Support for ProRes Raw

Lol, are we doing circular logic here? This is the 'Feature Request' section. Meaning that things that Resolve cannot do, can be requested, so in the future (not right now) the feature can potentially exist then.

The cumbersome round trip... Ok, I must explain it to you.
1) BMD will not implement support for ProRes Raw.
2) Since they will not do this, I am asking for the next best thing, A RAW CONVERSION.

Do you understand? This is my final clarification. I don't think you're seeing the forest through the trees, instead you are looking a spec of dirt on your shoe with a magnifying glass.

If BM could offer conversion then it means they can offer native read in Resolve as well, which makes conversion itself totally pointless.
Them having a converter, but no read PR in Resolve would be crazy strange (and then you would have thread with 10x more posts than 1 about PR support in Resolve).

Atm. best solution is to use 3rd party, do rough grade and convert to good intermediate codec. In practice you loose about nothing compared to conversion to another RAW format.
Looks like ProRes RAW is not coming to Resolve any time soon (after what BM had to say at NAB), so you have to get use to it.

Lol, are we doing circular logic here? This is the 'Feature Request' section. Meaning that things that Resolve cannot do, can be requested, so in the future (not right now) the feature can potentially exist then.

The cumbersome round trip... Ok, I must explain it to you.
1) BMD will not implement support for ProRes Raw.
2) Since they will not do this, I am asking for the next best thing, A RAW CONVERSION.

Do you understand? This is my final clarification. I don't think you're seeing the forest through the trees, instead you are looking a spec of dirt on your shoe with a magnifying glass.

If BM could offer conversion then it means they can offer native read in Resolve as well, which makes conversion itself totally pointless.
Atm. best solution is to use 3rd party, do rough grade and convert to some intermediate codec. Looks like ProRes RAW is not coming to Resolve any time soon (after what BM had to say at NAB), so you have to get use to it.

I won't get used to it, and neither will the thousands that just bought a ninja v+. The market needs to conform to customer demands.

Do you know how much BM is worry about your particular case?
I'm sure you bought Ninja knowing PR is not supported in Resolve.
Market will conform when there it starts costing them real money and clients. Market doesn't conform to all clients request, but only those which are viable from technical and financial point. Looks like BM so far has not been hit finically due to lack of PR support in Resolve yet.

I won't get used to it, and neither will the thousands that just bought a ninja v+. The market needs to conform to customer demands.

Atomos offered a conversion solution with Assimulate. If you just got the Ninja V+ it was available to you. I bought it for my Ninja V. It is a very good converter/corrector. I wanted to see the difference it would make for my GH5S. Not much honestly. Getting close with Vlog on my tests there is no difference editing in Resolve. And I tried way off exposure and not much help there either.

The market needs to conform to customer demands.

Maybe the customers need to change their demands.

Get BRAW into more hardware.

The market needs to conform to customer demands.

Maybe the customers need to change their demands.

Get BRAW into more hardware.

The market needs to conform to customer demands. And it will, eventually. So basically, BMD is just waiting for another company to offer what they won't, and this company will.

It won't as no one except BM has access to BRAW encoding.
ProResRAW to CDNG already exists, but only for some cameras as each one needs own profile.
Keep waiting though

Yea, whatever. Adobe provides an API which Apple and many other companies - BMD included - use for developing in- and export plugins. BMD doesn't do that but Apple, who themself even provides a ProRes RAW plugin for Premiere is to blame?

If you choose not to accept an answer that doesn't suit your wishful thinking, then why bother asking the question in the first place? You've already made up your mind... since reality doesn't agree with your wish then you're not going to get the answer you're looking for.

Yuck, since your fanboy attitude towards BMD doesn't allow rational thinking my hope for BMD either providing open APIs so that Apple could develop free plugins like they do for Adobe or actually catching up with other NLEs implementing the decoder themselves is somehow unreal?

You can be sure that BMD has a strong reason for not including pro-res raw. if you need it so bad use premiere or whatever. The world doesn't run on prr. Don't aggravate yourself.


Ricardo Marty

You can be sure that BMD has a strong reason for not including pro-res raw. if you need it so bad use premiere or whatever. The world doesn't run on prr. Don't aggravate yourself.


Ricardo Marty

Wouldn't mind using BRAW if it wasn't so heavily processed. PRR as well as cDNG, which we can thank RED for disappearing, are far superior in quality, but heavier.

TicoRAW (Nikon Z9) which also doesn't show any signs of sharpening and NR will soon disappear as well.
The whole situation just plain sucks.

There's no excuse for the lack of ProRes Raw support.

BMD's fake "raw" being a competitor does not explain it, because Resolve already supports Red's raw codec.

There's no excuse for the lack of ProRes Raw support.

BMD's fake "raw" being a competitor does not explain it, because Resolve already supports Red's raw codec.

It's not up to BMD, it's up to Apple. If Apple doesn't want you to get the decoding SDK, you do not get the decoding SDK.

Why do you think Apple doesn’t want BMD to have the decoding sdk?

Why do you think Apple doesn’t want BMD to have the decoding sdk?

I don't know. They actually seem to have written the decoder required for PRR in select Adobe software, and provide it themselves. Perhaps they want to compete with BRAW and drive users away from Resolve, perhaps the juice is simply not worth the squeeze. Either way, it's foolish to post things like "no excuse" when it's simply not up to BMD to implement the functionality.

And yet Apple gives BM a lot of "early" details and help as Resolve is one of the most optimised OSX apps No way BM could do this without Apple support.
It's also always a very first to have new OSX features support.
So does Appel want to kill or support Resolve? Something doesn't hold up.
Your argument is rather weak.

I don't know a single company which would have a problem to get ProResRAW SDK, so it can be implemented in their app. I also know for fact that years ago it was difficult to get ProRes encoder as Apple wasn't really easy to work with and share it easily. Not a case anymore.
I just don't buy argument it's Apple holding it back as more facts tell opposite.

If it's related to anything like this then it will be driven by Atomos not Apple.

Why do you think Apple doesn’t want BMD to have the decoding sdk?

I don't know. They actually seem to have written the decoder required for PRR in select Adobe software, and provide it themselves. Perhaps they want to compete with BRAW and drive users away from Resolve, perhaps the juice is simply not worth the squeeze. Either way, it's foolish to post things like "no excuse" when it's simply not up to BMD to implement the functionality.

The only facts we know for sure are:
- ProresRAW is already in multiple 3rd party softwares
- decoder sdk is made available by Apple for 3rd parties, although terms not fully public
- Apple endorses BMD in almost every other aspect
- There is no proresraw in Resolve
- no-one but BMD can implement decoders in Resolve (no decoder plugin API)
- there is a competing ”raw” format developed and popularizes by BMD
- there is a beef between BMD and Atomos who does proresraw recording devices

From this you choose to extract that Apple is to blame for unknown reasons. I extract from this that it is unwillingness of BMD to make competing raw format available that would boost sales of their archenemy.

or maybe...just maybe...Atomos has a contract with Apple that excludes Blackmagic from using ProRes Raw. Much like Red's patent stranglehold on RAW capture.

or maybe...just maybe...Atomos has a contract with Apple that excludes Blackmagic from using ProRes Raw. Much like Red's patent stranglehold on RAW capture.

What do Apple and Atomos gain from this theoretical contract? Atomos pays Apple to not get Atomos recorded footage decoded in one popular NLE to limit their clients’ options for using the footage? Or Apple limits the usage of their created raw format because less users for proresraw is good for business? Makes no sense to me.

Makes perfect sense if you add in the emotions of Atomos against Blackmagic, and the other way around. And Apple doesn't care as long as they get paid. Who knows how this fantasy deal may be structured. Atomos rolls out their product to other camera manufactures, thereby increasing revenue to both them and Apple.

Honestly this entire thread is mental masturbation. Until Blackmagic publicly releases either a reason why, or implements ProRes Raw into Resolve, we are all just making wild ass guesses.

Makes perfect sense if you add in the emotions of Atomos against Blackmagic, and the other way around. And Apple doesn't care as long as they get paid. Who knows how this fantasy deal may be structured. Atomos rolls out their product to other camera manufactures, thereby increasing revenue to both them and Apple.

Honestly this entire thread is mental masturbation. Until Blackmagic publicly releases either a reason why, or implements ProRes Raw into Resolve, we are all just making wild ass guesses.

Maybe if BMs's Video Assist could include pro res raw but apple cant do this because atomos and apple have an agreement and no other company can do this. We'll have to wait till this agreement expires.

Ricardo Marty

Until Blackmagic considers DaVinci a professional editor, we are all wasting our time and energy on this request. Premiere considers itself a professional editor and is not concerned with competing codecs. Premiere is concerned with market share and being the editor of choice. I don't like using Premiere, but we must if we want to continue to make money as editors.

We cannot continue to attempt to use DaVinci as a professional editor until it supports all codecs regardless of whether or not it competes with BRAW. Apple is not the problem, RED is not the problem. Blackmagic is the problem.

DaVinci is still a Color Correction Program. Can you imagine DaVinci not supporting a color space because of competition? It wouldn't happen because Color is still its bread and butter. Selling inexpensive cameras is bread and butter.

Blackmagic Supports RAW codecs for RED, Arri, Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic because of market share and/or Hollywood clout. Canon and Sony cameras have over 60% market share. Red and Arri have low market share but are go-to Hollywood staples. And with the Komodo, RED is beginning to cannibalize Blackmagic cameras almost surpassing the pocket cinema camera in rentals last year. Panasonic may not have big market share, but it has big name recognition.

I've been fine being a beta tester over the last decade because I believed, the same way I believed in Final Cut Pro back in the day, that Blackmagic was truly trying to build a professional editor. I was wrong in both cases.

The lack of ProRes RAW support is inexcusable.

I'm having problems with audio sync and Blackmagic tells me "it's not supported". They don't say, "We will address it." They have been silent with ProRes RAW because they don't care about the many, and there are enough, who are requesting support.

They don't care because they are not yet interested in being a professional editor. They are making money elsewhere.

If we want to change this, we can. If we want a feature, we can get it and get it quickly. Game Stop was a great example of a group of people who had enough.

All we have to do is stop using Blackmagic's products until they provide what the customer needs. We just have to be willing to do it.

blackmagic will not miss you
and for known reasons there will be no prores RAW in resolve.

blackmagic will not miss you

Weird angle.

This isn't Playstation v Xbox, or at least it shouldn't be.

Personally I have zero brand loyalty. I don't care about their BRAW protectionism and neither should you, we're pro's trying to get work done. Support for ProRes RAW is requested a lot and rightly so, it's not part of my workflow but it could be on the next job. Make it a paid add on, let a 3rd party add support even, whatever it takes, because if BM stands in the way of me earning a living then it's getting mothballed.

You go where the work is and if that means ProRes RAW then so be it.

Just adding my hat into the ring.

blackmagic will not miss you

Weird angle.

This isn't Playstation v Xbox, or at least it shouldn't be.

Personally I have zero brand loyalty. I don't care about their BRAW protectionism and neither should you, we're pro's trying to get work done. Support for ProRes RAW is requested a lot and rightly so, it's not part of my workflow but it could be on the next job. Make it a paid add on, let a 3rd party add support even, whatever it takes, because if BM stands in the way of me earning a living then it's getting mothballed.

You go where the work is and if that means ProRes RAW then so be it.

You will know pro res raw will come to DVR the day that the bmd video assist will feature pro res raw.
And FCP Braw.

Ricardo Marty

Premiere considers itself a professional editor and is not concerned with competing codecs. Premiere is concerned with market share and being the editor of choice. I don't like using Premiere, but we must if we want to continue to make money as editors.
...
DaVinci is still a Color Correction Program. Can you imagine DaVinci not supporting a color space because of competition? It wouldn't happen because Color is still its bread and butter.
...
I've been fine being a beta tester over the last decade because I believed, the same way I believed in Final Cut Pro back in the day, that Blackmagic was truly trying to build a professional editor. I was wrong in both cases.
...
I'm having problems with audio sync and Blackmagic tells me "it's not supported". They don't say, "We will address it."

Hi Rob!
I feel your pain. I'm right there with you hoping BMD will fully get on the Resolve Edit bandwagon. I don't know what's going on inside the company - but they've put A LOT of resources into taking Resolve from just a Color Correction program to a one-stop-post-shop. They seem to want to win in this space. I wonder if there's anything we can do to help. I get your boycott idea but don't think it's either realistic or likely to help. Sure would be great if we could find a way to nudge things in the Edit functionality's direction - to make it more clear to whoever are the decision makers that Resolve development needs a somewhat tweaked strategy to make it a first-class Editing choice.

That said, it did turn out that, by giving the devs some very specific, easy to reproduce reports, Waveform Audio Sync went from unusable (for me) to very accurate. So it's not impossible for things to improve. This codec thing is very political so I have less hope for it - but the more traction the app gets, the more important its success is to BMD. Which may at some point tip the scales toward including the codec. I dunno - just my thoughts.

This showed up in another forum. The weeping is on both sides.

https://creativecow.net/forums/thread/x ... -for-braw/

Ricardo Marty

This showed up in another forum. The weeping is on both sides.

https://creativecow.net/forums/thread/x ... -for-braw/

Ricardo Marty

And still there the blame game goes on only into the direction of BMD...
Especially user "Robin S. Kurz" seems to have put up some awkward "analysis" why it's all BMDs fault...
But when you look up his profile you find out that he is a certified trainer for FCP-X - so maybe he is a bit more biased than he would admit

Yeah, in his latest response he tries really hard to twist the facts so that he's somehow "right". I'm not posting there again anytime soon.

Word in the street is that the problem isn't technical but more legal.
AFAIK ProRes Raw was developped by Atomos for Apple with former knowledge from BMD.
The only way to end this absurd situation would be all 3 of them to sit down and find an arrangement.
So far, this is good for no business…

Word in the street is that the problem isn't technical but more legal.
AFAIK ProRes Raw was developped by Atomos for Apple with former knowledge from BMD.

That doesn't make any sense at all.
1. Atomos' founder Jeromy Young himself said in interviews that they (Atomos) initiated Apple to create PRAW.
2. what kind of former knowledge from BMD should that be? When Jeromy Young left from BMD that was long before BMD was into cameras.

And you think anything makes sense right know ?
This is the only "pro" format BMD hasn't adopted.
The hiatus would concern some of the engeeners involved in PRaw developpement.

Nevertheless PRaw is a real pain to transcode. FCPX/Compressor, Media Encoder and Scratch all produce different results…

Young resigned in 2008. Link is only viewable once without a login. But Privacy/Incognito mode works.

+1 for support of Prores RAW decoding
Especially with new cameras supporting it and hardware acceleration on Apple silicon macs.
It will become a deciding factor as other softwares supports it from Final Cut Pro, Avid and Baselight.

First Post!

+ 1 for Prores RAW support!

FX3 Owner and I just would love Native support! Proresraw doesn't play as well in adobe as one would want, the 444's are huge and so are the cinemaDNG's we are forced to jump hoops to get to, just to have a timeline work for all of OUR LIVES AND JOBS THAT SUPPORT US AS CREATIVES IN AN INSANE WORLD.

Besides all the commercial projects that could have benefited or took longer than they needed to with all the work arounds, now I have a feature AND a series shooting with the format at the same time and I'm buying up too many HDDs.

Okay theres my spiel, please support Prores RAW yesterday!

Thank you BM for creating Davinci it's fly as hell.

Thanks!

Mourrice
LCKYNYC
Kistmet Collective Films

I’m old user of original cineform raw (999$ license).
Today is free and open-source, a 12bit log codec.

if you want also raw flavour you should pay since 20$ (from what David Newman the creator of codec told in his blog).

Why deal with a cdng sequence when you can have a 12bit log file ?

If you have Adobe suite you can convert from proresraw to cineform 12bit log under win or Mac.

If you need raw be cause you are tech geek you can do a Kickstarter for 10.000$ to David to build a simple converter from prores raw to cineform raw.

Why not to braw? Braw need sensor profiling, cineform not, and it’s directly supported in resolve (I edit last month old cineform raw shooted with SI2k many years ago).
I know that for many cineform is dead codec, but is free license and open source to use.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Cineform RAW can't be used in camera/recorder due to same reasons as other formats- RED patent.
Cineform RAW has some issues as recording format, eg. very VBR nature without strict max bitrate control and lacks any on chip implementations. This been discussed with David many times already. Not difficult to improve, but no real interest.
If anything it could be only used as 2nd RAW codec, so you eg. convert ProResRAW to Cineform RAW after recording process. This also brings problems as well as atm. Resolve doesn't really expose Cineform RAW settings, so you would loose all RAW controls and "good" initial start for grading. Any RAW format needs to come with metadata as otherwise you get issue as many early ProResRAW users had/still have.
Converting eg. Arri RAW/ProResRAW to CF RAW is rather easy process, but without preservation of at least main RAW metadata almost pointless. Converting BRAW/RED RAW to CF RAW officially impossible as both don't expose RAW data over SDK (it can/been done with a bit of workaround).
You need to wait few more years (till day when RED patent expires) and we will have way more RAW codecs. Probably too many

Cineform still represents most advanced set of features in codec, even if it's so old. Nothing new shown any real progress compared to it. With few improvements (eg. reduced resolution preview also reduces data read from the file) CF could be really great tech, but you also need a brand behind it as otherwise it will get lost. Problem is that I don't see any single company with required resources/money to have any interest in it (maybe Adobe?). There is also TicoRAW now (one used in Nikon Z9) which is modern version of Cineform, just misses extra features around codec itself.

Cineform RAW can't be used in camera/recorder due to same reasons as other formats- RED patent.
Cineform RAW has some issues as recording format, eg. very VBR nature without strict max bitrate control and lacks any on chip implementations. This been discussed with David many times already. Not difficult to improve, but no real interest.
If anything it could be only used as 2nd RAW codec, so you eg. convert ProResRAW to Cineform RAW after recording process. This also brings problems as well as atm. Resolve doesn't really expose Cineform RAW settings, so you would loose all RAW controls and "good" initial start for grading. Any RAW format needs to come with metadata as otherwise you get issue as many early ProResRAW users had/still have.
Converting eg. Arri RAW/ProResRAW to CF RAW is rather easy process, but without preservation of at least main RAW metadata almost pointless. Converting BRAW/RED RAW to CF RAW officially impossible as both don't expose RAW data over SDK (it can/been done with a bit of workaround).
You need to wait few more years (till day when RED patent expires) and we will have way more RAW codecs. Probably too many

Cineform still represents most advanced set of features in codec, even if it's so old. Nothing new shown any real progress compared to it. With few improvements (eg. reduced resolution preview also reduces data read from the file) CF could be really great tech, but you also need a brand behind it as otherwise it will get lost. Problem is that I don't see any single company with required resources/money to have any interest in it (maybe Adobe?). There is also TicoRAW now (one used in Nikon Z9) which is modern version of Cineform, just misses extra features around codec itself.

under windows exist an old plug-in for resolve that allow you to manage all metadata feature of cineformraw, in actual resolve not work, stopped to work in resolve 14, but exist and is possible to do, actually may be too old way. I think is related to changment about how Mac OS and windows manage codecs in modern environments.

I told about cineform raw like only DI codec for its compatibility and ability to move raw data from format x to cf raw.

I’m agree with all that will be better to have real support to prores raw.

I read something about TicoRaw but I’m feared that RED try to sui them where is used like internal raw in Nikon.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Few more years and RED patent will be just a history and will stop this nonsense which should never happen in first place (RED patent is so questionable).

Few more years and RED patent will be just a history and will stop this nonsense which should never happen in first place (RED patent is so questionable).

A quick google search said the patents will expire in 2035. That is a bit more than a "few more years"

Few more years and RED patent will be just a history and will stop this nonsense which should never happen in first place (RED patent is so questionable).

A quick google search said the patents will expire in 2035. That is a bit more than a "few more years"

But now Andrew share with us the patent around the blackmagic potion of eternal life
to be honest i didn't know about the patent expiration, 2035 is a bit far for me

2035?
As far as I know it's more like 2028 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8872933B2/en)

Funny enough we have Nikon reply and it takes route mentioned by Jinni Tech:

Interestingly, Nikon is taking what appears to be a different approach to its rebuttal to the lawsuit, suggesting that RED's patents shouldn't be enforcable. Specifically, Nikon argues that because RED was showing off the technology and even taking pre-orders for cameras using the company's compressed Raw technology before applying for the patent, the eventual patent they would receive should be narrower in scope than what it is, since the information was already public at the point of filing the patent application.

Nikon also suggests RED was 'ensnaring prior art,' meaning it was attempting – and eventually succeeded in – patenting technologies that were already understood within the camera industry.

Maybe this time court will make things right
It's somehow obvious for basically whole industry, but not court. Shame.

Yep, argument that what they did was unconceivable for everyone else is pure bs, which is well established by the fact that they had to arbitrarily limit their patent in parameters. One must be mentally challenged to find that 2k compressed raw is great but 4k is unimaginable innovation no-one could think of.

Reason for this "above 2K" is simple- Cineform and SI-2K camera.
4K is just harder to encode ( which is just computational problem), but there is 0 innovation in whole RED patented tech. Have they introduced new codec with clever approach to solve processing issue? No, they licensed well established JPEG2000 encoding on the chip. That's so cutting edge You get banned from their forum if you mention it's just JPEG2000 Now they switched to simpler DCT codec as 8K is huge problem for overly complex JPEG2000. Yet myth of some "amazignes" of REDCODE is still there
If anyone then David should get patent when CF RAW was introduced.

Please BMD just give us ProResRaw support.
Nikon is trying to take Red to task, but can we get beyond these blackholes of workflow where if we get handed footage in PRR to grade we need to jump through a million hoops.

Windows user, got screwed by Atomos deciding existing customers of a Ninja pre-order shouldn't get an Assimilate Play Pro licence. Now feeling screwed that I have to buy transcoders to use PRR in the best grading tool around.

I have a BMD Video Assist, but with a Panasonic EVA1 I can't use RAW with it and buying another BMD product to get RAW on an EVA1 and Varicam LT is just not on the cards.
Don't make us use FCP out of a spat with Atomos please.

Hi,

i would like to ask you if you are working on in implementing ProRes RAW codec here in Davinci, many clients are sending to me files to edit and transcode everything for me is crazy for my workflow, are you working on making decoding natively on davinci resolve? when this will happaned?

Thanks

Hi,

i would like to ask you if you are working on in implementing ProRes RAW codec here in Davinci, many clients are sending to me files to edit and transcode everything for me is crazy for my workflow, are you working on making decoding natively on davinci resolve? when this will happaned?

Thanks

It's complicated. Don't hold your breath.

Ricardo Marty

Posted a while back. BMD already has my $ for Davinci Resolve Studio, which is a perpetual license, so my saying I'll take my business elsewhere is pointless.

What I will say is that DRS is simply put the best video editor in my opinion. I'd even switched to Final Cut Pro (with Ripple training courses) back when ProRes RAW lack affected me the most, but I keep coming back.

Simply put, ProRes RAW in DVR would make DVR the best solution bar none in the Macverse in my opinion.

Here's hoping I don't need to use FCP in my workflow for the times I must work with ProRes RAW. I have Assimilate, but the extra workflow is a real drag.

Posted a while back. BMD already has my $ for Davinci Resolve Studio, which is a perpetual license, so my saying I'll take my business elsewhere is pointless.

What I will say is that DRS is simply put the best video editor in my opinion. I'd even switched to Final Cut Pro (with Ripple training courses) back when ProRes RAW lack affected me the most, but I keep coming back.

Simply put, ProRes RAW in DVR would make DVR the best solution bar none in the Macverse in my opinion.

Here's hoping I don't need to use FCP in my workflow for the times I must work with ProRes RAW. I have Assimilate, but the extra workflow is a real drag.

Pro res raw in DVR will mean thousands of sales for atomos which is the only recorder that features PRR and nothing for BMD. It won't be a good business decision on the part of bmd unless it could also offer it in the video assist. And that's up to apple.


Ricardo Marty

Is the ”bad apple won’t let them do it” fact coming from the same source as ”prores encoding license costs billions-trillions”?