Are you ready to pay for Prores Raw?

Many people ask ask ask Now i want to ask you:
Are you ready to pay to have ProresRaw?

Most of brand like panasonic, sony, etc ask a payment for every major upgrade to allow record raw externally (sony), log (panasonic), and more...

Bmd give us tons of gems directly in camera, often firmware update give us newer cameras (think to braw realease).
My first question is : how much are you ready to pay to have it on your camera?

had proresraw mean cost to development, cost of firmware encoding, sensors profiling, and more.. and Apple fee.

question 2 : why you think is better to have prores raw over prores 444?

please don't answer be cause is raw, be cause mean you not know how and what you can extract from Prores raw which actually is poor implement on big software, and Apple not give us a ACR like arri, red, canon etc to develop raw data to other DI.
just to know:
Premiere and After (last update of yesterday) can read but you have access to change only to exposure...
FInalcut Pro X allow you to change exposure, wb and few others settings (and if you try to recover highlights you can see how poor is the exposure effects).
Filmlight had decent support of settings, but quality of decoding is environment related, if environment is not 32bit depht there is some bottleneck then is a waste of processing against direct prores
assimilate scratch had decent support, color elaboration
nuke had external dev plugin, not in the official apple list (see below).
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT200321#proresraw

the power of Raw is strong as is flexible the implementation of that codec in color and post softwares.
If you have a raw codec, but you cannot decode single parameters, is not so different than use a 4444 12 prores.
in my experience the same thing happened also in photo environment where some raw format are not so good developed and sometimes people think that camera is worst than other for bad decoding, and jpeg seems better than raw.
i'm curious to know what is the necessity of people behind the so frequent and strong needings to have prores raw against prores or braw.

Premiere supports it natively so clients will demand it as some of them just won't work with BRAW.

So yes I would even pay for support!

Premiere supports it natively so clients will demand it as some of them just won't work with BRAW.

So yes I would even pay for support!

Premiere support it from last three days...
only last update of Premiere, then you can change only exposure no more.

Do you have clients that work with x7s? with full license, be cause is additional license of camera.
Atomos can record it externally from a good number of cameras, but if you cannot develop, why use it?

I know and i understand that clients choose the new toy, it's a good args for who must do edit and post, but like if you reiceve Arriraw, Sonyraw, zraw, many other raw, you must do DI to edit correctly on premiere, may be possibile also with proresraw ( i miss to tell that i'm ACT premiere, i mainly use premiere on my work with Resolve, me too need to transcode and support many codecs, and in past i bought tons of external codecs to support work of clients).
thanks

Without WB adjustment ProresRaw is totally useless format. ProresRaw can only provide smaller file size than 12 bit ProRes444. I can live without Exposure adjustment in RAW because it is more flexible to adjust gain in linear gamma instead of Exposure in RAW tab. But in current state it is too limited format.

Same time i am not a big fan of BRAW as well. No control over sharpness on raw pixels level, softened image with halos around edges, strange compression artifacts, no original sensor color space. But it is fast and easy to edit.

DNG processed to ProRes444 gives the best quality, flexibility and compatibility, but it require some skills and some additional processing time.

Hi Carlo,

Ready to pay, as in ready to pay in an external recorder just for PRAW ? Or ready to buy a specific camera only because it has PRAW recording ? Or ready to pay the licensing fees that will markup the product ? In the last case I think yes people are ready to pay yeah.


It's a shame there's only Exposure slider on Premiere Pro for PRAW decoding . The benefit of ProRes RAW should be that one could change the debayering algorithm to increase sharpness "for free", but I'm not sure anyone will ever use it that way.

Same time i am not a big fan of BRAW as well. No control over sharpness on raw pixels level

Yes, but that would bring more processing time and slower decoding unfortunately. But it's defenitely a good idea we're looking into it for our BRAW Studio Adobe importer plugin for Blackmagic RAW.

in my experience the same thing happened also in photo environment where some raw format are not so good developed and sometimes people think that camera is worst than other for bad decoding, and jpeg seems better than raw

Interesting, got any example of that ? But if you mean that RAW files take more time to develop than JPEG so people get frustrated, sure

Concerning photography: if you take a look at mobile phones you sometimes get better jpegs because of the high efficient graphic processors. I was excited when I first got the option to shoot raw on my iPhone-just to find out that you get quiet poor sensor data from such a small sensor.
About ProRes Raw: I somehow already paid (Nikon to get the FW Update) if this is the question.
Now I hope that they don’t stop the development on both sides (Capture and postproduction).
I have no idea how far this can get. But every step that brings video raw to higher level for hobby or low budget projects is great.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

If look from the opposite side here are some pros:
- ProRes Raw is always RGB 444 12 bit and same time provide file size similar to 10 bit ProRes422.
- I didn't see any side by side tests compare to BRAW, but if ProResRAW will provide more "honest" DNG-like image without software moire/aliasing smoothing and will be free of compression artifacts and edge halos, it will be way better option for cameras that use OLPF filters and for cameras that shoot HD and require sharper codec. Broadcast TV cameras may widely adopt it. BM cameras may use it as well.
- If you shoot with native ISO and WB settings, it is possible to adjust Exposure and WB without RAW controls. Formally it is just a Gain in linear gamma and native camera color space. So native raw controls it is not a big deal. I recently share some WB tests here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=114403

Just my personal speculation - ProResRaw don't use WB, Exposure and other native RAW level controls in supported apps because some patents or strategy that only Apple knows. Apple may represent ProResRAW as some "special" format, but not as classic RAW format. Apple lawyers may state "Look, it is not real RAW because it have no RAW controls"

Without WB adjustment ProresRaw is totally useless format.

I haven't worked with ProresRaw in FCPX, but FCPX does have white balance adjustments under the color wheels. It's a slider, or you can type in numerical values. It works fine in regular ProRes so I assume it would work in ProresRaw as well.

See screen shot.

Screen Shot 2020-05-24 at 5.02.36 AM.png (698.65 KiB) Viewed 2259 times

Without WB adjustment ProresRaw is totally useless format.

I haven't worked with ProresRaw in FCPX, but FCPX does have white balance adjustments under the color wheels.

FCPX most likely just use poject color space and gamma to adjust WB. It works ok, but produce some shifts between colors compare to WB adjustment in linear gamma.
Anyway the most important thing is to keep untouched WB starting point in source video. See some WB tests here viewtopic.php?f=2&t=114403

FCPX most likely just use poject color space and gamma to adjust WB.

Yes, although according to this article (see the section on the workflow), you need to switch the color space to wide gamut/HDR (Rec 2020).

https://www.cinema5d.com/nikon-z-6-and- ... irst-look/

Text copied below for convenience:

Before importing any footage, you must open a new Library and change the Color Processing setting. To do this, select the Library, and then click “Modify” in the Inspector window. In the Color Processing Setting dialogue box, click the “Wide Gamut HDR” setting. After importing, the footage will still look as if it is overexposed, with blown-out highlights.

So, to convert the footage to a log profile, you must select a clip — either in the browser window or on the timeline — and, in the Inspector window, click on the Information tab, go to the “RAW to Log Conversion” drop-down menu and select “Sony S-Log3/S-Gamut3.Cine”. This will make the footage look flat, just like a regular Log footage. (When we edited this Apple had yet to put the Nikon RAW conversions into Final Cut Pro X, but this is expected shortly), but until then, we had to come up with our own method and as we are assuming that Nikon is using a Sony sensor, we choose the Sony preset).

We could’ve graded the footage from here, but we decided to add a LUT to it to get it to the Rec.709 color space and grade it from there. For this we used the Sony Venice Looks LUTs created by Alister Chapman (you can check them out by clicking here). These LUTs are specifically designed to be used with S-Log3 and SGamut3.cine.

To apply these LUTs, go to the “Camera LUT” menu in the Inspector window of your clip and select the Venice Look LUT of your choice. Different lighting conditions in the footage require different LUT settings, so in this step, I used the one that best represented the exposure values of each clip. You can then copy/paste the LUT settings to clips with similar lighting conditions to streamline the process. After this, we just made additional adjustments to the footage using the FCPX color correction tools”.

Sure, wide color space may help, but linear gamma is way more important. If you apply WB in Rec709 or in Log gamma to light grey patch it shift color tint in dark grey patch. But if you adjust WB in Linear gamma, it provide equal color tint in both light and dark grey patches.
Some additional WB tests:

Hi Carlo,

Ready to pay, as in ready to pay in an external recorder just for PRAW ? Or ready to buy a specific camera only because it has PRAW recording ? Or ready to pay the licensing fees that will markup the product ? In the last case I think yes people are ready to pay yeah.

in my experience the same thing happened also in photo environment where some raw format are not so good developed and sometimes people think that camera is worst than other for bad decoding, and jpeg seems better than raw

Interesting, got any example of that ? But if you mean that RAW files take more time to develop than JPEG so people get frustrated, sure

Fuji had their X-trans sensor, and the difference between develop it with photoshop, captureOne, Iridiens x-transformer (develop raw and transport in Dng container) show different result.

In every situation i reset sharpness on raw dev, 100% of crop, but you can see a real different result from the same raw picture converted.

sample 1 dng converter adobe // camera raw adobe same result (camera raw i must reset sharpness and denoise)
sample 2 original raf in capture one
sample 3 dng from raf converted from iridiens x-transformer.

note that is impossible to add sharpness from adobe decoding be cause it cause a strange artifact called "dead worms", seems like you add a dead worm on picture

sample 1 dng converter.jpeg (650.49 KiB) Viewed 2232 times

sample 2 raf to capture one.jpeg (629.95 KiB) Viewed 2232 times

sample 3 raf to dng with iridiens.jpeg (800.37 KiB) Viewed 2232 times

i remember other photos where structure and texture of hand are completely missed, and with xtransformer are completely recovered.

Please don't think i'm sharpness maniac, i often do glamour and beauty shooting, and a turtle's skin on a femal model is torture not a plus, need later a lots of work of frequency separation and more post.
But a gently good texture skin is a pleasure to see on a beautiful face to avoid plastic apparence on many photos.

I hope that later will have more debayering algorithms on braw, pRaw and more, i remember the difference on cineform, where i had 5 different algorithms to optimize (on decoding) performance and quality, smoothing or sharpness and it was very useful to manage different work (performance on edit, quality on export).