets though sometimes they can overla.

Ricardo Marty

ProRes RAW whitepaper has pretty much no details in it. One can understand from data rates that there's a compression going, but is the compression lossy or lossless? no word. External sources say it's lossy, if so, how lossy? we don't know. SDK also isn't available for public (or I wasn't able to find it). I don't understand why people are swetting over this closed as sh*t format. Industry needs more open standards and more open formats, not this.

P.S. Without any of that, ProRes RAW seems to be a "collaboration" between Atomos and Apple; everyone here can forget anything from Atomos coming to Blackmagic Design products, Grant hates Atomos, and rightfully so, as the company was founded by two BMD employees who allegedly used information/knowledge from BMD to start that company.

Compression is lossy. There is no lossless mode. HQ is about 3:1 and standard is 5:1. Codec is VBR so it gives more bits to difficult scenes keeping better relative (over file) quality compared to strict CBR based codecs.
3:1 compression (without any extra pre-processing like BRAW does) in real world is about all you need. Uncompressed can be reserved for special cases.
There is no open source/universal RAW format atm. and probably there never will be one. Do you really don't know why? Decoding for about all RAW formats is free (ProResRAW decoding SDK is free, just not publicly available), but encoding is not and this is understandable.

There is no open source/universal RAW format atm. and probably there never will be one.

Since Cineform is fully open-sourced I'd argue that there is, because it includes bayer pattern CFA encoding format.

3:1 compression

Source of this info?

There is no open source/universal RAW format atm. and probably there never will be one.

That's a pretty pessimistic view of the future and the present as well. Also a format might not be "open source", but be more open about its internals, ARRIRAW for example.

There is no open source/universal RAW format atm. and probably there never will be one.

Since Cineform is fully open-sourced I'd argue that there is, because it includes bayer pattern CFA encoding format.

Yes, but this is more a theoretical codec atm. as you need hardware implementation on chip. Then you need to convince many camera manufacture to use it. You will also need to deal with RED patent when you do implement it in camera. There are also bits which would have to be changed for camera implementations. Codec is is "very VBR" and it can peak very high- this is not good for use in camera. David tried to push into to real implementations but failed. I'm also not sure if RAW mode is free. You may need to pay some fee for it when trying to implement in commercial product.

3:1 compression

Source of this info?

There is no open source/universal RAW format atm. and probably there never will be one.

That's a pretty pessimistic view of the future and the present as well. Also a format might not be "open source", but be more open about its internals, ARRIRAW for example.

Official papers. Look at graphs like this:


You have uncompressed rate and ProResRAW- simple math and you have compression ratio.

Arri RAW is plain uncompressed RAW+ very rich metadata around it. Everyone can use uncompressed RAW but then you have to deal with huge data rate and things gets complicated when it comes to storing it. Uncompressed RAW is easy, but hits you in storage needs and this is why you have BRAW, ProResRAW etc.

3:1 is sweet spot for high-end and anything like 5:1 or even 8:1 is good for less demanding shooting.
There is nothing complex in BRAW or ProResRAW ( same as with ProRes/DNxHR etc.) Those are quite simple codecs at the end.
Key difference is that ProResRAW allows you to access RAW pixels over SDK (there is already ProResRAW to CDNG RAW converter) and BRAW doesn't (as it pre-processes them which allows to avoid RED patent). RAW recording can use about any current codec if you really want eg. h264. It's just simple B&W data. No one went step ahead though and tried to write properly optimised codec for RAW. I think it's possible as Bayer pattern has known structure and you could use this in order to make codec which is specifically targeted for RAW. It may also end up you can gain eg. 5-10% data rate which may not be worth whole hassle.

BM atm. shows no interest in sharing BRAW encoding, so they have no reason to describe its internals.
ProResRAW is also not so "open" (ATOMOS pays special role here) so no extra details about it either. Everyone tries to make a $, so don't expect much to be changed any time soon.

Open source is not necessarily an answer to every problem in post. Open source also needs to be looked after and quite often after few years there is no one interested anymore (as it's all driven by passion mainly) and it simply dies.

Codec is is "very VBR" and it can peak very high- this is not good for use in camera. David tried to push into to real implementations but failed. I'm also not sure if RAW mode is free. You may need to pay some fee for it when trying to implement in commercial product.

Since it is based on storing coefficients it can be turned into CBR mode easily: simply store the same amount of coefficients, not discard them by some threshold.

SI-2K camera system was the only one that used it I think, not sure if it died due to red patent clash or some other reason. Problem wasn’t cineform as a codec though. As far as I remember they even had an external recorder, but it didn’t save them from red.

Cineform SDK is fully licensed under apache or mit license, so there shouldn’t be any fees applicable anywhere.

Implementation wise encoder can be run purely on software too, even the si-2k had software based recorder and that was more then 10 years ago.

SI-2K camera had software encoder.
Not sure if any manufacture today would be really interested in such a solutions.
It's all theory atm. 99% sure it will never happen as if it meant to it would bye already there. Other than this- CF RAW implementation in apps is not very good either, so this is another problem.
You need something very well designed and polished. Maybe then you could create an interest.
Users would love to have 1 RAW format, but this doesn't necessarily align with manufactures' ideas.

Adding my voice to the request for ProRes RAW. Might have to investigate FCPX now that I'm primarily working with 5.9K ProRes RAW from Atomos Ninja V and Panasonic S5's.

Like Apple CarPlay won't happen in Tesla cars any time soon, if at all, ProRes RAW won't happen in Blackmagic products any time soon, if at all. End of the story. Get over it.

Tesla autopilot is useless same as any other current autopilot. They are miles away from real world usage.
When human drives and tech just helps (may help) in critical situations then this is fine. May work and save life, may not, but it's always driver decision in first palce. In case of Tesla, car drives itself (but no near autonomously) and driver has to look after it. This is crazy dangerous as driver will always react with a delay (compared to direct driving). In critical situation a second (even less) is enough to separate life and death. Such a thing should never be allowed on public roads. It either really drive itself or should be banned and changed to assist system, not a driving system.
There was a good question by Comma CEO in one of his "strange stand-ups". Why people can drive a car even if they learn just very limited range of driving rules and AI can't? Answer is simple- people don't learn just driving rules. They learn tons more from the day they are born. People learn to understand surrounding environment and this is the key data to be able to drive a car, not a set of limited rules. AI has no such a data, it doesn't "get" environment which it's surrounded by (it also has very limited "sensing" tech compared to human eyes, ears etc.). His idea of making self driving system by feeding it with tons of example of real drivers behaviour is prone to the same failure as Teslas' system. It never will be enough. As long as AI won't understand surroundings it will never drive as human. And for AI to do so, it must learn a lot (like human does). Atm. with current processing, data storage etc. possibilities it's not even any close of it. Driving is not just about following car ahead and keeping center of the road

Sorry, really off topic

Like Apple CarPlay won't happen in Tesla cars any time soon, if at all, ProRes RAW won't happen in Blackmagic products any time soon, if at all. End of the story. Get over it.

I'm over it. My DaVinci Resolve Studio license won't expire, but I'm learning the competing product now to address the RAW issue. If/when this changes, I can easily dust off my activation card and return to the fold.

No hard feelings, and the color grading is certainly hands down tops in DR, but I don't want to jump through extra hoops to support the format I'll be working in. If anyone asks me, I'll continue to give the recommendation to DR and DR Studio, but I'll point out the RAW issue if it's a factor for those asking. Those early enough in the decision process can then choose the gear that gives them BRAW instead.

Like Apple CarPlay won't happen in Tesla cars any time soon, if at all, ProRes RAW won't happen in Blackmagic products any time soon, if at all. End of the story. Get over it.

I'm over it. My DaVinci Resolve Studio license won't expire, but I'm learning the competing product now to address the RAW issue. If/when this changes, I can easily dust off my activation card and return to the fold.

No hard feelings, and the color grading is certainly hands down tops in DR, but I don't want to jump through extra hoops to support the format I'll be working in. If anyone asks me, I'll continue to give the recommendation to DR and DR Studio, but I'll point out the RAW issue if it's a factor for those asking. Those early enough in the decision process can then choose the gear that gives them BRAW instead.

Also thinking of trying FCP and figuring out some kind of XML workaround with ProRes 444 renders in-between.

Some people use this:
https://www.cined.com/raw-convertor-new ... cinemadng/

if your camera is supported and you happy to work with rather slow CDNG.
It's Mac only though, so if I'm already on Mac I would probably rather convert ProResRAW to ProRes444 XQ with main color touch done in FCPX.

Also thinking of trying FCP and figuring out some kind of XML workaround with ProRes 444 renders in-between.

To make things worse, DaVinci Resolve supports up to FCPXML 1.8, but the current version of FCP can only export FCPXML 1.9 and 1.10.

Edit: Maybe the error message when importing FCPXML 1.10 is incorrect when it says it only supports 1.8, because importing an FCPXML 1.9 file works.

Edit2: Confirmed, the error message is incorrect.

Some people use this:
https://www.cined.com/raw-convertor-new ... cinemadng/

if your camera is supported and you happy to work with rather slow CDNG.
It's Mac only though, so if I'm already on Mac I would probably rather convert ProResRAW to ProRes444 XQ with main color touch done in FCPX.

If either ProRes Raw support comes to Resolve, or this tool adds support for my S1H, I can finally say B"RAW" goodbye. Tired of dealing with its sharpening and nr nonsense.

I again want to ask Blackmagick Design, please make Resolve accept Prores Raw.

But, for windows users, it seems Atomos has made things a little bit easier, and a little bit more pricey...

Edit: it seems this program has existed for quite a while already. Today I got a mail from Atomos which offered a discount as a ninja v user, that is why I assumed it was new...

Edit: it seems this program has existed for quite a while already. Today I got a mail from Atomos which offered a discount as a ninja v user, that is why I assumed it was new...

This player is a simplified version of Scratch, which has been around for decades. Scratch itself is pretty neat and is one of the best in formats and metadata support.

Edit: it seems this program has existed for quite a while already. Today I got a mail from Atomos which offered a discount as a ninja v user, that is why I assumed it was new...

This player is a simplified version of Scratch, which has been around for decades. Scratch itself is pretty neat and is one of the best in formats and metadata support.

Thanks for the clarification.

For me as a ninja v owner it is 99 usd. I will buy it, to convert prores raw to prores 444.

But I must admit I'd rather pay blackmagic 99 usd for a prores raw activation

Edit: it seems this program has existed for quite a while already. Today I got a mail from Atomos which offered a discount as a ninja v user, that is why I assumed it was new...

This player is a simplified version of Scratch, which has been around for decades. Scratch itself is pretty neat and is one of the best in formats and metadata support.

Thanks for the clarification.

For me as a ninja v owner it is 99 usd. I will buy it, to convert prores raw to prores 444.

But I must admit I'd rather pay blackmagic 99 usd for a prores raw activation

Would also like to do that.

At least there are some options (also for PC users) now.
Downside is that you have to jump in between programs and that you have to create extra (big sized) files.
So …. +1 for paying BM for an activation instead of buying scratch player pro….


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

Since Apple doesn't charge companies for implementing ProRes Raw decoding it would be very strange if Resolve added it as a separate paid feature when other feature updates are free.

...that said, I would pay for a proper ProRes encoder in Resolve on Windows. This has been going on way too long.

Since Apple doesn't charge companies for implementing ProRes Raw decoding it would be very strange if Resolve added it as a separate paid feature when other feature updates are free.

...that said, I would pay for a proper ProRes encoder in Resolve on Windows. This has been going on way too long.

INMOP the issue is not about cost. Apple has a closed and exclusive deal with atomos. If BMD opened up to PRR it would be giving its competitor basically a free reign in the market that could gravely affect BMD's products. It looks like both atomos and Apple are out to get bmd or Braw. And Grant is not falling for it. Why is neither apple nor atomos offering Braw?

Ricardo Marty

You could say the same thing about Canon. Several of the C series of cameras record internal raw. Resolve supports it just fine.

The point is in the end it’s only hurting customers.

It's not the same thing, Canon is not out to control the codec market. This does not affect BMD in the same way. Again Why is neither Apple nor Atomos offering Braw? Its free

Ricardo Marty

Since Apple doesn't charge companies for implementing ProRes Raw decoding it would be very strange if Resolve added it as a separate paid feature when other feature updates are free.

...that said, I would pay for a proper ProRes encoder in Resolve on Windows. This has been going on way too long.

INMOP the issue is not about cost. Apple has a closed and exclusive deal with atomos. If BMD opened up to PRR it would be giving its competitor basically a free reign in the market that could gravely affect BMD's products. It looks like both atomos and Apple are out to get bmd or Braw. And Grant is not falling for it. Why is neither apple nor atomos offering Braw?

Ricardo Marty

Why would Apple be against BMD AND help BMD optimize Resolve for their M1 laptops?

It's not the same thing, Canon is not out to control the codec market. This does not affect BMD in the same way. Again Why is neither Apple nor Atomos offering Braw? Its free

Ricardo Marty

Apple should support BRAW in FCP in my opinion, and could if they wanted to. The difference is Atomos can't. BRAW decoding is free, the API is freely available. BRAW encoding isn't, BMD controls that.

By now users should be aware that BRAW is its own thing with pros and cons. It's debayered and not really raw, but on the other hand that makes it possible to edit 12K files without breaking a sweat. In my mind it's already sufficiently different from ProRes Raw. The Apple countermove was of course hardware acceleration of ProRes Raw in recent M1 releases but BRAW has a more finished image in terms of appropriate noise reduction as it's done in camera. No way around that with ProRes Raw.

BRAW "buli-in" NR is (at leats for me) its enemy not a feature.
Somehow it negates RAW format itself. Remember that there is no way you can get as good NR (simply due to processing+power limitations) in camera as you can achieve in post. What is worse BRAW gives you 0 control over it (not even some weak, mild, strong settings) and this is the biggest problem (and many still use NR on BRAW in Resolve anyway). From what been said BRAW uses simple pixel averaging, not a "proper" noise reduction which is very computing hangry.
Fact that BRAW offers no access to RAW data in SDK due to its hybrid nature is not that important at all, as it still gives you all needed control over image (internals are just technicality). All RAW codecs are not rocket science, they are all relatively simple codecs. None of them is properly "polished" (eg. ProResRAW should have higher compression options).
Btw. is BRAW really much easier on the system than ProResRAW?
Same resolution file on same Mac: FCPX ProResRAW (on non-M1) vs. BRAW in Resolve (just no shortcuts with fractional resolution debayering/decoding)?

I look at it in a practical way. I don't really need raw (who does, honestly?). To me BRAW is a "good enough" compromise and has a very efficient implementation. Overall it's a good acquisition codec even when compared to ProRes (non-raw) which takes up a lot more storage. Having the choice of different codecs for different needs is great.

I like BRAW, but I also have two cameras that can record ProRes Raw. On one of them the internal recording options are crap, but it does ProRes Raw with an Atomos. It's not that I need it to be raw, it's that the other options aren't good (8-bit 4:2:0 H.264 with a low bitrate).

Yep. We need universal, simple (open source, but well maintained) RAW codec. As you said- it's not about RAW itself, but about efficiency and recording RAW is the most effective way (simple 1 channel of B&W image with known pattern). Thing is- it's not going to happen, because corporate, $ and RED patent are on its way

Please BM, just support PRRAW at last! It's such a pain in the A*** for professionals. We lost several productions on Baselight boutiques because of a nativ PRRAW workflow. Support all PR formats except PRRAW don't makes any sense for such a great tool like DR. Thanks a lot!

Well, looks like Atomos realizes that recording in ProRes RAW may not be convenient for some. All new Atomos Ninja V/V+ purchases will receive a free license for Assimilate Play Pro transcoding software. Existing owners will receive a promotional code from their registered support page for a discount code to purchase it for only $99.00. This is for both PC and macOS, unlike the macOS only app.

Not the best solution, but certainly a workable one.

However, I really hope that Apple and Blackmagic Design can resolve (no pun intended) the issue and allow DaVinci Resolve Studio to have ProRes RAW support. Seems like there is some good will as the M1 Mac launch events have shown off DRS in the live streamed events. Interesting when FCP is Apple's product and could have been demonstrated in the events.

Well, looks like Atomos realizes that recording in ProRes RAW may not be convenient for some. All new Atomos Ninja V/V+ purchases will receive a free license for Assimilate Play Pro transcoding software. Existing owners will receive a promotional code from their registered support page for a discount code to purchase it for only $99.00. This is for both PC and macOS, unlike the macOS only app.

Not the best solution, but certainly a workable one.

However, I really hope that Apple and Blackmagic Design can resolve (no pun intended) the issue and allow DaVinci Resolve Studio to have ProRes RAW support. Seems like there is some good will as the M1 Mac launch events have shown off DRS in the live streamed events. Interesting when FCP is Apple's product and could have been demonstrated in the events.

Resolve is a high-end visual software and apple cannot afford to curtail it. If atomos exclusive deal with apple ended then PRR would be open to all recorders then I'm sure that bmd will offer it and open Davinci Resolve. That is unless Apple has a vested and hidden agenda to get braw out of the market.

I ask again why hasn't apple and atomos included braw in their products. Whats good for the goose...

Ricardo Marty

Again, Atomos can’t offer BRAW. The public API is only for decoding.

Again, Atomos can’t offer BRAW. The public API is only for decoding.

True, at the moment but things can change.

In the future earth may be hit by an asteroid

Apple is protecting own format (same as BM). It's demand issue. If BM starts visibly loosing customers due to lack of PRAW support they will have to make difficult decision. BM has way more to loose than Apple (for them ProResRAW is rather something 10th category).

In the future earth may be hit by an asteroid

Apple is protecting own format (same as BM). It's demand issue. If BM starts visibly loosing customers due to lack of PRAW support they will have to make difficult decision. BM has way more to loose than Apple (for them ProResRAW is rather something 10th category).

The question is why atomos is offering, assimilate pro? Its sounds like they want everyone to have the alternative to shoot in a non-braw codec and be able to edit on any nle. They are doing Apple's work. I think its "check, to BMD" is a way to spread the PRR gospel.

Ricardo Marty

Atomos will do everything to sell more recorders and promote PRAW. Assimilate will do the same- for them it's promoting their products (they do special deals quite often). Not sure why you see anything special there. They all fight on the market, simple. PRAW means more to Atomos than to Apple. For Atomos best if BRAW did not exist.

DJI have dropped proresRAW on ronin 4D !

DJI_prR.jpg (123.89 KiB) Viewed 6319 times

this is related to the RED patent for internal RAW recording.
even though many believe that BRAW is not a true RAW format, blackmagic
has created a great way to create RAW functionality without violating the RED patent.

at the earliest, when the RED patent expires in 2028, DJI could make up for it,
or offer the codec separately, as they did with the inspire drones, to offset the license fees.

go BLACKMAGIC talk to DJI about BRAW!
it would be a big step for BMD with BRAW if they would allow internal recording, at least for DJI.

It’s a possibility, but so far BM shown no signs to share BRAW encoding tech to any 3rd party.
I think they treat it as internal format and can provide recording for other cameras, but only through their own products.
There are also tech question regarding computation/power needs. No idea which format requires less energy/processing power: BRAW or ProResRAW. If I were to guess I would say ProResRAW should be less demanding as it’s plain RAW encoding without any extra pre-processing. In the same time you need to pay some fee to RED, so it probably costs more to license.

I saw today where EditReady (now owned by the Hedge people) now has support for ProRes Raw. So... that means if you need a solution to quickly transcode ProRes Raw to (say) ProRes 444 or 422HQ, you can do it fairly quickly and easily within the app:

https://hedge.video/editready/pricing

It's cheap ($79) and it's a fantastic utility that's a big part of our editing workflow, particularly when we need to batch convert a ton of files.

I know this is not a Resolve solution per se, but it's a decent workaround that will get you by.

I saw today where EditReady (now owned by the Hedge people) now has support for ProRes Raw. So... that means if you need a solution to quickly transcode ProRes Raw to (say) ProRes 444 or 422HQ, you can do it fairly quickly and easily within the app:

https://hedge.video/editready/pricing

It's cheap ($79) and it's a fantastic utility that's a big part of our editing workflow, particularly when we need to batch convert a ton of files.

I know this is not a Resolve solution per se, but it's a decent workaround that will get you by.

It' a mixture of funny and sad to see that the lack of a much requested codec support by blackmagic opens up sales oppurtunities for other companies

I saw today where EditReady (now owned by the Hedge people) now has support for ProRes Raw. So... that means if you need a solution to quickly transcode ProRes Raw to (say) ProRes 444 or 422HQ, you can do it fairly quickly and easily within the app:

https://hedge.video/editready/pricing

It's cheap ($79) and it's a fantastic utility that's a big part of our editing workflow, particularly when we need to batch convert a ton of files.

I know this is not a Resolve solution per se, but it's a decent workaround that will get you by.

unfortunately higher than the previous price ($49.-) from divergentmedia
and due to the takeover of hedge video it has become a subscription : -(

I looked at the site, they mention a price for 1 license, nowhere does it say it is a subscription?

What's new is you get free updates for a year. Previously you only had to pay if you wanted to upgrade to a new major version (only happened once in the last five years, from v1 to v2).

A bit more expensive now but on the other hand there might be more updates using this licensing model in the new company with more resources available to the developers.