Support for ProRes Raw

I think that's the reason v17 will now accept third party encoder plugins. What remains is for someone to a-get a ProRes license, and b-port prores as a plugin to Resolve

That won't help the topic of this thread though, ProRes RAW decoding.

That won't help the topic of this thread though, ProRes RAW decoding.

Exactly and BMD only provides an Encoder API but is still missing one for Decoding...

+1. Again.

Even at big facility level it is starting to be painful....

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

Easy, I would comply do it in prores raw and rent premiere cc or whatever for the time I need it.


Ricardo Marty

I think its interesting (and also a little alarming) that from comments above, big studios and production houses which have fully invested in Resolve workflows and editing stations, are now looking at Premier or other NLEs due to the lack of ProResRAW support. Anybody with a newish camera - can now record in it - why wouldn't you..?

If BM don't add ProResRAW soon to Resolve, all the amazing market penetration they have done via making Resolve free and all the amazing improvements over the very short time, in uprooting people from Premier, FCPX etc (including me) - could very quickly unravel and make them again a small player...why would l limit myself to recording in ProRes/ h264 / h265 just to use Resolve when I could be editing raw footage...

BRAW is great and i enjoy recording and editing with it - but ProResRAW has massive momentum - i think there is even a market out there for paid upgrades for the BMPCC4K,6K and 12k to support recording in ProResRAW too.

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?).

Then Blackmagic simply needs to support more cameras than Atomos.

I don't want ProRes. I want BRAW to deprecate it.

Yup, yup.

Resolve is excellent!

I'd like to add my vote for PreRes Raw. I have a camera that uses that format, but no software to accommodate finishing.

I don't really want to go back to Avid, so please figure a way to add this feature.

Thanks!

Thank you to all who have contributed to the discussion.

I still think there may be some confusion though. There have been some points made about cameras and what they should support for acquisition formats, and although that's certainly a valid discussion as well, this is really about one issue for me and that is ProRes RAW support in Resolve, an application that started out really as a color corrector and has grown into an all-in-one solution.

If we break this down to its most simplest form, pretend for a moment that you are a colorist and that's all that you do. You are not trying to be a jack of all trades, you simply want to take in a project from a client, use the highest quality source material that you can to give you the best starting point for your grades and you can really care less about whether a camera records on one format or another. If it was shot in RAW, provide the RAW. Yet, in the case of ProRes RAW when the client goes to hand off the project to the colorist they want to work with and finds out that ProRes RAW is not supported in Resolve (the tool this particular colorist uses) that leaves everyone wondering what the heck is going on? Why would this format, which is not some obscure codec not be supported in one of the most popular color grading tools? If the colorist and the clients research and find out that it may have to do with a personal feud between Blackmagic Design and Atomos, that doesn't leave anyone feeling good about the situation. Especially when the colorist finds out that their colleagues using Scratch do have full support of it.

I just think it sets a bad precedent when you start to ignore the needs of endusers/customers and I'm sorry to be blunt here but this situation reeks of an intentional lack of transparency. I had a similar beef when Adobe tried to hide the Dolby licensing debacle and started to remove old installers without being transparent about what was really going on. Myself and others had to press them for answers on what was happening. These types of things leave bad taste in mouth, especially with professionals who need to rely on them for their income.

I have no problem with BRAW. And if that's the only format BMD wants to include on their cameras, have at it. But when it comes to a post tool that is dealing with a wide spectrum of camera formats/codecs I think a line has to be drawn where your needs from the hardware side don't interfere with your customer's needs on the software side.

For me, the reasons for BMD are different. We have to go back to the BRAW project where we’re just starting to understand how and why this codec was designed.
The BRAW concept was born in the secret of the development of the new 12K no-bayer sensor. Then BRAW was adapted to work on all BM cameras.
To do this, it was necessary to implement the Bayer signal processing of the sensor in the camera, and then be treated post as if it came from the new 12k sensor.
In this the BMD project is huge and very consistent:
1 - Develop a proprietary RAW format, BRAW, for a camera with an exceptional sensor no-Bayer 4k-6K-8K-12k.
2 - Adapt BRAW format to BMD cameras
3 - Adapt the BRAW format to all other cameras - often DSLR hybrid - able to output a RAW signal, in BMD ASSIST 12G recorders

Da Vinci Resolve can already natively process raw formats ARRI, RED, CANON, SONY, PANASONIC varicam.

At the professional level, on 99% of cinema and television productions, DA VINCI is OK.

They still have to implement PRORES RAW in Resolve. This represents a small part of the global market. Important yes, but small.
How many Hollywood, Netflix productions are made with an S1H, an S5, an A7SIII, a Sony FS5?
Is there an emergency?
For all BMD camera owners, Resolve Studio is free.
Everything happens, who knows how to wait. We have to give BMD time to do things by their priorities.
For the moment, implementing PRORES RAW in Da Vinci is not one of them.
Gilbert from France (Lyon)

ProResRAW is not really a first choice in case of Netflix or Hollywood, but small, independent productions which account for huge portion of Resolve users. Big post houses quite often operate on normalised media anyway, so they are not that badly affected.

I just think it sets a bad precedent when you start to ignore the needs of endusers/customers

Is Apple ignoring the needs of editors because there is no Windows version of FCP?

Is Sony ignoring the needs of gamers because Uncharted isn't available on PC?

Maybe. But proprietary exclusivity isn't that strange in a free market.

The best we could hope for is that BMD's BRAW will go the way of Blu-ray, and Apple's ProRes Raw will go the way of HD-DVD.

Cineform all the way, the RAW format is ~$20 license cost/unit and all the other versions are free of charge. It's opensource, it's low on compute resources (you can edit 12k on a 1080 timeline with a smartphone cpu), it's cheap, etc... so let's not use it because we all love propietary codecs and we all have Apple shares and we liked them to get all the money in the world so there is nothing left for anyone to buy something.

Didn't know Cineform had a RAW format.

Maybe Cineform should replace all ProRes variants. In MXF files!

Cineform all the way, the RAW format is ~$20 license cost/unit and all the other versions are free of charge. It's opensource, it's low on compute resources (you can edit 12k on a 1080 timeline with a smartphone cpu), it's cheap, etc... so let's not use it because we all love propietary codecs and we all have Apple shares and we liked them to get all the money in the world so there is nothing left for anyone to buy something.

I do find it "interesting" that Cineform RAW doesn't see wide adoption...

But it's the same with Cineform itself. People still wanted to use ProRes and DNxHD all these years...

Cineform raw was kicked in the nuts by the same idiotic red patent, although cineform raw with compression was already mature when there was no red raw in existence.

People still wanted to use ProRes and DNxHD all these years...

Most people have no clue, they just follow marketing claims from the big tech companies.

People still wanted to use ProRes and DNxHD all these years...

Most people have no clue, they just follow marketing claims from the big tech companies.

Yea, reason why people believe Braw is actual Raw while it actually isn't, but a (heavily) compressed 12 bit codec instead with quite a bit of processing applied.

Cineform raw was kicked in the nuts by the same idiotic red patent, although cineform raw with compression was already mature when there was no red raw in existence.

That's not the issue. Cineform is even recognized as "prior art".

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread ... ost1153932

The RED patent relates to compression >= 6:1

Even CinemaDNG below this compression ratio theoretically would not have had issues.

Leaving patent issues aside, Cineform RAW has never really been taken up by anyone. To the best of my knowledge, it was only ever used in the SI 2K and more recently implemented on the GoPro cameras for RAW imaging.

Unfortunately it seems everyone has become allergic to any form of compression on RAW bayered images.


Anyway, the original thread is about supporting ProRes RAW encoded files in Resolve and the user based has been screaming loud and clear for some time.

I think its interesting (and also a little alarming) that from comments above, big studios and production houses which have fully invested in Resolve workflows and editing stations, are now looking at Premier or other NLEs due to the lack of ProResRAW support. Anybody with a newish camera - can now record in it - why wouldn't you..?

If BM don't add ProResRAW soon to Resolve, all the amazing market penetration they have done via making Resolve free and all the amazing improvements over the very short time, in uprooting people from Premier, FCPX etc (including me) - could very quickly unravel and make them again a small player...why would l limit myself to recording in ProRes/ h264 / h265 just to use Resolve when I could be editing raw footage...

BRAW is great and i enjoy recording and editing with it - but ProResRAW has massive momentum - i think there is even a market out there for paid upgrades for the BMPCC4K,6K and 12k to support recording in ProResRAW too.

Those big production houses work mainly with arri. Prores raw is not a thing there. They mostly use Linux. DR in certain Linux system can work very well with prores, not sue if this includes PPR

Ricardo Marty

Those big production houses work mainly with arri. Prores raw is not a thing there.

According to the earlier comment by Walter, that's changing too.

They mostly use Linux. DR in certain Linux system can work very well with prores, not sue if this includes PPR

The only thing Linux adds for Resolve is ProRes encoding if you have the Advanced Panel dongle. ProRes decoding works for any Resolve version. ProRes RAW decoding on the other hand isn't available for any Resolve version.

How do high end post facilities deal with it if they mainly use Resolve for grading? Convert to EXR first?

According to the earlier comment by Walter, that's changing too.

How do high end post facilities deal with it if they mainly use Resolve for grading? Convert to EXR first?

That's standard practice for a lot of them, regardless of the camera recording format, according to several DITs I've chatted with.

I don't know whether or not that's changing nowadays though. EXR is... big.

Those big production houses work mainly with arri. Prores raw is not a thing there. They mostly use Linux. DR in certain Linux system can work very well with prores, not sue if this includes PPR

Ricardo Marty

1) it is changing
2) TV can use those cameras (it is happening for a show we are involved)
3) you might have a crash camera attached to the side of an helicopter and you will not put an Arri there, might be a gopro, but yes, we are seeing that format coming to us as well...

According to the earlier comment by Walter, that's changing too.

How do high end post facilities deal with it if they mainly use Resolve for grading? Convert to EXR first?

That's standard practice for a lot of them, regardless of the camera recording format, according to several DITs I've chatted with.

I don't know whether or not that's changing nowadays though. EXR is... big.

It's not a rule. Some normalise all incoming assets, others work with original formats. Each way has its pros and cons.

Anyway, the original thread is about supporting ProRes RAW encoded files in Resolve and the user based has been screaming loud and clear for some time.

Apple is really good in letting trend followers scream.

Exr is unbearably big only if you don’t do compresssion, an equivalent of prores or some other intermediate is DWA compression which significantly lowers exr file sizes while keeping all the other benefits of exrs.

It's not a rule. Some normalise all incoming assets, others work with original formats. Each way has its pros and cons.

IIRC, so far we normalize the assets for feature work (exr) but not for TV work (raw).. TV works is where it hurts and it is where those cameras are most likely to be used..

Exr is unbearably big only if you don’t do compresssion, an equivalent of prores or some other intermediate is DWA compression which significantly lowers exr file sizes while keeping all the other benefits of exrs.

If you have 100Gbit InfiniBand network it's bit less of a problem, but even this is not a solution for everything.

Not that familiar with DWA compressed EXRs, but it seems to be bit too slow (processing intensive). EXR would require some very well optimised compression, preferably GPU based. Maybe something like Daniel2 or TICO.

Client just asked for quick denoise pass on a ZCAM E2-S6 rough cut. Would prefer to do this in Resolve but it’s going into FCPx because I don’t have time to transcode.

Reason 66374785 ProResRAW support was needed last year in Davinci Resolve.

Client just asked for quick denoise pass on a ZCAM E2-S6 rough cut. Would prefer to do this in Resolve but it’s going into FCPx because I don’t have time to transcode.

Reason 66374785 ProResRAW support was needed last year in Davinci Resolve.

Would get a Neat Video license for FCP then. I don't think BMD will implement ProRes Raw into Davinci Resolve anytime soon. Already got myself a yearly Assimilate Scratch license for that purpose.

So sad. Whatever it is sometimes you need to put your own opinions aside and listen to the people.

But there’re things in this world you should try to understand. It breaks braiiinnnss.

Prores raw has gained much more ground on 2020 and we really need support for it. For example medium format fuji gfx100 and gfx100s produce image that is not possible with any other system because of the larger sensor. And only raw out from those cameras is prores raw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd like to add my support to the forum. I don't have a RED or BMCC. The ProRes Raw has gained traction in many smaller cine cams.
I'm new to Davinci Resolve (From Premiere) and was really disappointed to find out they don't offer support.
Please listen to the field of professionals which you serve so well!

Here in lies the problem.

ProRes RAW, co-developed by Apple and Atomos and there is no love loss between ex Black Magic member (Now Atomos Founder) and BlackMagic. I know no facts but hearsay is he left with IP developed at BMD.

So sadly I do not see a way forward in our near future, which is very disheartening, but hopefully paves the way for more competition. Perhaps seeing BMD's own Raw format available in a new external recorder giving much needed competition to Atomos and a solution for all us users out there, there's nothing like the threat of competition to change the minds of many.

My question would be who is the guilty party in holding back?

Hi there,

we´re running 3 DaVinci Studio Suites in Berlin. They work fine and do the job.

But...
As a managing director it´s not funny at all that more and more grading artists or clients show up in my office complaining about the ProRes RAW problem. It´s not my fault. But it´s becoming my problem.

As a client it feels like it´s complicating my live - and in these moments I think the advertising on the BMD Website:

"DaVinci Resolve 17 Professional Editing, Color, Effects and Audio Post!"

should be changed into something like:

"DaVinci Resolve 17 Professional Editing, Color, Effects and Audio Post for some codecs!"

I hope ProRes RAW support will soon be part of the impressingly quick delivered updates.
Thank you in advance.

Agreed Steve!

I'd like to add my support to the forum. I don't have a RED or BMCC. The ProRes Raw has gained traction in many smaller cine cams.
I'm new to Davinci Resolve (From Premiere) and was really disappointed to find out they don't offer support.
Please listen to the field of professionals which you serve so well!

No doubt it's a growing segment but no one really knows if the lack of PRR is due to BMD or Apple.
Personally Im looking for non BMD camera because I need good AF and probably will occasionally be using an atomos ninja with PRR, because so few camera have BR And the BMD V.A. doesn't offer much options. It looks like the BMD competitors don't want to push BMD at all. Just Nikon and Sigma which are not on my list because i want to stay in the sony aps-c universe.

We need to use what we need to use.

ric marty

+1 for Prores RAW support please.

Having to use FCPx with Prores RAW footage isn’t great if you’re primarily a Resolve user. I love Resolve, that’s why I use it. RAW footage is great, whatever type.

Choosing a camera system has its complications, and we must all choose what’s right for us for many different reasons. Who cares why? I’d say if you’ve paid for Resolve Studio then you should have Prores RAW support as it’s a pro feature that is needed by pros that must work with or shoot in Prores RAW. How “Pro” is it? Who cares? People work at all different levels and pay grades.

Please, allow Prores RAW to work in Resolve.

worst part is that there is no reply at all from BM about this... At least tell the plans for the future so people can move away from Resolve if they remain this stubborn about it.

worst part is that there is no reply at all from BM about this... At least tell the plans for the future so people can move away from Resolve if they remain this stubborn about it.

They don't do that, they don't do any of that. As I understand it, keeping users in the dark is teh filosofi

worst part is that there is no reply at all from BM about this... At least tell the plans for the future so people can move away from Resolve if they remain this stubborn about it.

If there is no answer, no answer is given.

Think for a moment if BM and Apple are in negotiations: will they talk about it? And potentially ruin the deal or get people excited and there is no deal?

or there is a deal but it is so expensive that some form of revenue has to be given?

BM reads this forum, the prores raw "issue" is well known.

Just had to post this. Guess what was used for grading

I look at all the monitors that Atomos are selling and how it seems like every other day they are announcing new compatibility with another camera, or more recently SDI pathways and I look at my 3 Blackmagic Video Assist 12G HDR monitors and think....they are awesome monitors, I use them every time I shoot on multiple cameras, but they could be so much better.

With BRAW and ProRes they could be disruptive.

Totally agree, more and more cameras are adopting ProRes RAW...

I agree! The lack of support for ProRes Raw is inexcusable. Without that support, fewer and fewer cameras will be supported by Resolve, and people will be forced to move away from BMD.

So, you want Blackmagic to fully support a codec by Apple, that Apple doesn't fully support in it's own NLE?

Just please know your facts:

Prores RAW is still under development. Supporting it now would make zero sense.

Prores RAW is still under development. Supporting it now would make zero sense.

Interesting. So all the other raw codec sdk-s from Arri, Sony, Canon, BMD itself and others are updated just to mess with the developers, internally they are all done? Formats that are not under constant development are already dying off.

Maybe I should clarify: Not "under development," but "Still in Beta"

Maybe I should clarify: Not "under development," but "Still in Beta"

Where do you draw the line? There is no ”Prores RAW Beta” anymore, while BRAW for example is in beta still for 12K Ursa files.