Prores Raw support

Hi! I am new to the forum and using the search engine with "prores RAW" gave me so many answers that i could not find the right answer.

Are there plans for Prores Raw support ? Both in my job and myself with my company we switched on most machines from Adobe to Davinci but since we have the Ronin 4d and i have both the Ronin 4D and a Ninja V+ it is such a hassle to transcode EVERYTHING and every now and then it fails and then everything is on halt because we have to fix something.

I am super desperate to get Prores Raw support in Davinci, i hope you understand. Are there plans for the future or why isn't it supported? i would pay for it happily

I know your pain, I very much second that.

Honestly, I would create a mid-to-long-term workflow that addresses this problem because I cannot see this being released anytime soon.

My opinion only:
For that to happen they would have to license the codec to PCs first and I believe this costs lots of money. Assuming the majority of users aren't on the paid version and the software itself is very cheap. Changes aren't the forte of the company.

If you read through some of the many threads, the BM staffers seem to have been clear there are no plans whatsoever. It is rumored that there are perhaps issues between various companies. Ahem.

So don't expect it anytime soon.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

My opinion only:
For that to happen they would have to license the codec to PCs first and I believe this costs lots of money. Assuming the majority of users aren't on the paid version and the software itself is very cheap. Changes aren't the forte of the company.

Only really mainstream Windows editor that is licenced is Premiere, with Avid and Edius pro also having support but they're not really in competition with Adobe. Makes you think Adobe paid a huge amount of money for exclusivity, and with Resolve being a direct competitor it will never be granted a licence.

A lot of these codec licences only need to be paid upon activation so if a user never imported Prores Raw the full user licence fee would never be collected which makes me think it's really because of Adobe that Resolve will never have support.

There are no licensing costs- you just have to sign an agreement.
There are plenty tools with ProRes/ProResRAW support on Windows- it's basically a standard today. Resolve is actually about only tool which doesn't support it for "different" reasons. Adobe has nothing to do with it, nor has any "exclusivity".

No idea how Edius or Avid is not Premiere competition? Those are all NLEs by their pure nature. If anything Resolve is a lesser competition.".

Different markets. Vegas Pro also have a prores raw licence, but not yet implemented in software, also not a threat to Adobe, but Resolve is.

Premiere is direct competition to Avid, Edius and any NLE including Resolve. It's crowded market.
Do you think when BBC bought thousands of Premiere licenses AVID was happy and did not care about it?

Each system has its strong and weak bits and in some way Premiere is very strong due to whole Adobe ecosystem (but Resolve is free/cheap). Things keep changing though, so none of those companies can feel crazy secure and confident about the future. The moment you start doing so you'll become next Nokia.
I more often use Premiere, regardless of Resolve free or low price. Premiere simply fits my needs way better. In the past I used Edius almost exclusively- again because it was perfect match for my needs (+it was crazy stable). At some point you can use what you need/want not what you can afford and then it's features/performance and stability which plays key role.

Although you didn't say it, if you do believe BM is more risk adverse and don't want to touch Prores Raw due to possibly being sued by RED in the future, then how does that explain the situation with Adobe licenced for non raw ProRes encoding on Windows, but not Resolve?

What's going on with that?

Red holds their patent only on RAW compression in camera.
Everything else is a business decision, which is obviously not communicated by those in the know.

Although you didn't say it, if you do believe BM is more risk adverse and don't want to touch Prores Raw due to possibly being sued by RED in the future, then how does that explain the situation with Adobe licenced for non raw ProRes encoding on Windows, but not Resolve?

What's going on with that?

You're mixing things. Decoding ProRes RAW has nothing to do with RED or any patent. Patent affects encoding. You can implement decoding legally at any point as long as you wish so and sing agreement. It's free. There are countless tools out there with ProRes RAW support and it's not linked to any legal risk.

ProRes again- free for decoding/encoding assuming you sign an agreement. Again- about any decent tool supports it today. Resolve is an exception and this is for another "business reasons"- probably Apple related. I don't think Apple wants encoding on Windows to be free or very cheap to protect FCPX. Don't forget that Resolve has ProRes support on expensive Linux version. There are some cheap tools with ProRes encoding on PC, but those are not NLEs, but very specific tools ( which doesn't bother Apple that much). I still think ProRes encoding will come to Resolve on Windows one day. It's in Apple interest to have ProRes support as wide as possible as then you tight people to it and to OSX etc. where it shines (specially with new Mx based Macs).
This subject has been discussed countless times now and there is an existing thread for it.

Just one more note from my side: the only tools to encode ProRes on PC are free ones or licensed by Apple, and not really free. Not even cheap. All those free tools use ffmpeg below them.

When one company in Spain tried to used that in their commercial product, Apple went after them pretty fast and the product disappeared. They seem to tolerate it as long as it's free. I wonder about Topaz VEAI though…

All those free tools use ffmpeg below them.

I'm not sure MTI or Grass Valey use ffmpeg for their ProRes encoding. Otherwise they'd use a fake 12 bit pipeline.

I paid my Linux dongle $1500 on eBay in 2020. Now, it costs the double. I already said to BMD they should sell it separately. Forcing people to buy the advanced panel is a shame.

They don’t.
You can tell which encode is from Apple official encoder and which not.
MTI or specially GV wouldn’t ever do such a thing.
Uli is talking about many free tools which are all with non-official code inside.

This whole "No prores RAW for Davinci" nonsense means, that it is waaay easier o just shoot Braw or Redraw.

So DJI Ronin 4D is out of the game for many workflows.

it is waaay easier o just shoot Braw or Redraw.

I switched to Resolve because Premiere Pro didn't handle the original Pocket cDNG well enough.

One could go the other way as well. If one wants to use Resolve, but the camera doesn't play nice...

This whole "No prores RAW for Davinci" nonsense means, that it is waaay easier o just shoot Braw or Redraw.

I think blackmagicdesign doesn't want users to use Sony cameras. If you use an external raw recorder, the atomos recorders beat the bm video assist in many crucial specs.

If only the BM video assist would be a better hardware, I would love to buy this instead... but it isn't.

Please Blackmagic.

It's been years of depreciation of the PRORES RAW format.

So many projects that could be way better handled natively through Davinci Resolve?

Adobe has added support over the years so the workarounds have benefitted (treating in Premiere and outputting a HDR Prores XQ) but we need native support in Resolve.

Can we get a date? Is Apple the problem? What can we do to help?

With the amount invested into the RawConverter app, could we not have paid for license, codec support?

Please fix this for us all?

Please. Clients. Thank you.

If it is a license thing, i would pay for a license and the support, i mean prores raw costs something anyways if i want to use it on the ronin 4D.

I even would be okay if the problem gets explained, is it license and money based? Or a technical problem?

It's f…ng business politics, and I doubt there'll be any explanation.

If it is a license thing, i would pay for a license and the support, i mean prores raw costs something anyways if i want to use it on the ronin 4D.

I even would be okay if the problem gets explained, is it license and money based? Or a technical problem?

I wouldn't think it's a licensing cost thing, since this is already paid on the camera side. For example the prores raw license for the Ronin 4D costs 1,000 USD.

Assimilate's Scratch is a much smaller company and it does offer prores raw support.

As others have pointed out here and in more detail in other threads. This seems to have to do with both companies not wanting to collaborate with each other.

Encoding capabilities (so camera side) is paid.
Decoding is free, so no licensing fees.

What can we do to help?

Wage the opposite campaign. Harangue camera makers to include BRAW instead of ProRes RAW.

Hi! I am new to the forum and using the search engine with "prores RAW" gave me so many answers that i could not find the right answer.

Are there plans for Prores Raw support ? Both in my job and myself with my company we switched on most machines from Adobe to Davinci but since we have the Ronin 4d and i have both the Ronin 4D and a Ninja V+ it is such a hassle to transcode EVERYTHING and every now and then it fails and then everything is on halt because we have to fix something.

I am super desperate to get Prores Raw support in Davinci, i hope you understand. Are there plans for the future or why isn't it supported? i would pay for it happily

Now DaVinci Resolve 19.1.4 supports Profes!

Rowby

Now DaVinci Resolve 19.1.4 supports Profes!Rowby

Not the one this topic is about.

So disappointed to hear that DR doesn't support Prores RAW. I came upon this thread after finding that I get a black screen when I import Prores RAW from my Atomos Shogun Inferno. It's been a favorite format of mine for critical work in Adobe Premiere. I was hoping to finally ditch Adobe this year, but alas, this one format is gonna keep me stuck.
I can't believe a high level NLE like DR doesn't support a high level CODEC like Prores RAW. I've been using it for nearly a decade in Premiere, and expected it would be supported 100% in DR. This is NOT making me feel good about my investment in two Studio licenses.

I understand that most of people would like to use they preferred codec, but.. want kind of option could you have with ProRes raw instead of another codec ?
I reiceved many shooting in ProRes raw and with Final Cut or premiere I not see option to value good the raw of apple.

I could change raw decoding algorithm (like red code)? No
I could change differently iso or white balance better of simple good ProRes 12 bit ? No
I had better compression space performance ? No

The good of raw should be like red or others where I can change really the internal matrix elaboration or is a waste of space and money.

To be honest I prefer to see more device supported from Braw instead to go in a dead end codec like ProRes raw which use old Di matrix compression on raw data’s.

Please help me to understand better, what you think is better in ProRes raw than a good ProRes 12bit?
But give me proof, be cause I did concertoon from ProRes raw to ProRes, I tried to grab better dynamic range, better highlight recovery, noise ratio performance and I not saw difference.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

ProResRAW is real raw data just compressed a bit (opposite to BM RAW) and you can change ISO etc. Fact that some tool doesn't offer such an option is different story.
Also you gain a lot by compressing RAW data as this is b&w single channel of data. Debayered has way more to compress, so you either can reduce size or gain quality by using same data rate.
BRAW or ProResRAW makes not much difference at the end. Market will decide which will stay. In terms of quality ProResRAW is a rathe better option, but in practice this may not be any real advantage.

I could change raw decoding algorithm (like red code)? No
I could change differently iso or white balance better of simple good ProRes 12 bit? No
I had better compression space performance ? No

In FCP, you can typically change ISO and WB in post with ProRes RAW. However ProRes RAW is a cross-vendor collaboration between Apple, the camera mfg, the recorder mfg and the NLE developer. It's not a proprietary method where a single company controls the hardware and software, and only one brand of hardware can encode it.

The ProRes RAW features that appear in the NLE can depend on the cooperation between those companies for the specific case. With our Sony FX6 cameras recording ProRes RAW to the Ninja V and Ronin 4D, ISO and WB can be adjusted in post in FCP. The ProRes RAW compression performance is scene-specific, but in general, it's much better than ProRes 4444, up to 2:1 better.

...Please help me to understand better, what you think is better in ProRes raw than a good ProRes 12bit? But give me proof, be cause I did concertoon from ProRes raw to ProRes, I tried to grab better dynamic range, better highlight recovery, noise ratio performance and I not saw difference.

You should not expect any RAW codec to produce better dynamic range, highlight recovery, or s/n ratio than a similar bit-depth, high-bit-rate non-RAW codec. Those items are primarily determined by the sensor, not the codec. The advantage of RAW is in post-production color grading.

I personally prefer not using ProRes RAW, even though we use both FCP and Resolve in post. My favorite codec is the 10-bit 4:2:2 XAVC-I from the Sony FX6, which is about half the bitrate of ProRes RAW from the same camera, yet Resolve Studio has "RAW Controls for XAVC-I." It's not true RAW but allows similar adjustability of WB and ISO in post.

Joe and Andrew confirmed to me that ProRes RAW doesn’t necessarily offer better performance in post-production compared to other codecs.

Can I adjust ISO in post? Yes—but the same is true with well-designed codecs like the MXF files from the Sony FX6 (and even the F3, if ingested into the MXF container using Sony's tool).

Can I change ISO and white balance only in RAW and not in other codecs?
Not exactly. If the camera is ISO invariant, ISO is essentially just a gamma adjustment. With the right tools—like DaVinci Resolve—you can apply similar adjustments even to compressed codecs.

As for white balance, it can be corrected accurately even in compressed formats, as long as you're working with at least 10-bit depth. That’s because white balance is primarily determined by how the sensor captures and encodes light, not by whether the codec is RAW. RAW just stores separate metadata—it doesn’t change the original sensor data.

As Andrew pointed out, the main technical advantage of RAW is a more efficient compression ratio when dealing with unprocessed sensor data (typically in black & white) versus RGB-debayered footage like in ProRes RAW, but today size of file is not a great matter for all against usability.

In my opinion, the only RAW formats that truly provide more flexibility are those where you can choose how to debayer the image—such as RED RAW or CFRAW. In those cases, RAW genuinely gives you more creative control over time. But that flexibility comes from the camera manufacturer’s ecosystem, not from a generic RAW format like ProRes RAW.

From my experience, the best RAW workflows come from deep integration between the camera, sensor, and a custom-designed RAW codec. A generic RAW recording doesn't necessarily offer more post-production advantages than a well-engineered non-RAW codec.

RED RAW doesn't offer any debayer options as it's encrypted format. It uses proprietary SDK which never exposes RAW data, so you have to use what they provide. REDs debayer for years been quite poor and only not long time they've improved it to match "current" standards.
RED RAW is nothing special or better than Arri RAW, ProResRAW etc. Not sure why you think so? Because Resolve exposes so many controls for it? I wonder how many colorists do use those controls? RED RAw is actually quite bad format due to use of overdone Jpeg2000 which even todays is difficult to process. They finally realised it and switched to simpler DCT based codec, more like BRAW or ProResRAW.

If anything then actually it's ProRes RAW which allows you to access RAW data and perform all processing by yourself (actually this is one one its advantages compared other BRAW). BRAW doesn't offer this (well you can hack it, recover RAW and there is at least one company which knows how to do it).

RAW main advantage is space/bitrate savings. You say it's not important? Actually it's very big advantage and whole point using it is linked to this fact.

...As for white balance, it can be corrected accurately even in compressed formats, as long as you're working with at least 10-bit depth. That’s because white balance is primarily determined by how the sensor captures and encodes light, not by whether the codec is RAW. RAW just stores separate metadata—it doesn’t change the original sensor data...

In my testing of various RAW vs All-Intra formats on various cameras, it can be difficult to quickly adjust and match a significant WB issue without RAW controls. Of course it can be done, but WB includes both warm/cool axis and the magenta/green axis. It's an issue of expediency -- with RAW controls it's often a lot faster.

That said, if the camera is white balanced properly, only limited adjustment is needed. BRAW has only been available on the BMPCC series since April 2019, and some of us have shot major work a decade before that. We managed OK without RAW.

The ARRI ALEXA had ProRes recording from the beginning, but I believe it could not record ARRIRAW internally until 2013. Even after that, lots of productions used ProRes 4444. They managed OK without RAW adjustment of WB in post.

On the FX6, I've tested simultaneously-recorded 12-bit ProRes RAW (via Ninja V) and internal 10-bit 4:2:2 XAVC-I many times. In general I don't see much difference, no matter how hard it's pushed in post. There is no significant difference in dynamic range, highlight recovery, or s/n ratio. Starting with Resolve 18.5, there are "RAW Controls for XAVC-I" which mostly eliminates the WB adjustment advantage of ProRes RAW.

XAVC-I in the MXF container also captures much better FX6 metadata than the current implementation of ProRes RAW on Atomos. XAVC-I supports in-camera lens profile corrections, focus breathing compensation, and gyro stabilization data, which ProRes RAW does not support.

My team also uses the Ronin 4D-6k, and we record ProRes RAW on that. One reason is a gimbal is often moving through changing light conditions, doesn't have time to shoot WB calibration shots, and auto WB in post is a hassle. Another reason unique to the R4D is DJI doesn't provide regular 422, rather 422 HQ. At 6k/23.98 that is roughly the same data rate as ProRes RAW, so we may as well shoot that.

But we shot 422 HQ on the R4D before we got the ProRes RAW license, and that was also OK, it was just more work in post.

So disappointed to hear that DR doesn't support Prores RAW. I came upon this thread after finding that I get a black screen when I import Prores RAW from my Atomos Shogun Inferno. It's been a favorite format of mine for critical work in Adobe Premiere. I was hoping to finally ditch Adobe this year, but alas, this one format is gonna keep me stuck.
I can't believe a high level NLE like DR doesn't support a high level CODEC like Prores RAW. I've been using it for nearly a decade in Premiere, and expected it would be supported 100% in DR. This is NOT making me feel good about my investment in two Studio licenses.

ProRes Raw has never been a high level codec. It only was created in 2018. Barely anything uses it. Only since recently have cameras began to record in ProRes Raw. People confuse ProRes 4444 with ProRes Raw.

...As for white balance, it can be corrected accurately even in compressed formats, as long as you're working with at least 10-bit depth. That’s because white balance is primarily determined by how the sensor captures and encodes light, not by whether the codec is RAW. RAW just stores separate metadata—it doesn’t change the original sensor data...

In my testing of various RAW vs All-Intra formats on various cameras, it can be difficult to quickly adjust and match a significant WB issue without RAW controls. Of course it can be done, but WB includes both warm/cool axis and the magenta/green axis. It's an issue of expediency -- with RAW controls it's often a lot faster.

The ARRI ALEXA had ProRes recording from the beginning, but I believe it could not record ARRIRAW internally until 2013. Even after that, lots of productions used ProRes 4444. They managed OK without RAW adjustment of WB in post.

there are some trick to balance better WB with node in different space then classic, but the main goal should be shooting also in raw the right WB, be cause also if you have color chart for every shot, is not a good abitude to do WB in post.

i can confirm that Alexa in 2010 start in prores FHD, first beta firmware, in 2011 -2012 shoot prores only (Alexa that you can rent in italy), and later arrive ArriRaw, but most of Italian production continue to use classic prores for economy of space, and be cause often they shoot in the best way that not need heavy CC on WB to need raw datas.

ArriRAW is uncompressed and huge, so there is big trade-off here. It would greatly benefit from having compressed RAW. You could even not use any of its benefits, yet have better quality or few times more recording time.

I have found that RAW is the only way to get the full 12-bit resolution of the sensor. I've compared Prores HQ to Prores RAW and found that in underexposed shorts, the shadows have banding in the Prores HQ, and much less to none in the Prores RAW.

I also found that on moon shots I did with a 600mm lens, I got better definition of the features on the lunar surface with the RAW footage than with the Prores HQ. There was just more information to work with.

I can replicate the results with Cinema DNG, but wrangling thousands of files and the attendant disc consumption makes Cinema DNG not a practical way to go.

The only thing we can know is that it's not BMD's fault, and must be down to Apple's business interests. I think Andrew Kolakowski said earlier in this thread or another that there is no Fee for decoding, BMD did not reject Prores RAW due to a financial cost (although it's unusual they won't pay for a Dolby AC3 decoding licence now that Windows 11 doesn't have the codec by default)

And you have small fringe cheap NLE's like Vegas Pro granted approval to include RAW, proving it can be cheap to implement but rejected for quality/performance issues. That wouldn't be the case with Resolve.

The only thing we can know is that it's not BMD's fault, and must be down to Apple's business interests. I think Andrew Kolakowski said earlier in this thread or another that there is no Fee for decoding, BMD did not reject Prores RAW due to a financial cost (although it's unusual they won't pay for a Dolby AC3 decoding licence now that Windows 11 doesn't have the codec by default)

And you have small fringe cheap NLE's like Vegas Pro granted approval to include RAW, proving it can be cheap to implement but rejected for quality/performance issues. That wouldn't be the case with Resolve.

It has more to the with Atomos creating ProRes Raw with Apple. Atomos was formed by Blackmagic employees who stole company secrets to start Atomos.

The only thing we can know is that it's not BMD's fault, and must be down to Apple's business interests.

How do you know this? Apple created a codec and doesn't want its use to be widespread because business... makes very little sense. Apple has nothing to do with beef between Atomos, BMD and BMDs business interests of protecting BRAW from spread of prores raw.

The only thing we can know is that it's not BMD's fault, and must be down to Apple's business interests.

How do you know this? Apple created a codec and doesn't want its use to be widespread because business... makes very little sense. Apple has nothing to do with beef between Atomos, BMD and BMDs business interests of protecting BRAW from spread of prores raw.

If bmd opened the DVR to pr Raw, Atomos would sell a lot because they have exclusivity with Apple for ProRAW .BMD VA does not have ppraw.

Rica Marty

The only thing we can know is that it's not BMD's fault, and must be down to Apple's business interests.

How do you know this? Apple created a codec and doesn't want its use to be widespread because business... makes very little sense. Apple has nothing to do with beef between Atomos, BMD and BMDs business interests of protecting BRAW from spread of prores raw.

I think it's know 'fact' in the industry.
For me it has nothing to do with Apple or money issue or implementation problems. It's BMs "business decision" which may be linked to not wanting to support competing product, plus some tension between BM and Atomos.
ProRes export could be linked to Apple not wanting free tool to have it on PC, but this is past now, which is great. For users the best if same happened to ProResRAW support in Resolve.

I have found that RAW is the only way to get the full 12-bit resolution of the sensor. I've compared Prores HQ to Prores RAW and found that in underexposed shorts, the shadows have banding in the Prores HQ, and much less to none in the Prores RAW.

I also found that on moon shots I did with a 600mm lens, I got better definition of the features on the lunar surface with the RAW footage than with the Prores HQ. There was just more information to work with.

I can replicate the results with Cinema DNG, but wrangling thousands of files and the attendant disc consumption makes Cinema DNG not a practical way to go.

The problem reside in the way of ProRes encoding, if you convert raw directly in ProRes work fine, and you do what you need. Most of cameras tend to denoise and soften picture a bit to compress better with ProRes, than mean you have more banding and less high freq dectails.
At time of gh2 hack I found that most of compression problems reside in the denoise in camera and too high compression datarate.
Raw often not had denoise active on it or like metadata (red code), and often avoid banding.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

That makes sense and is consistent with what I'm seeing. Realistically, RAW has a lot of advantages. And if I could have it in one file, it's more efficient. Copying speed of a Prores RAW file on my workstation is 1.6GB/sec. Copying speed of a folder full of .DNG files is around 236MB/sec. Hugely slower!

I wish Australian companies would grow up and stop bickering. I just watched Louis Rossman's video about how a company down there, BwE, is ripping off customers with ridiculous licensing terms. Makes me wonder if it's an Aussie thing...

In my case, i use the DJI Ronin 4D that has internal Prores RAW, so if it is a thin between Atomos and Blackmagic... i hope Blackmagic will understand that users like me, without Atomos products have a problem that could be solved. And everytime i want to offer Raw to my clients i have to say, it is only possible if you use Adobe Premiere ... which is a shame because i stopped using premiere years ago

And now there is the Panasonic S1 II camera, which is poised to wipe out Sony and Canon with it's advanced features and Ronin sensor with industry leading low light performance. It shoots ProRes RAW too.
BMD needs to get on this in a hurry, before it becomes a major stumbling block to adoption.

I wish Australian companies would grow up and stop bickering. I just watched Louis Rossman's video about how a company down there, BwE, is ripping off customers with ridiculous licensing terms. Makes me wonder if it's an Aussie thing...

I would not give credence to a person who suggests pirating a streaming channel just because they put advertisements in their subscriptions....

anyway the choice is between BMD (austrialia) and Apple (USA) not with other companies...

The ProresRaw licenses are from Apple, which were given to Atomos, to DJI, to Panasonic at their request to implement it in their cameras.

BMD decided not to implement ProresRaw on Davinci out of its own choices (they have a very close relationship with Apple), then whether it is so as not to favor companies that produce direct competing products like Atomos, is a series of assumptions, based on the fact that the competing company is founded by former BMD employees, among whom there has been a lawsuit for theft of technology etc...

BMD has collaborated on the introduction of Braw with many companies such as Canon, panasonic, Fuji, and many others, and soon on some high end Sony cameras, through its VideoAssist, and is obviously more interested in that than in providing a flexible and versatile codec directly in the camera as Apple has done, because Apple does not produce dedicated video hardware with which to compete.

The best choice is to ask for an additional codec, licensed separately, either from Blackmagic or from third parties such as MainConcepts for handling and decoding ProresRaw, although personally having seen the implementations in FinalCutProX and in Premiere/AE I don't have all that eagerness to have that kind of Raw versus other codecs.

And now there is the Panasonic S1 II camera, which is poised to wipe out Sony and Canon with it's advanced features and Ronin sensor with industry leading low light performance. It shoots ProRes RAW too.
BMD needs to get on this in a hurry, before it becomes a major stumbling block to adoption.

Or in Braw with video assist.
they just are in the right boat, you can choose two different raw for different workflow

Well, we had an official statement here on this forum from Captain Hook, that they had asked Apple for permission to create a BRAW importer for FCPX which got denied. So there must be something going on behind the scenes.

Which is kind of weird, since there is the BRAW Toolbox by Chris Hocking, which is even sold through the App Store.

Apple can't stop an app (if there is no legal reason against it), but can nicely ask BM not to do something

I don't think that attaching a big clunky monitor to a DSLR is a proper solution. It's bad enough you have to buy their XLR adapter to get 32-bit float audio, as the internal audio is said to be unusable. So there's no option to add anything else as the hot shoe is in use for the XLR adapter.

For me, the solution is to continue using Adobe Premiere for any projects involving RAW footage. Resolve for all the rest.

Apple and BMD should work it out. After all, their disagreement is only hurting their customer base.

Mr. Rossman campaigns for right to repair, not piracy. Ad blockers protect the PC user from ad malware. It's unfortunate, but many ads contain malware.