BMPCC RAW workflow in Final Cut Pro X

Morning all

Playing around with RAW last night on my BMPCC. My 12 month old mac doesn't support Resolve so am having to find a better way of working with RAW.

From looking online the best way seems to be to import the dng files into Lightroom (I don't own premier or After Affects), do a simple correction if required then export the dng's as tiffs.

I then export the tiffs into FCP x, change the file duration and compile each set of frames and that's it done!

My question is if I were to import the tiffs ungraded into say compressor as an image sequence, then export that sequence to a prores file, import that prores file into fcp x....would I:

1. Lose any major quality along the way?
2. Still be able to successfully grade the prores in final cut pro as well as I could in Lightroom?

Is there a simpler way to achieve what I am trying to do?..is there a magic convertor out there that batch converts dngs into prores files?

[Rohit Gupta]

Playing around with RAW last night on my BMPCC. My 12 month old mac doesn't support Resolve so am having to find a better way of working with RAW.

Which mode of the 2012 iMac do you have? The 27" iMac with the 680MX GPU works really well with Resolve and CinemaDNG files.

My question is if I were to import the tiffs ungraded into say compressor as an image sequence, then export that sequence to a prores file, import that prores file into fcp x....would I:

1. Lose any major quality along the way?
2. Still be able to successfully grade the prores in final cut pro as well as I could in Lightroom?

Is there a simpler way to achieve what I am trying to do?..is there a magic convertor out there that batch converts dngs into prores files?

The results would be similar to shooting ProRes in camera.

Shooting RAW and converting it to a flat/log ProRes file is what the camera does internally.

What RAW offers is more info to start with. To really get the benefit you need to process and grade it with the right tools.

There is nothing wrong with the ProRes files out of camera tho. Many, in fact most, network TV shows that are shot on the Arri Alexa are shot in ProRes. Only recently has RAW become the buzz word.

My question is if I were to import the tiffs ungraded into say compressor as an image sequence, then export that sequence to a prores file, import that prores file into fcp x....would I:

1. Lose any major quality along the way?
2. Still be able to successfully grade the prores in final cut pro as well as I could in Lightroom?

Is there a simpler way to achieve what I am trying to do?..is there a magic convertor out there that batch converts dngs into prores files?

The results would be similar to shooting ProRes in camera.

Shooting RAW and converting it to a flat/log ProRes file is what the camera does internally.

What RAW offers is more info to start with. To really get the benefit you need to process and grade it with the right tools.

There is nothing wrong with the ProRes files out of camera tho. Many, in fact most, network TV shows that are shot on the Arri Alexa are shot in ProRes. Only recently has RAW become the buzz word.

I would say the difference between prores and raw on the pocket is vast...maybe its not so different on the bmc.

playing with a 10 second raw file yesterday it became instantly obvious the extra clarity in the image to me.

Seeing as I cannot use resolve as my macbook pros graphics card does not support it I am willing to choose a longer workflow to get the best image out of my cam. The lightroom edit and export to fcp x seems to work fine, I was just wondering if there was an easier solution for people that dont have resolve.

The 27" iMac with the 680MX GPU works really well with Resolve and CinemaDNG files.

I have a 27" with AMD Radeon HD 6970M GPU

It worked fine for ProRes in Resolve 10 Lite, but is really struggling terribly with CinemaDNG.

Lee, assuming I understand you correctly (FCPX not recognising COMPRESSED DNG files), you might want to consider the workflow beneath. (NOTE: I have only checked it out briefly just now because it's not a workflow I have a need for.)

1. Download CaptureOne (60 trial)
2. Batch process compressed DNG's and output as DNG (naturally, file size more than doubles)
3. Import into FCPX and set duration
4. Grade

Lee, assuming I understand you correctly (FCPX not recognising COMPRESSED DNG files), you might want to consider the workflow beneath. (NOTE: I have only checked it out briefly just now because it's not a workflow I have a need for.)

1. Download CaptureOne (60 trial)
2. Batch process compressed DNG's and output as DNG (naturally, file size more than doubles)
3. Import into FCPX and set duration
4. Grade

It was my assumption that fcp x dies not recognise compressed dngs hence my above workflow. From reading on the web this morning though it seems people are importing dngs fine into fcp x and compiling and grading. These articles were referring to the bmc though and not the bmpcc. Can anyone confirm if fcp x lets you inport the bmpcc dngs directly ?

I would say the difference between prores and raw on the pocket is vast...maybe its not so different on the bmc.

Have a look at this great comparison:

For me having cinemadng is also about having more tools to deal with CA, luma/color-noise, lens corrections and so on. Things that are really hard to do when you don't have any Bayer-pattern information.

I would say the difference between prores and raw on the pocket is vast...maybe its not so different on the bmc.

playing with a 10 second raw file yesterday it became instantly obvious the extra clarity in the image to me.

Seeing as I cannot use resolve as my macbook pros graphics card does not support it I am willing to choose a longer workflow to get the best image out of my cam. The lightroom edit and export to fcp x seems to work fine, I was just wondering if there was an easier solution for people that dont have resolve.

It's not the difference between RAW and ProRes I am referring to. It's the difference between in camera ProRes and the suggested RAW to ProRes workflow. Simply converting RAW to ProRes won't give you the benefits of RAW.

I would say the difference between prores and raw on the pocket is vast...maybe its not so different on the bmc.

playing with a 10 second raw file yesterday it became instantly obvious the extra clarity in the image to me.

Seeing as I cannot use resolve as my macbook pros graphics card does not support it I am willing to choose a longer workflow to get the best image out of my cam. The lightroom edit and export to fcp x seems to work fine, I was just wondering if there was an easier solution for people that dont have resolve.

It's not the difference between RAW and ProRes I am referring to. It's the difference between in camera ProRes and the suggested RAW to ProRes workflow. Simply converting RAW to ProRes won't give you the benefits of RAW.

Then at what point does raw not become raw anymore?...when you export your finished product to h.264 for web uploading then there is a loss of quality there right? Also with a standard resolve workflow I assume at some point you have to deliver the raw out into a format usable for delivery...so whats the difference?

What if I use Resolve to ingest my dngs, covert them to bmdfilm and them deliver them out to prores to then edit in fcp x...isnt that what people are doing anyway? Why would simply converting the dngs to prores hq not be as good?

The point is that Resolve is where you do the grading. In a typical workflow, you don't do a final grade on all of your footage, just your edit selects. So the the workflow would be:

1. Ingest raw camera originals to Resolve project
2. apply LUT or basic correction
3. Render out proxy or lower res files for edit (keeping same file names & timecode)
4. Ingest into FCP; edit a sequence
5. Export XML of sequence
6. Import XML to Resolve XML
7. Grade original raw footage in the timeline from XML
8. Export graded clips with an XML
9. Import Resolve XML back into FCP and conform rendered clips to sequence
10. render put color corrected finished edit

BTW you can also import RAW DNG image sequences into Photoshop (same tools as Lightroom but treats the sequence as a single file) and export a ProRes4444 file from there. You can sync your audio there, too.

What if I just export the footage out of resolve to prores.. Stick that in fcp x and apply lut ? An I losing quality that way?

Once you export to ProRes, you are baking in a certain exposure, color temperature and contrast. If you go to Resolve for your final grade after your edit, you retain maximum latitude until the end. There may be practical reasons not to do this, but what I've outlined is the classic approach to getting the most out of shooting raw. The reason we don't edit with raw is because it's a bandwidth hog and very few computers, if any, can work with it in a fluid edit scenario. That's why ProRes works better for editing. But when it comes time to finishing the picture, baking in the look, it's really great to have all the original information that Raw provides. In film terms, it's the equivalent of working with negative versus a print. Correctly exposed prints look great, but you can't push them as hard as negative.

Fair enough, but If I say ingest my footage into resolve.. Apply an lut and then export into fcp x as oro res with no final grading and editing then surely there is no loss in quality?.

My problem as you say us that mac can barely handheld resolve.. But it can ingest the footage and pump out pro res files.

Playing around with RAW last night on my BMPCC. My 12 month old mac doesn't support Resolve so am having to find a better way of working with RAW.

Which mode of the 2012 iMac do you have? The 27" iMac with the 680MX GPU works really well with Resolve and CinemaDNG files.

I have 3 macs all purchased in the last year that do not work with resolve

OK lets try explain this more clearly.

To get the most out of RAW you need to work in RAW. Converting the RAW to ProRes and then grading the ProRes is fine but you are no longer grading RAW. So then you might as well shoot ProRes in camera.

There is nothing wrong with ProRes. It's a brilliant codec that is used on many high end productions.

RAW is 12bit uncompressed. You can change how it is processed, what the white balance is, what the exposure it, how the colours are mapped. These are all done at the RAW processing stage. In Resolve or other RAW processing apps you get fine control over these things. In Resolve that data is then converted to 32bit float and you do your grade with ALL that info available to you.

Once you output ProRes that extra info is lost. All your settings are then backed into the file. The ProRes file is still very high quality but it is now a 10bit 4:2:2 losslessly compressed file. The same as what the camera produces when you shoot ProRes.

So to get the true benefit of RAW you need to grade the RAW file. If you simple convert the RAW to ProRes you are just adding another step in you workflow that is adding very little value. Yes you can adjust the exposure and white balance before the conversion but you could also do that in camera. Yes you can apply a LUT to get a "look" but you can also apply a LUT to the ProRes file.

Don't get me wrong, RAW out of the BM cameras is awesome to work with but there is also nothing wrong with the in camera ProRes. It's leaps and bounds better than any compressed codec coming out of Canon DSLRs/Panasonic GH or even Canon C300/Sony FS700.

OK lets try explain this more clearly.

To get the most out of RAW you need to work in RAW. Converting the RAW to ProRes and then grading the ProRes is fine but you are no longer grading RAW. So then you might as well shoot ProRes in camera.

There is nothing wrong with ProRes. It's a brilliant codec that is used on many high end productions.

RAW is 12bit uncompressed. You can change how it is processed, what the white balance is, what the exposure it, how the colours are mapped. These are all done at the RAW processing stage. In Resolve or other RAW processing apps you get fine control over these things. In Resolve that data is then converted to 32bit float and you do your grade with ALL that info available to you.

Once you output ProRes that extra info is lost. All your settings are then backed into the file. The ProRes file is still very high quality but it is now a 10bit 4:2:2 losslessly compressed file. The same as what the camera produces when you shoot ProRes.

So to get the true benefit of RAW you need to grade the RAW file. If you simple convert the RAW to ProRes you are just adding another step in you workflow that is adding very little value. Yes you can adjust the exposure and white balance before the conversion but you could also do that in camera. Yes you can apply a LUT to get a "look" but you can also apply a LUT to the ProRes file.

Don't get me wrong, RAW out of the BM cameras is awesome to work with but there is also nothing wrong with the in camera ProRes. It's leaps and bounds better than any compressed codec coming out of Canon DSLRs/Panasonic GH or even Canon C300/Sony FS700.

Thanks for that Adam...I do understand sort of but still have a couple of questions.

In the perfect world using RAW and resolve, once all the grading and editing is done is it not the norm anyway then to export the finished product to prores for final output or something else of a lesser quality than raw? If so then what would be the difference of using resolve, slapping a lut on the clips and then exporting to pro res for fcp x only to actually edit the clips together? I am not trying to do anymore grading or changes...just simply using fcp x to edit my clips together. My pc cannot handle to fcp x\resolve\xml workflow so am trying to find a workaround while still trying to use raw. I agree prores is great but there is no harm in trying to get the best out of the cam, even for testing purposes.

Last night I used lightroom do edit the native dng files. Then I exported these edited files as tiffs and then compressed the tiffs together into a prores hq file in compressor. I then stuck this hq prores file in fcp x and edit my clips for the final product. The image looked razor sharp and I saw no loss in quality. I understand that if I then within fcp x tried to change the contrast\exposure etc on an already baked in image then I am onto a loser...but from what I saw edited the raw file in lightroom and then exporting to tiff seemed good enough??

OK lets try explain this more clearly.

To get the most out of RAW you need to work in RAW. Converting the RAW to ProRes and then grading the ProRes is fine but you are no longer grading RAW. So then you might as well shoot ProRes in camera.

There is nothing wrong with ProRes. It's a brilliant codec that is used on many high end productions.

RAW is 12bit uncompressed. You can change how it is processed, what the white balance is, what the exposure it, how the colours are mapped. These are all done at the RAW processing stage. In Resolve or other RAW processing apps you get fine control over these things. In Resolve that data is then converted to 32bit float and you do your grade with ALL that info available to you.

Once you output ProRes that extra info is lost. All your settings are then backed into the file. The ProRes file is still very high quality but it is now a 10bit 4:2:2 losslessly compressed file. The same as what the camera produces when you shoot ProRes.

So to get the true benefit of RAW you need to grade the RAW file. If you simple convert the RAW to ProRes you are just adding another step in you workflow that is adding very little value. Yes you can adjust the exposure and white balance before the conversion but you could also do that in camera. Yes you can apply a LUT to get a "look" but you can also apply a LUT to the ProRes file.

Don't get me wrong, RAW out of the BM cameras is awesome to work with but there is also nothing wrong with the in camera ProRes. It's leaps and bounds better than any compressed codec coming out of Canon DSLRs/Panasonic GH or even Canon C300/Sony FS700.

Thanks for that Adam...I do understand sort of but still have a couple of questions.

In the perfect world using RAW and resolve, once all the grading and editing is done is it not the norm anyway then to export the finished product to prores for final output or something else of a lesser quality than raw? If so then what would be the difference of using resolve, slapping a lut on the clips and then exporting to pro res for fcp x only to actually edit the clips together? I am not trying to do anymore grading or changes...just simply using fcp x to edit my clips together. My pc cannot handle to fcp x\resolve\xml workflow so am trying to find a workaround while still trying to use raw. I agree prores is great but there is no harm in trying to get the best out of the cam, even for testing purposes.

Last night I used lightroom do edit the native dng files. Then I exported these edited files as tiffs and then compressed the tiffs together into a prores hq file in compressor. I then stuck this hq prores file in fcp x and edit my clips for the final product. The image looked razor sharp and I saw no loss in quality. I understand that if I then within fcp x tried to change the contrast\exposure etc on an already baked in image then I am onto a loser...but from what I saw edited the raw file in lightroom and then exporting to tiff seemed good enough??

Yes your final export would be compressed.

Yes you could cut the ProRes exported from RAW files with a LUT applied in Resolve or colour corrected Lightroom.

You could also achieve the same result shooting ProRes and applying the same LUT.

You workflow would be quicker and drive space required would be a lot less.

As a test. Shoot a short clip in RAW. Shoot the same thing in ProRes Film mode.

Now open the RAW in Resolve, apply a LUT export ProRes.

Apply the same LUT to the ProRes file.

The outcome would be almost identical. The RAW file will be ever so slightly sharper and you have more control over how it's processed but that comes at a cost of drive space and processing time.

If you were doing more with the file than simple applying a LUT it would be worth it but seems like a lot of extra work for very little gain if all you are doing is applying a LUT.

I'm not saying don't shoot RAW. I'm saying if you don't have the tools to really get the most out of RAW you might be better off shooting ProRes. You can apply LUTs in FCPX to you ProRes files.

Thanks again

The whole LUT in FCP X is pretty useless to be honest unless your shot out of the camera does not need any corrections.

The problem is once you have applied the LUT any exposure changes to it are to the already baked in image so its not real control over the original prores file.

The only tool that controls exposure properly on the native prores file is nick shaws plugin. Even the inbuilt exposure tool in FCP X is crap compared to the power of the exposure slider on Nick's plugin.

In an ideal world I would just add the exposure slider from Nicks Plugin and then stack the LUT utility below it. The problem at the moment is adding nicks plugin along with the LUT utility adds two baked in curves to your image which obviously is no good. If you could deactivate\activate the sliders on Nick's plugin then you could just have the exposure slider active, and then use that above the LUT Utility. If once your LUT is added the image needs changes you can then use Nicks slider to adjust the exposure correctly.

The alternative is for Denver to add sliders such as temp\exposure\ etc into his LUT utlility so all changes can be made at the same time. I have emailed Denver about this to consider for his next release.

From looking online the best way seems to be to import the dng files into Lightroom (I don't own premier or After Affects), do a simple correction if required then export the dng's as tiffs.

That's what I did and it works fine.
My Macbook has not enough CUDA support for Resolve either and I'll certainly not take the 27" iMac for travelling .
Fast enough and you use the tools you are already familar with.
Audio syncing may be an issue if the frame rate is not perfectly constant.

FCPX can use the dng sequences but only uses the contained previews, not the actual raw frames.

For ProRes I have no trouble using the color grading tools in FCPX.
You have to read the scopes and the color bar instead of color wheel takes some getting used to.

While having the camera in my hands I'm experimenting with taking short raw clips to get photos for Lightroom. Maybe I'll settle for a workflow where I get photos and videos of events.
(I always scaled down to FullHD/2K for the web anyway.)

From looking online the best way seems to be to import the dng files into Lightroom (I don't own premier or After Affects), do a simple correction if required then export the dng's as tiffs.

That's what I did and it works fine.
My Macbook has not enough CUDA support for Resolve either and I'll certainly not take the 27" iMac for travelling .
Fast enough and you use the tools you are already familar with.
Audio syncing may be an issue if the frame rate is not perfectly constant.

FCPX can use the dng sequences but only uses the contained previews, not the actual raw frames.

While having the camera in my hands I'm experimenting with taking short raw clips to get photos for Lightroom. Maybe I'll settle for a workflow where I get photos and videos of events.
(I always scaled down to FullHD/2K for the web anyway.)

What are you doing with the tiffs once exported from adobe lightroom?

From looking online the best way seems to be to import the dng files into Lightroom (I don't own premier or After Affects), do a simple correction if required then export the dng's as tiffs.

That's what I did and it works fine.
My Macbook has not enough CUDA support for Resolve either and I'll certainly not take the 27" iMac for travelling .
Fast enough and you use the tools you are already familar with.
Audio syncing may be an issue if the frame rate is not perfectly constant.

FCPX can use the dng sequences but only uses the contained previews, not the actual raw frames.

While having the camera in my hands I'm experimenting with taking short raw clips to get photos for Lightroom. Maybe I'll settle for a workflow where I get photos and videos of events.
(I always scaled down to FullHD/2K for the web anyway.)

What are you doing with the tiffs once exported from adobe lightroom?

Batch-import them. Give them a common tag. Drag them into a new clip, select all, give them a duration of 1/25th (or 1/29.97th for countries with 60Hz mains power) of a second.
Use the keyboard shortcuts for that.
Then drag in the sound.

Thanks again

The whole LUT in FCP X is pretty useless to be honest unless your shot out of the camera does not need any corrections.

The problem is once you have applied the LUT any exposure changes to it are to the already baked in image so its not real control over the original prores file.

The only tool that controls exposure properly on the native prores file is nick shaws plugin. Even the inbuilt exposure tool in FCP X is crap compared to the power of the exposure slider on Nick's plugin.

In an ideal world I would just add the exposure slider from Nicks Plugin and then stack the LUT utility below it. The problem at the moment is adding nicks plugin along with the LUT utility adds two baked in curves to your image which obviously is no good. If you could deactivate\activate the sliders on Nick's plugin then you could just have the exposure slider active, and then use that above the LUT Utility. If once your LUT is added the image needs changes you can then use Nicks slider to adjust the exposure correctly.

The alternative is for Denver to add sliders such as temp\exposure\ etc into his LUT utlility so all changes can be made at the same time. I have emailed Denver about this to consider for his next release.

Nicks plugin is great. Been working with him since the early betas. It's a pity he's had issues with the final release.

If you have Motion you can create an exposure effect that can be stacked before the LUT utility. This would give you the controls of the built in exposure tools in FCPX but can be stacked before the LUT.

If I get a moment over the weekend I'll make one and share it.

Thanks again

The whole LUT in FCP X is pretty useless to be honest unless your shot out of the camera does not need any corrections.

The problem is once you have applied the LUT any exposure changes to it are to the already baked in image so its not real control over the original prores file.

The only tool that controls exposure properly on the native prores file is nick shaws plugin. Even the inbuilt exposure tool in FCP X is crap compared to the power of the exposure slider on Nick's plugin.

In an ideal world I would just add the exposure slider from Nicks Plugin and then stack the LUT utility below it. The problem at the moment is adding nicks plugin along with the LUT utility adds two baked in curves to your image which obviously is no good. If you could deactivate\activate the sliders on Nick's plugin then you could just have the exposure slider active, and then use that above the LUT Utility. If once your LUT is added the image needs changes you can then use Nicks slider to adjust the exposure correctly.

The alternative is for Denver to add sliders such as temp\exposure\ etc into his LUT utlility so all changes can be made at the same time. I have emailed Denver about this to consider for his next release.

Nicks plugin is great. Been working with him since the early betas. It's a pity he's had issues with the final release.

If you have Motion you can create an exposure effect that can be stacked before the LUT utility. This would give you the controls of the built in exposure tools in FCPX but can be stacked before the LUT.

If I get a moment over the weekend I'll make one and share it.

If you can that would be great. I do have motion and not really sure how to create my own slider. I looked at the built in list of filters and there was one for gamma and one for brightness but not one for exposure.

I don't know what Nicks plugin does but his exposure slider is just like changing the exposure in resolve or in lightroom or even in cam..its amazing!. The inbuilt exposure controls in fcp x seem to bring the levels down...but just not in the way Nicks plugin does. my concern is that anything created in motion will have the same issue.

I wouldn't put this down to just the stacking order either. Even without Nick's plugin applied you can see how uneffective the built in exposure is compared to Nick's when working on prores files. This is why the LUT utility is kinda useless without a powerful exposure controller like Nicks to go along with it.

I don't know what Nicks plugin does but his exposure slider is just like changing the exposure in resolve or in lightroom or even in cam..its amazing!. The inbuilt exposure controls in fcp x seem to bring the levels down...but just not in the way Nicks plugin does. my concern is that anything created in motion will have the same issue.

Sounds like maybe a LUT bypass check box in my plugin would be a useful option. That way you could use my plugin to accurately adjust exposure and white balance, and then use another plugin such as Denver's after it to apply a LUT.

Because my plugin understands the Blackmagic film transfer function, it is able to apply accurate exposure and white balance changes in linear light, in a way that a "roll your own" exposure tool in Motion, or FCP X's so called exposure slider cannot.

If I get a chance I will try to make a new build with this option shortly.

Nick.. That is music to my ears!!. I was going to ask you for something like that.. But if it's an option you can incorporate into the next build then that would be great!

Look forward to it!

Thanks again

Lee

That would be brilliant Nick. Or go the other way around and build a way to import additional LUTs.
By the way, I'm getting the occasional FCX not responding when applying the plugin to multiple clips in the timeline, although it maybe be related to background rendering while trying to apply the plugin. Still, your plugin is just fantastic, thanks Nick.

I don't know what Nicks plugin does but his exposure slider is just like changing the exposure in resolve or in lightroom or even in cam..its amazing!. The inbuilt exposure controls in fcp x seem to bring the levels down...but just not in the way Nicks plugin does. my concern is that anything created in motion will have the same issue.

Sounds like maybe a LUT bypass check box in my plugin would be a useful option. That way you could use my plugin to accurately adjust exposure and white balance, and then use another plugin such as Denver's after it to apply a LUT.

Because my plugin understands the Blackmagic film transfer function, it is able to apply accurate exposure and white balance changes in linear light, in a way that a "roll your own" exposure tool in Motion, or FCP X's so called exposure slider cannot.

If I get a chance I will try to make a new build with this option shortly.

Or better yet... let your plugin load 3D LUTs.

Or better yet... let your plugin load 3D LUTs.

+1

Or better yet... let your plugin load 3D LUTs.

Not possible with the architecture I am currently using I'm afraid. My plugin uses a series of actual mathematical transforms, rather than combining them into a 3D LUT aproximation.

That would be a whole new plugin written completely from scratch. Given that somebody else has already done it, there is not much incentive for me to duplicate that functionality.

And 3D LUTs are something of a nightmare, with all the different possible variations. Just making sure you can accurately parse all the different variations of file format is enough of a task. I have a feeling that the un-anticipated complexity was a big influence on Red Giant ceasing development of LUT Buddy. But that is just speculation on my part.

Nice thread with good information.

Has anyone run into problems with color correcting in Lr, outputting TIFFs, and having shadow flicker due to LR not being designed for motion? I wonder if (for those who do not have Resolve) running the Lr workflow through LRTimelapse (which I use for time lapses) would remove that artifact before turning the TIFFs into a ProRes file.

Or better yet... let your plugin load 3D LUTs.

Not possible with the architecture I am currently using I'm afraid...

I know. but I wanted you to explain why as the question was bound to be asked.

Sounds like maybe a LUT bypass check box in my plugin would be a useful option. That way you could use my plugin to accurately adjust exposure and white balance, and then use another plugin such as Denver's after it to apply a LUT.

OK, I have a preliminary build with this option. It appears to work. I have given it to a small group of people to test, and all being well will put it out to the wider group of beta testers in the next few days.