Support for ProRes Raw

Besides the fact, that a widely accepted professional grading (and now NLE) tool should accept ALL formats for seamless work pipelines, here's another question, that has been discussed very often.

I'm wondering, why all the camera manufacturers tend to use Prores RAW instead of supporting BRAW. For them it would be good to have a wide support of codecs and RAWs. This somehow seems to be a limitation from BMD.
But on the other hand, Nikon' Z will support BRAW. Why not Sony's a7s III, for example. Sony's limitation at last? Or does BMD not consider Nikon a competitor such as Sony, Canon, Z-Cam and others?

I'm not into all the technical and marketing strategical details. Any insights on that messed up limitation-licencing-it's-not-our-fault-thing?

I'm not changing my whole camera and lens park. I'd rather switch NLEs. Let's see what 17 brings...

BRAW needs details from camera manufacture about sensor calibration, etc which not all companies want to share.
ProRes RAW is just RAW with quite often very limited metadata, so this is why you sometimes have very "difficult" grading starting point. Due to way how BRAW is designed it needs "full" implementation, rather than simple one (which ProResRAW can do).

Sadly no news about ProRes RAW still...

there are the answers and i hope the whining has an end soon!

http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/jour ... Watson.pdf

Not sure why people keep dredging this up.

ProRes RAW is developed by Apple. It can be implemented by anyone.

The question here is not about ProRes RAW encoding. That's a separate discussion.

This is about ProRes RAW decoding inside Resolve, just like how Resolve can ingest other RAW sources... such as Cinema DNG, ARRI Raw and RED RAW.

Hey Mark, a bit off-topic: this seems to be 10 years ago.
On the other side, companies like Apple and Samsung are going to court for certain matters and still cooperate (at least I think that Apple is buying displays from Samsung) as long as they profit somehow.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

must be a business reason to it.
some are user centered some are not.
bmd obviously is business centered.
or maybe it is just because atomos is supporting it

Avid has 100% jumped into the ProRes Raw bed. https://www.redsharknews.com/avid-media ... aw-support

Personally I have no idea why BMD does not support ProRes raw or what their internal discussions look like. I am concerned that this reinforces Davinci Resolve as the "color correction" program in the industry and not the all-in-one program they are trying to build out.

Add my voice to those that would like to see ProRes Raw support included. Mostly because I don't want to feel like I made the wrong decision learning a program that excludes a feature that pretty much every other major program out there is now supporting.

i guess they are the last soft standing not handling prr... that's a choice.
can't say it's good

but to me bmd has made terrible choices in the last year, ursa 12k, no prr support. nothing fancy between the ursa 12k and the pocket 6k.

Why Is BMD faulted for the lack of prr support.? This is totally baseless. BMD has never said that they will not support nor have they said they will. There can be many reasons behind the silence.

Ricardo Marty

Why Is BMD faulted for the lack of prr support.?

In part because there is growing evidence that every other major editing and effects software is supporting ProRes Raw. Also you can get ProRes Raw out of Sony cameras, Nikon cameras, Canon cameras, Fuji cameras, Panasonic cameras, Sigma cameras, and Z Cam cameras ( https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211277 ). Additionally adding Atoms external monitor support extends that to other cameras listed above.

This is totally baseless.

See above answer.

BMD has never said that they will not support nor have they said they will. There can be many reasons behind the silence.

I agree with that, there can be many reasons. However individuals and companies that use Davinci Resolve are facing clients who are using ProRes Raw and are being educated by other vendors that Resolve IS NOT the editor to go to when using ProRes Raw. This impacts every single user of Davinci Resolve and that impact is increased when those individuals are Davinci Resolve only shops.

This puts the pressure on companies like mine who in the last week got two calls from newish clients asking if I could handle both editing and color for their ProRes Raw workflow. My choices do exist...but are limited and involves either far too many extra steps in the process, bringing in another suite of editing software, or even possibly having to hire another person to manage ProRes Raw workflow.

Davinci Resolve is a tool and a tool is only as good as the task it can accomplish. I will not go out of business if I cannot do ProRes Raw in a single workflow stream...but I will look to get the best value for my limited dollars.

Blackmagic Design knows and, I am sure, understands all of these points. I am positive they have a roadmap to ProRes Raw...even if that roadmap leads to a dead end. I just wish they would allow their users to see where they are going with this issue. So all of us can make decisions.

Why Is BMD faulted for the lack of prr support.?

In part because there is growing evidence that every other major editing and effects software is supporting ProRes Raw. Also you can get ProRes Raw out of Sony cameras, Nikon cameras, Canon cameras, Fuji cameras, Panasonic cameras, Sigma cameras, and Z Cam cameras ( https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211277 ). Additionally adding Atoms external monitor support extends that to other cameras listed above.

This is totally baseless.

See above answer.

BMD has never said that they will not support nor have they said they will. There can be many reasons behind the silence.

I agree with that, there can be many reasons. However individuals and companies that use Davinci Resolve are facing clients who are using ProRes Raw and are being educated by other vendors that Resolve IS NOT the editor to go to when using ProRes Raw. This impacts every single user of Davinci Resolve and that impact is increased when those individuals are Davinci Resolve only shops.

This puts the pressure on companies like mine who in the last week got two calls from newish clients asking if I could handle both editing and color for their ProRes Raw workflow. My choices do exist...but are limited and involves either far too many extra steps in the process, bringing in another suite of editing software, or even possibly having to hire another person to manage ProRes Raw workflow.

Davinci Resolve is a tool and a tool is only as good as the task it can accomplish. I will not go out of business if I cannot do ProRes Raw in a single workflow stream...but I will look to get the best value for my limited dollars.

Blackmagic Design knows and, I am sure, understands all of these points. I am positive they have a roadmap to ProRes Raw...even if that roadmap leads to a dead end. I just wish they would allow their users to see where they are going with this issue. So all of us can make decisions.

With everything, said the claims that BMD won't support ppr is still baseless. Why won't apple support Braw? BMD has provided a free sdk.


Ricardo Marty

Sorry, but working with other companies to provide support for BRAW over HDMI to record using BM device is something totally different than giving BRAW code (at no fees), so camera manufacture can implement internal recording.
These 2 things are actually day and night.

You're right, they are two wholly separate things. What's your point? BMD has been working with camera manufacturers to get their cameras supported with braw recording, and at the same time offering its SDK without any license fees for those who want to add support for it to their software. There's no contradiction here.

Have your developers actually made a product with licensed ProRes or just repeat internet 'myths' like 99% of other forums? If they know Apple is charging then give us a rough figure which they've been quoted.

Near as I can tell, there's no license fee for ProRes support, at least not at the decoding stage. There is however a license, and the terms of that license apparently depend quite heavily on the company's relationship with Apple.

I'm still hoping that Resolve will get ProResRaw support, and I have a feeling that it will happen sooner or later. But that might just be optimism.

If BM wanted to use it in their cameras then yes- it would require paying fees.
Adding ProRes RAW decoder to Resolve costs nothing (except development) and this is purely strategic/business decision. Having ProResRAW support weakens somehow BRAW format, not having it may be bad for Resolve as well.

I don't see how reading ProResRaw would weaken Braw, since every BMD camera made since the introduction of braw will almost certainly record in braw as an option. Adding ProResRaw support won't change that.

BMD supports Red, Sony, and Arri raw as well. Has it diluted its own camera market?

Hardly.

The real issue I'm guessing is that Resolve competes with FCPX, and more people using Resolve instead of FCPX means a smaller captive audience.

None of your mentioned camera manufacturers has RAW format which they try to make as universal. This is the key difference. Another point is that Resolve was a grading suite and its owner had nothing to do with camera manufacturing. BM changed that by releasing own cameras. This doesn't mean Resolve can/should stop supporting other cameras- not the way to go.
Apple is not camera manufacture, but wants ProResRAW to have wide support. BM may want exactly the same for BRAW, so this is direct clash.
The more popular ProResRAW is the less need to support BRAW from different camera manufactures (as 1 universal format is enough). Once ProResRAW is supported by Resolve then there is even bigger demand for it (as many people use Resolve), which directly weakens need for BRAW (not just BRAW in BM cameras- this is not the problem here).
BM needs to answer simple question- keep BRAW as their own format only or try to compete with ProResRAW and try to make BRAW universal RAW. Due to fact how BRAW works, I would give up with trying to push it as universal RAW format (some camera manufactures may never support it). ProResRaw is on the winning position atm. Add good support for ProResRAW and get even wider Resolve audience. You can't have everything.

Once ProResRAW is supported by Resolve then there is even bigger demand for it (as many people use Resolve), which directly weakens need for BRAW (not just BRAW in BM cameras- this is not the problem here).

What business is Black Magic using braw in other cameras for? The only device BMD sells that would benefit from wider support for Braw is the Video Assist recorders, which sell anyway because they're good enough on their own that their ability to record Braw is largely a fringe benefit (a nice one, but still).

BM needs to answer simple question- keep BRAW as their own format only or try to compete with ProResRAW and try to make BRAW universal RAW. Due to fact how BRAW works, I would give up with trying to push it as universal RAW format (some camera manufactures may never support it). ProResRaw is on the winning position atm. Add good support for ProResRAW and get even wider Resolve audience. You can't have everything.

The only downside to ProResRaw is actually Apple, and its history of using proprietary software (Shake, QuickTime for Windows) to chain people to its platform to enforce loyalty. While it might not do that again under its current leadership, look at OpenCL -> Metal... OpenCL was Apple's own creation, yet it ditched that in favor of an Apple-only library.

As long as BMD keeps making such nice cameras at such ridiculous price points, BRaw will be important enough that no one else in their right mind would want to keep it out of their post software. Especially as BMD cameras become more prominent in Netflix type productions, which is inevitable in light of Black Magic having the least expensive 120fps 4K camera available that can record in raw and the only one that can do so without a sensor crop.

There's nothing anyone can do to nerf Braw outside of Black Magic. I don't think that we need to worry about that.

It's BMD who doesn't seem to support it because reasons.

Reasons: Apple. It's the same reason that Resolve isn't able to export ProRes in Windows... not BMD's decision, because it's a licensing issue, not a technical one.

There is about 0 problems getting any of ProRes license from Apple. It’s free and your cost is agreeing to their licensing terms plus your programmers time to implement it. Times has changed and Apple is not so picky anymore.
Look at the market. Everyone who wanted to implement ProRes (normal or RAW) has already done it. This includes 1 man companies and big ones like Adobe ( also companies from every corner of post: capture, editing, finishing etc. ).
I know company which done it and all what you need is willingness and singing licensing terms.
It has nothing to do with Apple. If you happy with their terms they are happy to spread ProRes support. They may refuse to give it for free software I assume.

What business is Black Magic using braw in other cameras for? The only device BMD sells that would benefit from wider support for Braw is the Video Assist recorders, which sell anyway because they're good enough on their own that their ability to record Braw is largely a fringe benefit (a nice one, but still).

This is question to BM, but simple answers is: to make money? BRAW in their own cameras is safe as any other RAW format.
If they don’t want to promote BRAW as universal format then what was the point releasing Video Assist with BRAW support? You can’t just plug-in camera and it’s recording like with other formats.
In the same time if there are really no plans for BRAW to be universal RAW format ( which is very clear case for ProResRAW) then not supporting ProResRAW in Resolve will be down to ‘personal’ issues with Atomos guys as there is simply no other reason. Users need it, user want it, SDK is there and BM is easily capable of making it happen.

What business is Black Magic using braw in other cameras for? The only device BMD sells that would benefit from wider support for Braw is the Video Assist recorders, which sell anyway because they're good enough on their own that their ability to record Braw is largely a fringe benefit (a nice one, but still).

This is question to BM, but simple answers is: to make money? BRAW in their own cameras is safe as any other RAW format.
If they don’t want to promote BRAW as universal format then what was the point releasing Video Assist with BRAW support? You can’t just plug-in camera and it’s recording like with other formats.
In the same time if there are really no plans for BRAW to be universal RAW format ( which is very clear case for ProResRAW) then not supporting ProResRAW in Resolve will be down to ‘personal’ issues with Atomos guys as there is simply no other reason. Users need it, user want it, SDK is there and BM is easily capable of making it happen.

Some users, want it and need it. Im am sure that some FCPX users want and need Braw. So why doesn't Apple give it to them? Im sure many want the arri and red code in their cameras, why aren't they available to other cameras. Braw is available for all there is an sdk. But it's up to them to implement. It's probably a business decision for all the companies. It's the way that business works.

Ricardo Marty

I am just wondering if anywhere on the forum has BMD ever replied to this question?

What business is Black Magic using braw in other cameras for? The only device BMD sells that would benefit from wider support for Braw is the Video Assist recorders, which sell anyway because they're good enough on their own that their ability to record Braw is largely a fringe benefit (a nice one, but still).

This is question to BM, but simple answers is: to make money? BRAW in their own cameras is safe as any other RAW format.
If they don’t want to promote BRAW as universal format then what was the point releasing Video Assist with BRAW support? You can’t just plug-in camera and it’s recording like with other formats.
In the same time if there are really no plans for BRAW to be universal RAW format ( which is very clear case for ProResRAW) then not supporting ProResRAW in Resolve will be down to ‘personal’ issues with Atomos guys as there is simply no other reason. Users need it, user want it, SDK is there and BM is easily capable of making it happen.

Some users, want it and need it. Im am sure that some FCPX users want and need Braw. So why doesn't Apple give it to them? Im sure many want the arri and red code in their cameras, why aren't they available to other cameras. Braw is available for all there is an sdk. But it's up to them to implement. It's probably a business decision for all the companies. It's the way that business works.

Ricardo Marty

Old REDCODE based on Jpeg2000 is too much resource intensive. ProResRAW or BRAW are better alternatives.
Arri has 'nothing'. It's plain uncompressed RAW. Everyone has this.

Why Apple doesn't want to add BRAW to FCPX? Maybe because it sees it as direct competition for RAW universal format.

I am just wondering if anywhere on the forum has BMD ever replied to this question?

No, because companies don't comment such a things on forums.

I am just wondering if anywhere on the forum has BMD ever replied to this question?

No, because companies don't comment such a things on forums.

Well that's not true, many companies will post things on their forum boards when the customer base seems to be supporting it. Even if it's something as simple as "we hear you".

+1 request for this feature pelase.

My company is embracing a fully 12-bit workflow and we would love Resolve to be part of it.

If we can't have ProRes RAW, we'll build the pipeline around Premiere.

I am just wondering if anywhere on the forum has BMD ever replied to this question?

No, because companies don't comment such a things on forums.

Well that's not true, many companies will post things on their forum boards when the customer base seems to be supporting it. Even if it's something as simple as "we hear you".

BM reads it, they do hear you.

I'd just like to be able to use the features my gear provides.

I bought a Ninja V to record ProRes 422 out of my GH5 for easier workflow. 6 months later and I've sold the GH5 and I have a Sony A7siii, which can record ProRes Raw on the Ninja V.

I love Resolve, but if I can't use ProRes Raw then I'll have to investigate other software.

Resolve keeps BlackMagic Design in my mind space. I'm not invested in BMD, but I have an ATEM Mini, and I paid for Resolve. I check in on the BMD website on a regular basis to look for updates to Resolve and any new products that I might like.

If I have to switch to FCP or something else, I'll probably not check in on the BMD website nearly as often, if at all.

As a software customer, I'm going to buy and use what makes sense for my workflow. If BMD is using Resolve as a "lure" or entry point into their ecosystem, then they can't lose people like me, or worse yet, never attract people like me in the first place.

Why Apple doesn't want to add BRAW to FCPX? Maybe because it sees it as direct competition for RAW universal format.

Apple can be protective of their own - but if it is not "core" usually I find them "reasonably" open towards other standards.

If BRAW gets "big enough" they might support it would be my guess. But right now everywhere the talk is about ProRes RAW and not BRAW - at least in my circles.

BRAW does not get bigger by people being forced to use it. That creates resentment. Usage have to be "teased" over - so BRAW would grow fast if it offered was readily available in lots of capture products. So BM's focus should be on helping the camera manufactures implement - like maybe help implement "In-Camera BRAW" capture vs. requiring external recorders. But again it depends where the focus is from BM. And which RAW product is "most battery/CPU" efficient to implement?

Those formats are similar and performance should be similar as well assuming SDK is well written.

Sound like a good idea. What profile do you use to encode to ProRes 4444. The settings to transcode the ProRes Rawrecorded by the Ninja V (from an Sony A7SIII seems to) seem to shift the luma levels. Could you tell me what settings you use for your transcodes in Compressor , specifically under these:
-Color Space
-Raw to log
-Camera LUT

Thanks!!!

I'm sure this has been discussed here, but there is a very simple work-around for running ProRes RAW in Resolve. When I first heard about it I thought it was too much hassle, and might not work well anyway, so I continued with FCPX for ProRes RAW. So the work-around is to transcode ProRes RAW to ProRes 4444. ProRes RAW is 12 bits, and ProRes 4444 is 12 image bits, so it is a good fit, and it runs well in Resolve. The simple and painless way to do this is to import all the clips into Compressor and bulk export them to ProRes 4444.

I've been shooting ProRes RAW since it first came out. I do mostly HDR, and get very good results with ProRes RAW and Resolve. Coincidently just ordered the Panasonic S1H and was happy to see it will have ProRes RAW via the Atomos NinjaV. I know how to handle this.

So what are we supposed to tell clients who want to use ProRes RAW?

To Grant and the rest of the Blackmagic Design team, I congratulate you on the continued success of Davinci Resolve. 17 is showing great potential and the new features are welcomed and appreciated. So I write to you today as a big fan of Resolve and at the moment it is still my color grading tool of choice. However, there is one glaring omission and that is support of ProRes RAW. I understand that there may be complicated circumstances that have affected the inclusion of this codec but I have to tell you, it’s your customers and end users who are suffering from whatever decision making has gone into this omission.

For example, I personally use a Panasonic EVA1 sometimes and I primarily edit in FCPX these days after 25 years of primarily editing on Avid. Apple’s recent update to allow access to metadata controls such as white balance, tint, and ISO have made ProRes RAW much closer to the experience I have had with RED since 2008. So my editorial workflow is great. But, the next stage is not so great. How to get into Resolve and maintain the flexibility of PRR that I have in FCPX?

To not support ProRes RAW in Resolve breaks the workflow the second I want to get my edit from FCPX to Resolve. And that should not be the case, especially since any other flavor of ProRes is fully supported. With the introduction of BRAW it’s hard not to see this as intentional and purposeful. That’s unfortunate, especially considering that BRAW is not supported in FCPX so either way the workflow gets broken.

Limiting people’s choices on how they shoot or how they edit is the wrong approach in my opinion. I understand not offering it on your own cameras but to prevent a codec from being used in what has now become an all-in-one post tool is a disappointing decision. What is the justification here? Why has this topic been ignored when brought up in the past? Is Blackmagic taking Resolve into a more proprietary direction? I think it’s time this is addressed as I don’t see ProRes RAW disappearing tomorrow. If there is a legitimate reason why you have not been able to implement it, let your customers know. I know I am not alone in my frustration with this omission in your codec support. So, please address it now before more complaints start to surface. Resolve was first and foremost a color tool that also has reasonably strong conform capabilities. If you want more people to take advantage of all if the other capabilities don’t limit them by protecting your own codecs (if that’s what this is about).

I hope others will jump on board here and make this message loud and clear. It shouldn’t take Arri adopting ProRes RAW (if that’s what they decide to do) to get BMD to move on this. It should be done in the interest of their user base. So, please take action to get this done. I’ve had the privilege to work on a number of big movies with companies like Fotokem and Lightiron and workflow efficiencies are critically important. Making it easier to move footage from acquisition to finishing should always be the ultimate goal.

Agree with this 100%.

Thanks Scott! Hopefully I have articulated this as respectfully as I can while also being emphatic about how important it is. When FCPX, Avid, Adobe, Assimilate Scratch and others have implemented support and BMD has not it’s hard to not jump to any conclusions. Again, regardless of what is happening behind the scenes on this omission, it’s us the end users losing out. It’s us, the colorists, who can’t access the files as recorded and must jump through hoops to get something decent but compromised instead of the original files.

What makes you think this is a BMD decision and not an Apple decision?

There's been no reports of Apple withholding ProRes RAW from any major developer that I could find. On the contrary there's been reports that the only requirement is that you fulfill all of Apple's specs.

What makes you think this is a BMD decision and not an Apple decision?

Here’s why. I have not seen BMD say publicly that Apple is withholding ProRes RAW from them. If it were the case, and they stated that then there would be a lot of noise about it and I believe a lot of pressure on Apple.

Now, what I do know is that there have been these supposed animosity between Atomos and BMD and if there’s any truth that the lack of support has to do with egos and a battle of the codecs and their implementation then that will be very frustrating and leave a bad taste in our mouths. Eventually someone is going to talk and I’m sure we’ll learn more about this which is why I’m asking BMD to put aside whatever history has happened and find a way to get this done. I’m surprised none of the trades have done a thorough story on this and I’ve thought about doing one if this isn’t sorted out in the near future. There are a lot of things that just don’t add up. I’d rather BMD just come out with a statement stating why they can’t support it at this time.

Without comment I agree 100% with the initial posting.

I totally agree with ProRes RAW

Whether this comes down to Apple or Blackmagic, as a user who uses the Panasonic EVA1, I would greatly appreciate seeing ProRes RAW getting added to the list of compatible video codecs in Davinci Resolve. At one point I considered purchasing the BM 12G SDI video assist but doubt I will end up doing this because of the poor reviews I have read online. Please add ProRes RAW to Davinci Resolve. Thanks!

Hey Blackmagic! Feel like giving everyone a nice big ProRes RAW Christmas present?

I fully agree with the initial post. As a cinematographer who colour grades a lot of my own work I love working within Davinci Resolve for colour grading my projects and am excited about the new colour tools in v17. I too have had to do some clunky workarounds to make shooting in ProRes Raw viable. And I’m sure I’m not maximizing the quality that I should be able to extract from the camera original Pro Res Raw files.

I sincerely hope that some progress can be made in adding Pro Res Raw capabilities to Davinci Resolve.

"ProRes RAW needs to be supported ASAP"

BRAW needs to be supported ASAP in FCPX.

The EVA1 needs to support BRAW, eh... it does.

It's just a commercial battle between many companies, competition brings innovation, when Apple own's the whole world(they are working on it succesfully) there will be no competiton, innovation and reasonable prices.

Sometimes is better, not to have 1 standard. Mulltiple standards that can be conversed in eachother with minimal quality loss keeps innovation alive.

Free bear for everyone.

I like your perspective, Misha.

Even though I’ve never had a need for ProRes Raw yet, I fully agree with this. If there is a technical or licensing reason why Resolve continues to not support it, BMD really should explain to their users why that is, even if it’s in the most non-specific way possible.

Even a lame “we understand that users want ProRes RAW support, and we would like them to be able to use it in Resolve. However for various technical and/or licensing reasons it has been difficult for us to do so” would suffice.

The silence from BMD regarding this is deafening.

I just spent over $600 for a license for Assimilate Scratch. In my experience it’s the best tool since I can make adjustments and still batch transcode. I would have gladly given that money to Blackmagic for ProRes RAW support.

I also hold the theory that Blackmagic just wants to give Atomos the middle finger. If this is true, it’s really petty (see what I did there?).

....
I also hold the theory that Blackmagic just wants to give Atomos the middle finger. If this is true, it’s really petty (see what I did there?).

what I have been saying for a long time and being laughed at for it

So Premiere, Edius, Avid, Assimilate...and so on all can support ProRes Raw but we're supposed to believe that there are licensing or tech reasons behind Resolve not supporting it? Please, just stop it. Although this has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=98760&hilit=ProRes+Raw I'll repeat what others have already said (Andrew Kolakowski in that previous thread): there is no licensing or technology reason for Resolve not supporting ProRes Raw. It's a strategic decision on BM's part in order to promote BRAW. If they're doing it to screw Atomos, that's just petty. This won't change until BM decides that this no longer makes any sense (not that it did in the first place).

And yes, it would be nice if Resolve supported ProRes Raw and FCPX supported BRAW, and then users can decide which is best for their workflows or particular projects. Neither Apple or BM should be making that decision.

I don't want ProRes. I want BRAW to deprecate it. But to do that, BRAW needs to add support to Video Assist for Lumix S1H, and other cameras, even thought some other cameras compete with BMD cameras.

ZRAW needs to be supported ASAP.