Prores Raw support

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

.

As far as I know, the beef is between BMD and Atomos, not Apple. The rejection of a braw plug-in is probably a contractual thing. Apple always uses a DVR when presenting new Apple PCs, and Apple asked BD to design a camera for their visor.

Ric

I thought that was the situation, until I learned that Panasonic's Lumix S1-II uses Prores RAW internally. They are not owned by Atomos. So that leaves the common factor as suspect: Apple.

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.

Screenshot 2025-06-01 alle 08.08.00.png (283.04 KiB) Viewed 1441 times

uhm... nah Mr Rossman use clickbait sentiment videos to grab views...
here you can see disney+ suggest to piracy and what everyone already knew about amazon's ebooks and all the other players, that you don't own them, but you have them on loan. and that they are not static products. from a quick scan of his channel it is obvious that he is a person who says what people want to hear. but after watching a few videos, nothing reliable.

anyway, i not have truth in my hands, but not think youtuber can be trustable than others sources

I've been watching his videos since his Macbook repair days and he became a right to repair advocate even back then. Apple would charge $1700 to fix a screen, when Louis found that a $50 part would fix it. Then Apple started linking parts by s/n so that an after market part would not work.
Next, came the John Deere tractors that can't be repaired in the field by the farmers, or local mechanics due to locked out proprietary hardware.
The BWE story is even more egregious. Through government database searches, Mr. Rossman revealed the true character of the owner.
As for Disney, Amazon, etc., their ToS require a lawyer to interpret and are dozens of pages long. No one of reasonable means is going to be capable of reading and understanding that the ToS is in direct conflict with the marketing implied claims. Disney is just plain evil now, what they do to children is unspeakable.
This is one of the reasons why I switched from Adobe to Black Magic Design and why I can empathize with people who pirate their software. That company is evil, greedy and underhanded. While I am not a big government advocate, that is one monopoly that needs to be broken up.

If you don't see a problem with that, then I doubt we can debate this further.

I've been watching his videos since his Macbook repair days and he became a right to repair advocate even back then. Apple would charge $1700 to fix a screen, when Louis found that a $50 part would fix it. Then Apple started linking parts by s/n so that an after market part would not work.
Next, came the John Deere tractors that can't be repaired in the field by the farmers, or local mechanics due to locked out proprietary hardware.
The BWE story is even more egregious. Through government database searches, Mr. Rossman revealed the true character of the owner.
As for Disney, Amazon, etc., their ToS require a lawyer to interpret and are dozens of pages long. No one of reasonable means is going to be capable of reading and understanding that the ToS is in direct conflict with the marketing implied claims. Disney is just plain evil now, what they do to children is unspeakable.
This is one of the reasons why I switched from Adobe to Black Magic Design and why I can empathize with people who pirate their software. That company is evil, greedy and underhanded. While I am not a big government advocate, that is one monopoly that needs to be broken up.

If you don't see a problem with that, then I doubt we can debate this further.

Mark, I fully agree with you that you should be able to fix things, that you should have more clarity, but you cannot demand justice by doing injustice (piracy), it is wrong as a concept.

Mr Rossman reveal nothing that are not so clear, just evidence the obvious, no one big farm work for us, only for profit.

about subscriptions, software etc, it's always the fault of the people who don't read, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an animator and video maker, but I always read the installation lines, and it's always there in the first lines the “as is” formula so you can't claim damages if there are problems, and the fact that it's a use license, not a possession license, even thirty years ago when you bought the software in a box with a disk or with a CD, which means that if the manufacturer ever decided to take it back or discontinue the license it was within his options, otherwise you had to stop the installation .
In my memories it happened only once, with Softimage XSI in 2014, by Autodesk, there were lawsuits, but the result was that everyone lost and had to uninstall it.
Nothing in the electronic case is possession but always temporary use license.
Maybe you never read, but even in the old VCR manuals there was the memo that said "instrument for deferred viewing, not for preservation of television recording, violating copyright laws."
On the back of almost every Dvd and BD in small print it says on the cover, or as the movie is about to start, that it is meant for private viewing, that it cannot be shared, lent, or shown to people outside the family.

I totally agree with you that it is wrong laws, but if we accept the rules, installing software or whatever, we have to accept the obligations.
Otherwise we avoid and create economic harm regardless with a strike of subscriptions or purchases

of course I have nothing against you, and I agree that big companies use us as pawns, I simply want to point out that I would not make such a character the Robin Hood of the situation, because suggesting methods that are not lawful, brings us to the same level as the companies that use these legal loopholes to manipulate and use people.

ps about restore Tools i suggest you ifixit website, where you can find not only solutions but also where to find or buy spare parts for repair.

Thank you for such a considerate comment, Carlo!

Often, if not always the case, we have to accept the terms (which are many pages long) without fully understanding them, or simply not use a computer at all.

I'm thankful for open source software like Blender for that reason. I know they're not going to 'shut off' the program a year or five from now.

I recently, reluctantly, bought TMPGenc Authoring Works 7, despite it's cloud based licensing system, because they promised me in e-mail exchanges, that the license will remain perpetual. My concern is that if something happened to the company, activation would eventually fail and I could not rely upon it. But it does what it does better than just about anything else under $60K, so I made the compromise.

I do appreciate your pure approach to ethics (being a reader of Ayn Rand since 1963, I know the uncompromising position well). But there are times when companies act so unethical, you just want to "hoist the jolly roger and start slitting throats" as the saying goes.

Adobe users are totally screwed. That company can continue to raise prices and hold hostage an entire body of work that creators invested in. Something fundamentally does not seem right about that.

There are over 3,000 posts mentioning ProRes RAW in these forums, and that's just from the ones who took the time to chime in. Not supporting it is a purely political decisions, from the very top, and a certain someone at Blackmagic just needs to accept that supporting ProRes RAW is what the customers want. We've all been raising the issue for years, but let's see how far we can get with a straight-up +1 "petition" here in their very own forums.

The flipside of that is to get Atomos to support ProRes RAW, which Jeromy already said he would, over a year ago -- but BMD hasn't taken him up on that yet, either (time stamp 18:16)

So, let's get it going… how many +1 can we get? How many of you want native ProRes RAW support in DaVinci Resolve? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Share this far and wide… let's break the forums with this request.

After having to deal with 12 TB of ProresRAW needing converting to something that will Resolve read, I say +1 +1 +1 +1+1 +1+1 +1+1 +1

+1 Yes its a must! I lost client cause of this.

Thanks

+1

There are over 3,000 posts mentioning ProRes RAW in these forums, and that's just from the ones who took the time to chime in. Not supporting it is a purely political decisions, from the very top, and a certain someone at Blackmagic just needs to accept that supporting ProRes RAW is what the customers want. We've all been raising the issue for years, but let's see how far we can get with a straight-up +1 "petition" here in their very own forums.

The flipside of that is to get Atomos to support ProRes RAW, which Jeromy already said he would, over a year ago -- but BMD hasn't taken him up on that yet, either (time stamp 18:16)

So, let's get it going… how many +1 can we get? How many of you want native ProRes RAW support in DaVinci Resolve? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Share this far and wide… let's break the forums with this request.

Its not politics its about business. Not wanting to give the competitor the advantage

Its not politics its about business. Not wanting to give the competitor the advantage

We can agree to disagree

From Apples ProRes RAW whitepaper:

As shown in the figure below, ProRes RAW plug-ins can be supported not
only in Final Cut Pro (and other Apple products in the future) but also
by the many third-party applications that have licensed the ProRes RAW
SDK, such as nonlinear editors (NLEs) and color correction applications.

Source

That you need to activate ProRes RAW on Atomos products in extra step, should tell you that Apple does not just give it away: https://support.atomos.com/hc/en-us/art ... -AtomOS-11

So to me it seems more likely that Apple does not want to license their SDK to BMD - for whatever reason they have.

What's interesting is that BMD has only recently implemented Prores 422 and HQ support in their NLE. So what's the holdup with RAW? If it's a licensing issue, why is there ANY Prores support at all?

I see an opportunity for 3rd party developers to build a Prores raw plugin for DR. BMD is only hurting sales and its customer base by avoiding this essential professional feature. It's like selling you a nice sports car, but without the wheels.

I see an opportunity for 3rd party developers to build a Prores raw plugin for DR.

If it were possible it would exist. Resolve does not have a file reader plugin api one can extend.

What's interesting is that BMD has only recently implemented Prores 422 and HQ support in their NLE.

DVR has been able to read ProRes forever. It was able to write ProRes on MacOS all the time, but not on Windows. It was also possible to write ProRes on Linux if you had a hardware panel.
DVR has also supported Cineform, DNxHD, DNxHR, XDCAM and other formats for a long time.

That DVR wasn't able to write ProRes until recently can be only explained by Apple playing games as not supporting that made absolutely no business sense for BMD.

What's interesting is that BMD has only recently implemented Prores 422 and HQ support in their NLE.

DVR has been able to read ProRes forever. It was able to write ProRes on MacOS all the time, but not on Windows. It was also possible to write ProRes on Linux if you had a hardware panel.
DVR has also supported Cineform, DNxHD, DNxHR, XDCAM and other formats for a long time.

That DVR wasn't able to write ProRes until recently can be only explained by Apple playing games as not supporting that made absolutely no business sense for BMD.

i can add to Robert's words the fact that Fusion had ability to export in Prores, but Resolve not do that for many years, fact that confirm that is not a Blackmagic Design choise, but Apple license strategy.
Fusion acquire this license when it was Eyeon software decades ago, i believe i had this option on fusion 8 from 1998 when i bought it.

I don't get the distinction between Prores and Prores RAW--why would one variant have this licensing problem and not the other?

I just picked up a Panasonic S1RII, which shoots Prores RAW, although I may return it because the audio (even with the XLR2) is terrible quality. The images look fantastic, and 10-bit is okay for most situations, but I would love to have access to that 12-bit RAW for the extra shadow and hilight information.

I don't get the distinction between Prores and Prores RAW--why would one variant have this licensing problem and not the other?

I just picked up a Panasonic S1RII, which shoots Prores RAW, although I may return it because the audio (even with the XLR2) is terrible quality. The images look fantastic, and 10-bit is okay for most situations, but I would love to have access to that 12-bit RAW for the extra shadow and hilight information.

Until recently compressed raw video recording was covered by a patent from Red, and anyone who wanted to use their raw as well had to manage licenses with Red. Since Red was acquired by Nikon it seems that these policies on have relaxed. But still not totally free the situation. Reason Blackmagic Design created a technically not raw, Arri records an uncompressed raw, and others could record the raw but only outside the cameras.

ProRes has been around for almost two decades and is a well-established standard, the ProRes raw and how it incorporates raw data in addition to being newer and having a number of variants per camera, seems to be somewhat limited as a use, because trying different applications that read it, the ability to access raw options is quite limited compared to other raw.

As you say, obviously having access to 12bit would be a big jump if only for the increased dynamic range options that you would have access to.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

I read a rumor that Panasonic might add BRAW to the LUMIX series. I can only hope it's using the full 12-14 bits of the sensor.
In the meantime, the Prores 422 looks pretty good and can be pushed further than the Prores 422 out of my Atomos Shogun Inferno, so that's a good thing.

ProRes has been around for almost two decades and is a well-established standard, the ProRes raw and how it incorporates raw data in addition to being newer and having a number of variants per camera, seems to be somewhat limited as a use, because trying different applications that read it, the ability to access raw options is quite limited compared to other raw.

Nothing is limited in ProResRAW and there are really no variants of it. It's a proper RAW format, which allows you to use built in debayering or your own one. You have access to all possible nice things in RAW data. Compression is simple, yet efficient enough and fast to decode. Size/quality is adjustable and these are key components.

Limited (different) are implementations on camera/recorder side and also software (decoding) side. No one wants to properly integrate ProResRAW recoding, same way as eg. BM does it for BRAW or Sony or Arri for their formats. Reason is that this is not a camera manufacture's tech, but 3rd party. There are always some shortcuts made (limited metadata etc.) as this recording is treated as extra option, not main one.
This is the problem not ProResRAW itself, wich is good format. SDK has all needed features exposed. It's way easier to implement ProRresRAW (once licensing fees are sorted) than BRAW which is not pure RAW format. Please note that BRAW is in some way "closed" format as you have no access to to RAW data and you have to relay on what BM provides, eg. quality of debayering, performance optimisations, etc. (similar to RED which is even worse as it's encrypted). Out of those 2, I would prefer ProResRAW to be universal format than BRAW as it's better suited for it.
From a technical point creation of universal RAW format is very easy, but from the political almost impossible as not everyone wants to use 3rd party solution in their cameras. On top of this we have RED patent which may now be less of an issue, depending how Nikon will behave.

ProRes has been around for almost two decades and is a well-established standard, the ProRes raw and how it incorporates raw data in addition to being newer and having a number of variants per camera, seems to be somewhat limited as a use, because trying different applications that read it, the ability to access raw options is quite limited compared to other raw.

Nothing is limited in ProResRAW and there are really no variants of it. It's a proper RAW format, which allows you to use built in debayering or your own one. You have access to all possible nice things in RAW data. Compression is simple, yet efficient enough and fast to decode. Size/quality is adjustable and these are key components.

Limited (different) are implementations on camera/recorder side and also software (decoding) side. No one wants to properly integrate ProResRAW recoding, same way as eg. BM does it for BRAW or Sony or Arri for their formats. Reason is that this is not a camera manufacture's tech, but 3rd party. There are always some shortcuts made (limited metadata etc.) as this recording is treated as extra option, not main one.
This is the problem not ProResRAW itself, wich is good format. SDK has all needed features exposed. It's way easier to implement ProRresRAW (once licensing fees are sorted) than BRAW which is not pure RAW format. Please note that BRAW is in some way "closed" format as you have no access to to RAW data and you have to relay on what BM provides, eg. quality of debayering, performance optimisations, etc. (similar to RED which is even worse as it's encrypted). Out of those 2, I would prefer ProResRAW to be universal format than BRAW as it's better suited for it.
From a technical point creation of universal RAW format is very easy, but from the political almost impossible as not everyone wants to use 3rd party solution in their cameras. On top of this we have RED patent which may now be less of an issue, depending how Nikon will behave.

I understand your point t of view, many years ago David Newman did that with cineformRaw, you could convert red raw and many others, also cdng in cf raw and manage it with active metadata’s, in the past I remember a cinerecorder with cfRaw from xxx camera, and SIk2 from German which record in cfRaw, sending a lan data directly to a computer (the millionaires movie docet) but in some point (may be go pro acquisition) we miss all.
I spent 1000 euros on this license, at that time was innovative, at today most of people seems to search a closed standard instead this kind of flexibility.

To my point of view is the same, I’m interest only to extract a beat from a shooting, if I use xxxraw or false raw from braw is not an important details.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

That you need to activate ProRes RAW on Atomos products in extra step, should tell you that Apple does not just give it away… So to me it seems more likely that Apple does not want to license their SDK to BMD - for whatever reason they have.

Definitely not the case. Yes it costs to license, that's not a problem. BMD could include it only in the studio version, or even charge an add-on fee. We'd pay for it. No one is asking for it for free.

What's interesting is that BMD has only recently implemented Prores 422 and HQ support in their NLE. So what's the holdup with RAW?

Recently? I've been using Resolve since 16… maybe 17? And it's been there at least since then.

I just picked up a Panasonic S1RII, which shoots Prores RAW, although I may return it because the audio (even with the XLR2) is terrible quality. The images look fantastic, and 10-bit is okay for most situations, but I would love to have access to that 12-bit RAW for the extra shadow and hilight information.

LUMIX guy here. If your S1RII even with the XLR2 is bad audio then something else is wrong. The Panasonic in-camera pre-amps are quite good, and the XLR2 is fantastic.

That you need to activate ProRes RAW on Atomos products in extra step, should tell you that Apple does not just give it away… So to me it seems more likely that Apple does not want to license their SDK to BMD - for whatever reason they have.

Definitely not the case. Yes it costs to license, that's not a problem. BMD could include it only in the studio version, or even charge an add-on fee. We'd pay for it. No one is asking for it for free.

You should re-read what I wrote.

Resolve isn’t a camera or recorder that would need prores raw encoding sdk license.

Resolve isn’t a camera or recorder that would need prores raw encoding sdk license.

But it needs a ProRes RAW decoding license. If that weren’t the case, Apple would just give access to their SDK like they do for xCode, Swift, iOS, MacOS.

LUMIX guy here. If your S1RII even with the XLR2 is bad audio then something else is wrong. The Panasonic in-camera pre-amps are quite good, and the XLR2 is fantastic.

Please see:

..for laboratory test results. I've been down this road in the past with Sony HVR-V1U. Ended up dumping the camera when someone showed me a good test result on the PMW-EX1 and so I got spoiled by the flat 20-20,000Hz digital audio on that camera. The LUMIX I have is worse than my analog reel to reel deck from the 1970s. It's such a shame. I'm looking into a Sony A7 series and trying to find out how they compare, but $2K more than the S1RII. I'm in communication with Panasonic's LUMIX division about this. I know the high rolloff in the headphones at 48KHz was firmware, because the 1.1 FW removes that low pass filter in 48KHz mode in the headphone out. But the high pass filtering remains. I heard it right away with music. Something's missing... yeah, the lower bass is very weak. Not the case with Sony RX10 Mk III that I used this microphone on before. It too is relatively flat to 20Hz. But 12 dB down for the LUMIX mic input is unacceptable. They have a non-defeatable wind filter in there.

So nobody cares, except those that have proresraw unsupported cameras, or lost jobs and money.
Maybe premiere is our savior.
Pity

I just want the perfect travel camera. My FS7 is too big and likely to attract Customs authorities' interest, so a small DSLR is my workaround for getting through Customs without a carnet. My RX10 Mk III did a fabulous job all around Japan in 2017. Footage looks great on a 31" 4K monitor, but I can see the noise in the shadows when projected on a large screen.

I thought an amplified microphone like the SMX-V30 from Azden would be my saviour, but alas, they lied about the specs. Even though I had it going into the relatively flat line input of the camera, the bass response was worse than that of my Tascam mic going into the crappy bass-starved mic input. I wish Rode made a version of the NT4 without the long tube, so it wouldn't be so unwieldy mounted to a DSLR.

At this point, I'm just looking for a compact mic preamp that has a line level output that can bypass the crappy mic preamp and has plug in power for the 3.5mm stereo phone jack.

As for Prores RAW, I'm either going to have to continue using Adobe, or just give up on it altogether. Maybe Panasonic will add BRAW to their firmware soon. And maybe they could remove that unnecessary bass rolloff on their mic preamps...