Thread: ProRes RAW in/to Resolve

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,193
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    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...
    The thing is, I get the business part. They have done it with hardware too. I remember when there was talk of whether they would support AJA io devices and eventually they determined that would be bad business. Hurt the end user. Resolve has become a throwaway. Buy a Speed Editor, get Resolve. Buy a BM camera, get Resolve. I get it, it's now tied to their ecosystem. Business decision. So, for me as an enduser I now have to look at what offers the widest support, tools like Baselight and Scratch, which both offer ProRes RAW support. Blackmagic knows that the average end user who does color as an extension of their editing will probably not look to these other tools because of cost. So they've got them where they want them. Thing is, I have nothing against BRAW. I own a BMD camera. I would even consider a Video Assist for sone of my other cameras. All I'm asking is that if Resolve is this one stop shop for edit/sound/color/VFX that they don't limit what kind of video we can bring in. And again, if this is Apple not licensing it to them, why have they not stated that? Seems like that would be the easiest way to calm the accusations, just pass the buck on to Apple. but they haven't. So, what's really going on?
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,193
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    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




    Thanks Rand. I do a similar workflow with FCPX to generate ProRes 444. I just want to avoid the workaround. Looks like it will be a tool other than Resolve.

    For quick turnaround jobs that use ProRes RAW, I am looking at integrating Colourlab AI with FCPX and then using some other color tools (both native and 3rd party) within FCPX to get the job done.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherrick View Post
    And again, if this is Apple not licensing it to them, why have they not stated that? Seems like that would be the easiest way to calm the accusations, just pass the buck on to Apple. but they haven't.
    Why would they say that publicly? Like I said, in the past, Apple tend to be vindictive. They still have to deal with Apple for hardware and there's a lot of product using ProRes.

    Why haven't Apple stated publicly why they won't support Blackmagic RAW? Isn't it the same thing?

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

  4. #24  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    11,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherrick View Post
    Thanks Rand. I do a similar workflow with FCPX to generate ProRes 444. I just want to avoid the workaround. Looks like it will be a tool other than Resolve.

    For quick turnaround jobs that use ProRes RAW, I am looking at integrating Colourlab AI with FCPX and then using some other color tools (both native and 3rd party) within FCPX to get the job done.
    Steve,

    I fear that Resolve will probably never be an application that will import ProRes Raw natively or otherwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    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
    12K? If there is ever going to be a casual need for this resolution, which I can't envision any time soon, by then something like M7 Apple designed TSC produced silicon with 256 high performance cores and 128 low power cores will be just fine
    Joking aside, you are still missing the point. It's not really important who was first or who designed the better mousetrap. The real question is a market penetration. If the market decides that ProresRAW is the way to go forward in order to end this insane proliferation of multiple proprietary codecs, then the game is over. If Apple decides to back up the money truck to ARRI, SONY, Panasonic and hey, may be even RED and convince them to drop their own proprietary codecs in favor of ProresRAW, then everyone on the consumer side will win, except, of coarse BM.
    It's never about the technology, it's always about the business...
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherrick View Post
    The thing is, I get the business part. They have done it with hardware too. I remember when there was talk of whether they would support AJA io devices and eventually they determined that would be bad business. Hurt the end user. Resolve has become a throwaway. Buy a Speed Editor, get Resolve. Buy a BM camera, get Resolve. I get it, it's now tied to their ecosystem. Business decision. So, for me as an enduser I now have to look at what offers the widest support, tools like Baselight and Scratch, which both offer ProRes RAW support. Blackmagic knows that the average end user who does color as an extension of their editing will probably not look to these other tools because of cost. So they've got them where they want them. Thing is, I have nothing against BRAW. I own a BMD camera. I would even consider a Video Assist for sone of my other cameras. All I'm asking is that if Resolve is this one stop shop for edit/sound/color/VFX that they don't limit what kind of video we can bring in. And again, if this is Apple not licensing it to them, why have they not stated that? Seems like that would be the easiest way to calm the accusations, just pass the buck on to Apple. but they haven't. So, what's really going on?
    I know for a fact, that BM tried and failed to get licensing of Prores on Windows. And as i mentioned, for a brief moment there was a version of Resolve on Windows, that could write Prores. So that fact also proves, that it wasn't a technical issue or, as some may claim, that "BM wasn't really interested in Prores". I also happen to know, that to get the Prores licensing for many other players is pretty streamlined process, and it is free, so it's not about the money, as again, some may claim. I can imagine, that there are very few companies in the world that are even close to being as secretive, vindictive, strategic or litigious like Apple. Anyone who ever worked with or at Apple could tell you crazy stories about it, except they can't)))
    So, the bottom line, Apple will never disclose or even discuss what you're asking...
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,193
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Why would they say that publicly? Like I said, in the past, Apple tend to be vindictive. They still have to deal with Apple for hardware and there's a lot of product using ProRes.

    Why haven't Apple stated publicly why they won't support Blackmagic RAW? Isn't it the same thing?

    JB
    Because many of their customers have asked for an answer. This isn't just me asking, where one voice in the forest is not enough to elicit a response. And those who know me, know I am not a complainer and I very rarely get passionate enough about a topic to take it publicly. I generally try to work back channels, have conversations with companies privately to see what the reasoning might be for a decision like this. This one though has flat out been ignored by everyone who could possibly be involved with making that decision, so rumors fly around like it's a beef between Grant and Jeromy at Atomos (I think there may have even been a noncompete lawsuit if I'm remembering correctly).

    The fact that ProRes RAW has been implemented in all of the other NLEs and color grading platforms, tells me this is a three way feud between Apple, BMD, and Atomos. Yes, I agree with BRAW in FCPX too. Dumb. I would gladly cut BRAW (transcoded to proxies for editing) and send to Resolve for grading (using BMD hardware, so not cheating them). Can kind of do it with Color Finale Transcoder now. But I'd gladly welcome native BRAW support.

    Sounds like egos maybe running amuck mixed with some business decisions that don't really benefit end users.

    But, if this is how they are all going to roll, could Apple not pull ProRes licensing too? That would put a huge dent in Resolve's attraction. I mean BM uses ProRes in their cameras and of course ProRes is very prevalent in so many color workflows.

    Anyway, I am starting to sound like a broken record and annoying myself at this point, so I'll back off. I'll try to go about this a different way. I need to research the full story and see what I can come up with. I've been wanting to write an article about this in the trades for a while. Just need to carve out some time to do the proper homework on it.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,193
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    I know for a fact, that BM tried and failed to get licensing of Prores on Windows. And as i mentioned, for a brief moment there was a version of Resolve on Windows, that could write Prores. So that fact also proves, that it wasn't a technical issue or, as some may claim, that "BM wasn't really interested in Prores". I also happen to know, that to get the Prores licensing for many other players is pretty streamlined process, and it is free, so it's not about the money, as again, some may claim. I can imagine, that there are very few companies in the world that are even close to being as secretive, vindictive, strategic or litigious like Apple. Anyone who ever worked with or at Apple could tell you crazy stories about it, except they can't)))
    So, the bottom line, Apple will never disclose or even discuss what you're asking...
    Yep, done jobs with Apple. I know all about their NDAs, their control, etc. I've also seen them pull crazy stunts like what they did at the FCP User Group meeting the year they announced FCPX at NAB. So, it very well could be that Apple has simply chosen to not license ProRes RAW to BMD, perhaps related to Atomos, maybe related to other issues. I don't rule this out. I just don't see how this is benefiting anyone that uses either company's software because plenty of people like to cut in FCPX and kick things over to Resolve for color grading, which means they are using BMD hardware if they are doing a proper grade to a critical monitor.

    I don't know, if I've got the time, I'll talk to a couple of people in the world of investigative journalism to see how they would go about finding out the details. I know these companies are lined with gatekeepers, especially Apple, but there may be some methods of getting to the bottom of some of it.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    735
    I wonder if there are more nuances to this situation than what it seems on the surface.

    I agree that Apple has a history of strong arming (and perhaps being vindictive as stated) other companies and collaborators.
    They also have no problem doing considerable business with a company while having a very public lawsuit with them (i.e Samsung).

    Having said that, Apple does seem to actually go out of their way to publicly promote Resolve wether on their website or various keynote presentations. I would even say that one might hear mentions of Resolve about as much as you do FCP during a typical Apple Pro/High end announcement.

    I really have my doubts that Apple sees Resolve as a major threat to FCP.
    FCP is still one of the most sold apps on the App store and it was announced over 4 years ago that it had an installed base of over 2 million.
    That number is likely much higher now.
    If anything there seems to be an attitude that the two are complementary to each other.

    Regarding BRAW for FCP X, my understanding is that Apple leaves it up to the camera manufacturer to make the plug in or Quicktime framework for a camera or codec to be compatible.

    It's also worth noting that Apple supposedly helped Avid update DNX to make the transition to the new 64bit only Quicktime (along with ProRes RAW support) and I would consider DNX to be a much bigger "competitor" to ProRes compared to BRAW.
    https://www.avid.com/press-room/2019...ting-workflows

    I have never heard of them blocking a camera or codec from running on FCP or the Mac platform.
    Yes it can happen as this SEEMED to be the case with NVIDIAs GPU drivers but even that is not definite.
    If they have blocked a codec in the past I would love to know.

    Not sure where BMD stands in all of this.
    I do think they have an interest in establishing BRAW as a codec (as they should after the financial investments) but whether or not this could be a reason that BMD might block ProResRAW, who knows.

    If I was a betting man, I would say BMD is likely not rushing ProRes RAW support as a means of protecting BRAW adoption but can't say for sure.

    If one truly thinks Apple is the culprit, now is a good time to push this issue with Apple as there is heavy scrutiny on the company and how they do business with others.


    Brian Timmons
    BRITIM/MEDIA
    If you love comic books please support the GoFundMe for
    Hy Eisman: A Life in Comics documentary


    www.britim-media.com
    IMDB
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post
    I wonder if there are more nuances to this situation than what it seems on the surface.

    I agree that Apple has a history of strong arming (and perhaps being vindictive as stated) other companies and collaborators.
    They also have no problem doing considerable business with a company while having a very public lawsuit with them (i.e Samsung).

    Having said that, Apple does seem to actually go out of their way to publicly promote Resolve wether on their website or various keynote presentations. I would even say that one might hear mentions of Resolve about as much as you do FCP during a typical Apple Pro/High end announcement.

    I really have my doubts that Apple sees Resolve as a major threat to FCP.
    FCP is still one of the most sold apps on the App store and it was announced over 4 years ago that it had an installed base of over 2 million.
    That number is likely much higher now.
    If anything there seems to be an attitude that the two are complementary to each other.

    Regarding BRAW for FCP X, my understanding is that Apple leaves it up to the camera manufacturer to make the plug in or Quicktime framework for a camera or codec to be compatible.

    It's also worth noting that Apple supposedly helped Avid update DNX make the transition to the new 64bit only Quicktime and I would consider DNX to be a much bigger "competitor" to the ProRes compared to BRAW.

    I have never heard of them blocking a camera or codec from running on FCP or the Mac platform.
    Yes it can happen as this "SEEMED" to be the case with NVIDIAs GPU drivers but even that is not definite.
    If they have blocked a codec in the past I would love to know.

    Not sure where BMD stands in all of this.
    I do think they have an interest in establishing BRAW as a codec (as they should after the financial investments) but whether or not this could be a reason that BMD might block ProResRAW, who knows.

    If I was a betting man, I would say BMD is likely not rushing ProRes RAW support as a means of protecting BRAW adoption but can't say for sure.

    If one truly thinks Apple is the culprit, now is a good time to push this issue with Apple as there is heavy scrutiny on the company and how they do business with others.


    Brian Timmons
    BRITIM/MEDIA
    Good points Brian. I think the answer is out there, it will just take some work uncovering it. The article I'm thinking about writing will not be entirely about ProRes RAW/BRAW controversy but a deeper look at where the postproduction software industry is heading and how companies are trying to position themselves to have long term income streams and stability.
    Steve Sherrick
    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