Thread: ProRes RAW in/to Resolve

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11  
    Some odd responses here...its a great format, lots of cameras record to it via Atomos, its perhaps a bit underutilized due to NLE, I'm sure Apple and RED have things worked out, anyhow to go resolve you can use this as a workaround for now, and it seems likely that it will be native someday:

    https://colorfinale.com/transcoder

    I just wrapped a 6k PRR shoot on the Lumix S series...would love to try the GFX100 output sometime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Hooper View Post
    Some odd responses here...its a great format, lots of cameras record to it via Atomos, its perhaps a bit underutilized due to NLE,
    Or…..

    Because it can’t be used as an internal codec and can only be recorded by a single vendors external recorder ?

    JB
    John Brawley ACS
    Cinematographer
    Los Angeles
    www.johnbrawley.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Hooper View Post
    Some odd responses here...its a great format, lots of cameras record to it via Atomos, its perhaps a bit underutilized due to NLE, I'm sure Apple and RED have things worked out, anyhow to go resolve you can use this as a workaround for now, and it seems likely that it will be native someday:

    https://colorfinale.com/transcoder

    I just wrapped a 6k PRR shoot on the Lumix S series...would love to try the GFX100 output sometime.
    thanks Stuart, I will try the transcoder. Currently I am using the GFX100 for some personal mixed photo/video projects
    and manually setting the source clips exposure and color space for 100+ clips at he end of a day is no fun...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,191
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Pretty sure it’s Apple who control who can and can’t use ProRes RAW.

    Just like the inexplicable reason you can’t write regular ProRes files from a PC version of Resolve.

    JB
    Except, the end users are being kept in the dark about this. Blackmagic could come out and say Apple is not licensing it to them. But they don't. Atomos could say Apple is holding it back. But they don't. This has been one of the more frustrating codec issues in a while. Resolve should be codec agnostic in my opinion. Think of it from a colorist's POV. They just want access to the highest quality files with the most control. And ProRes RAW not being accessible in Resolve limits workflows. There has been zero transparency on this issue and at this point, I just blame all parties until someone comes out and explains it. If BMD says it's purely a business decision based on their cameras, I disagree with that approach, but at least it would be an answer. Right now it's a game of ignore the question and hope it goes away. That's very frustrating.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherrick View Post
    Except, the end users are being kept in the dark about this. Blackmagic could come out and say Apple is not licensing it to them. But they don't. Atomos could say Apple is holding it back. But they don't. This has been one of the more frustrating codec issues in a while. Resolve should be codec agnostic in my opinion. Think of it from a colorist's POV. They just want access to the highest quality files with the most control. And ProRes RAW not being accessible in Resolve limits workflows. There has been zero transparency on this issue and at this point, I just blame all parties until someone comes out and explains it. If BMD says it's purely a business decision based on their cameras, I disagree with that approach, but at least it would be an answer. Right now it's a game of ignore the question and hope it goes away. That's very frustrating.

    And John, I want to make sure this is not perceived as an attack on you, I know you are just voicing an opinion. But since you do have Grant's ear I would just ask that if you can voice some of the concerns of end users of Resolve that would be helpful. I have been a loyal Resolve user for years. Generally, I like what BMD does, this is just one time I really am not happy with what's going on. And again, it's got more to do with what's not being said than anything else.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherrick View Post
    And John, I want to make sure this is not perceived as an attack on you, I know you are just voicing an opinion. But since you do have Grant's ear I would just ask that if you can voice some of the concerns of end users of Resolve that would be helpful. I have been a loyal Resolve user for years. Generally, I like what BMD does, this is just one time I really am not happy with what's going on. And again, it's got more to do with what's not being said than anything else.
    Historically, you’ll notice that Resolve is typically one fo the first to support any new codec. Apple are notorious for this kind of behaviour. I can’t tell you because I’m under NDA, but Apple demand some really crazy things just because you put a thunderbolt port on a device. Nothing to do with a better result or making it a better product. Most people don’t realise that rendering ProRes on a Mac and recording ProRes using hardware is literally run, approved and managed by two different companies within Apple.

    People pretend that Apple are open, and benevolent and they just aren’t. It’s closed. Very tightly controlled. And if you speak out they are vindictive. A certain brand announced they were supporting ProRes leading up to NAB a few years ago. Guess what happened ? They got nixed simply because they announced support before Apple had approved it.

    So. If you have to continue to want to work with Apple and support their codecs, you will not say a damn thing.

    This is old, but look at the years of controversy over their opaque App Store approval processes.

    https://daringfireball.net/2010/04/n...ol_the_secrecy

    JB
    John Brawley ACS
    Cinematographer
    Los Angeles
    www.johnbrawley.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,191
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Historically, you’ll notice that Resolve is typically one fo the first to support any new codec. Apple are notorious for this kind of behaviour. I can’t tell you because I’m under NDA, but Apple demand some really crazy things just because you put a thunderbolt port on a device. Nothing to do with a better result or making it a better product. Most people don’t realise that rendering ProRes on a Mac and recording ProRes using hardware is literally run, approved and managed by two different companies within Apple.

    People pretend that Apple are open, and benevolent and they just aren’t. It’s closed. Very tightly controlled. And if you speak out they are vindictive. A certain brand announced they were supporting ProRes leading up to NAB a few years ago. Guess what happened ? They got nixed simply because they announced support before Apple had approved it.

    So. If you have to continue to want to work with Apple and support their codecs, you will not say a damn thing.

    This is old, but look at the years of controversy over their opaque App Store approval processes.

    https://daringfireball.net/2010/04/n...ol_the_secrecy

    JB
    If I have to take this fight to Apple, happy to do so. Just want to know who I need to voice my frustration to. I use FCPX all the time and I use Resolve all the time. I need the two to talk. Many people are in similar situations whether it's Premiere/Resolve, Avid/Resolve, etc. One tool for editing, the other for grading. So if someone shoots a project on proRes RAW, I cut it in FCPX, then I want to take that ProRes RAW to Resolve, it should be straightforward. So whoever is messing up this workflow, I'm happy to discuss with them in a professional manner, but this whole mystery thing, not cool. Guess I have to think hard about how to go about finally getting the answer on this.

    Again, not shooting the messenger, I know you probably can't say what you know. I've been there.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,985
    It's just business and everyone is doing it. One example, a long time ago when the first Red Rocket came out, I know of two companies, that demonstrated decoding and decompression in close to real-time on only CPUs, only to be shut down by Red. At the time Red was licensing Red Rocket hardware from German manufacturer and they weren't about to allow someone else to rain on that parade. Also for a long time Red claimed, that GPU debayer was simply impossible to do, only magically succeeding in doing it at the exact moment Red Rocket hardware agreement came to a conclusion. There is way more to that story, but it's just another example of business driven decisions, that completely ignored the end users interests. Same here, Apple and BM are direct competitors in FCPX vs Resolve and Apple has zero interest in helping BM in any way whatsoever. But doesn't Apple routinely uses Resolve in their hardware demos? Well, yes and Apple still uses a ton of Samsung hardware, while simultaneously suing them in courts. BM can try to pretend that they are not interested in ProresRAW, but the fact of the matter, BRAW is a direct result of BM inability to license it, so they HAD to do it. BM must do whatever they can to prevent someone like ARRI from adapting ProresRAW as a Prores replacement. If that happens, Resolve is in trouble, as ProresRAW will have to be transcoded prior to a Resolve ingest. The bottom line, Apple refuses the licensing of Prores RAW to BM on any platform. And please note, Fusion CAN write Prores on Windows because Fusion had it licensed before BM bought them. And I also I forgot to mention, that for one fleeting moment, there was one single version of Resolve on Windows, that DID write Prores only to be yanked almost immediately when Apple got wind of it...
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    10,686
    Steve,

    For a Workaround in Premiere Pro version 15.2(it won't be ProRes raw)


    I first downloaded the:
    Apple ProRes RAW for Windows 1.3

    https://support.apple.com/kb/DL2033?locale=en_US


    1) I imported a sample ProRes Raw file. Make all of your 'First Pass" corrections in Premiere Pro, sort of like Redcine-X for Red R3D files.







    2)Then I exported out as "Media" and transcoded it as Prores 4444








    3) However, when I imported it into Resolve, it showed the file as "DNxHR HQ"






    Edit:


    I had 'Mixdowned" the audio in the last example. It shows both the correct Codec and audio now




    Last edited by rand thompson; 06-20-2021 at 07:50 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    but the fact of the matter, BRAW is a direct result of BM inability to license it, so they HAD to do it. .
    Nah.

    BRAW was developed at the same time they decided they were going to design their own sensor, which was started a long time before ProRes RAW was even announced.

    They had to design their own codec because of some of the unique features of the sensor that they wanted to do (like the in-camera scaling) and also because of the file sizes.

    12K 444 ProRes files aren't going to be achievable with any easy solution in terms of media that's available at an affordable cost.

    ProRes RAW doesn't make a 12K file any more viable either, most importantly can't actually be used in-camera and doesn't really allow for the in-camera scaling that's done (8k / 4K without cropping)

    JB
    John Brawley ACS
    Cinematographer
    Los Angeles
    www.johnbrawley.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts