Thread: ProRes RAW in/to Resolve

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. #31  
    Senior Member jake blackstone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post
    I really have my doubts that Apple sees Resolve as a major threat to FCP.
    A threat, no, a strategic competitor yes. Going forward, being able to do light video and sound editing and a little color correction while using some pre-built VFX and graphics on a new shiny and VERY powerful iPads will be streamlined even more. But even of more importance, those videos will be shot on iPhones or iPads probably using some of the ProresRAW technology with BM not being able to do anything about it, if they not allowed to touch images directly. I can't see Apple seeding any part of that enormous market to anyone, including BM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post
    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 why would you say "seemed". nVidia was always very clear about their desire to be present on a Mac platform and they even went as far as to develop their own driver for their GPUs on High Sierra when Apple dropped all nVidia support on OS level, yet at the time Apple allowed it to proceed. it was a bit of a mess as you needed to hunt down the proper "Web driver" and then find the correct CUDA driver, but it still was doable. Alas, that was the last hurrah for nVidia on a Mac platform . When Mojave OS came around, nVidia again was only happy to provide a driver for Mojave OS, but that time Apple refused to signed it and that was the end of a proper support for powerful desktop nVidia GPUs on a Mac.
    Jake Blackstone
    Colorist
    Los Angeles
    MOD Color Web Site
    Demo Reel
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    A threat, no, a strategic competitor yes.



    Not sure why would you say "seemed". nVidia was always very clear about their desire to be present on a Mac platform and they even went as far as to develop their own driver for their GPUs on High Sierra when Apple dropped all nVidia support on OS level, yet at the time Apple allowed it to proceed. it was a bit of a mess as you needed to hunt down the proper "Web driver" and then find the correct CUDA driver, but it still was doable. Alas, that was the last hurrah for nVidia on a Mac platform . When Mojave OS came around, nVidia again was only happy to provide a driver for Mojave OS, but that time Apple refused to signed it and that was the end of a proper support for powerful desktop nVidia GPUs on a Mac.
    I once was strongly in the camp believing that Apple was blocking NVIDIA from writing the drivers.

    http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...t=#post1830989

    There were many accusations from 3rd parties respectively supporting their favored side and some believed that NVIDIA did not want to work with Apple unless they had greater control over the drivers which also included power struggles between CUDA, OPEN CL, and the then growing concern of METAL as the GPU language to push.

    I'm not sure if you remember how bad Open CL and Metal performed on NVIDIA cards despite them being so powerful.
    Some believe this was on purpose and due to NVIDIA not wanting to fully support them.

    I left that situation uncertain what to think as both NVIDIA and Apple were pretty silent on the issue.

    In restropect we now know that Apple was all about establishing their own GPU language in METAL as well as their own GPU hardware and even AMD who has played ball with Apple will likely not have a long future on Apple systems.

    I personally think Apple should keep the platform open to all GPU developers provided they work within the OS framework.

    Will see how those developments go.

    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  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post

    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.
    Well this is the issue.

    Some people at Apple make hardware. Those guys love to show Resolve running on their machines. Pretty sure the M1 launch featured some big resolve demos. And honestly, on like for like BRAW runs faster than ProRes RAW on M1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post

    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.
    Right, But that FCP team is not the same team. There's the FCP team that "look after" ProRes. And then there's this whole other team that make hardware. Different divisions. Different aims.

    See where this is going?


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post
    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.
    My understanding from the guy that is the lead on BRAW is that BMD have offered to write the FCPx plugin, just like they have for AVID and Adobe and Apple said "No thanks"

    The big problem with ProRes RAW, far bigger than resolve running it or not is that no camera records internally and you HAVE to use a single vendor of external recorder. Those are two major hurdles that are going to stop it from ever going anywhere as a codec. It's also kind of a dumb codec compared to others. Not great metadata support, no built in LUTs, no sidecar files, but that's less pressing than just, can I just record to it in-camera ?

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

  4. #34  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    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
    12K BRAW runs faster than ProRes RAW, like for like.

    Of course 12K resolution wasn't the design goal of the sensor design. It was a side effect of they desire to have equal colour channels at a pixel level and wanting "good" 8K.


    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    Joking aside, you are still missing the point. It's not really important who was first or who designed the better mousetrap.
    Yes but you said BRAW was developed by BMD as a RESULT of ProRes RAW. I was pointing out it wasn't and they had to design their own codec to go hand in hand with their in-house sensor. No other codec would have worked. And that development started a long time before ProRes RAW.


    Quote Originally Posted by jake blackstone View Post
    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...
    I don't think it will happen that way. ProRes RAW will never truly take off till it can be recorded inside a camera. And even then, it's not the prettiest one at the dance.

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

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    Well this is the issue.


    My understanding from the guy that is the lead on BRAW is that BMD have offered to write the FCPx plugin, just like they have for AVID and Adobe and Apple said "No thanks"

    JB
    I wish I had a news blog because that's quite a scoop.

    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  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post

    I don't think it will happen that way. ProRes RAW will never truly take off till it can be recorded inside a camera. And even then, it's not the prettiest one at the dance.

    JB
    I really think ProRes RAW in high end cameras is probably of secondary importance to Apple.
    They are likely looking at pushing that capability more on iPhones.
    It's how you truly expand on a $2 trillion market cap.

    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  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member Steve Sherrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,193
    Quote Originally Posted by John Brawley View Post
    I don't think it will happen that way. ProRes RAW will never truly take off till it can be recorded inside a camera. And even then, it's not the prettiest one at the dance.

    JB
    So, as I understood it, Apple tried to sue RED to avoid paying royalties for ProRes RAW and lost. Some DJI cameras can record in camera.So, is it completely out of the question for Arri or Sony to adopt ProRes RAW in camera? Does Apple paying the royalties avoid the patent infringement or are there still restrictions when it comes to in-camera? Because if PRR did land in Arri cameras that would move the needle.

    Also, curious to your comment about PRR not being the prettiest. Compared to? ArriRAW, REDCODE, BRAW?

    If it's in comparison to BRAW, there are pros and cons to each of them. But I have no issue with with the image quality when it comes to PRR.
    Steve Sherrick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    623
    Steve the DJI doesn’t record “in-camera”. The recording part where the media is located is “external” to the camera.

    So I have my doubts we will ever see it in-camera. I think that’s what Apple were testing with the suit. Though why they launched a codec and then thought to test the patent I’m not sure was well thought out.

    So *maybe* a few agree to pay for being able to do it, to RED not Apple. Assuming of course that RED strategically allow a licence to be done.

    Why would Arri want to pay one of their main competitors RED a fee for every camera they sell? I don’t see them philosophically paying their competitor a continuous revenue stream.

    Re codecs. Like I said. Efficient playback, LUTs built in, sidecar files, metadata.

    I think this is a lot more complicated than it appears. Like why did Atomos even need to do a deal with RED when they are an external recorder and use ProRes RAW ?

    https://www.studiodaily.com/2018/12/...ties-exchange/

    https://ymcinema.com/2019/01/24/atom...-reds-patents/

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

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Sherrick View Post
    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.
    That's a great and very relevant article Steve.
    A lot of converging and opposing interests to unravel on that one.

    A part of me wonder's if this cable/movie theater period is a declining phase similar to the
    Nickelodeon theaters of the early 1900s that eventually went away with the establishment of features.

    After years of corporations assimilating each other I think people are seeing the dangers of a few dictating to the many.
    The last 5 years have truly shown this as it relates to the flow of information, ideas and viewpoints.

    There will likely be a standoff between the interests of the surviving mega corporations and the ideals of a great many that
    see opportunity in things becoming more decentralized.

    Is this not what crypto, independent news and media platforms are about.

    Would definitely look forward to reading the article.

    Just a bit of warning, you will likely start with an article and end with a book.


    P.S.- I went on tangent on that one. You did mention post production companies.
    Still a very interesting read as the video market is so much bigger and more diverse than anyone would have imagined it would be.

    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. #40  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Timmons View Post
    I really think ProRes RAW in high end cameras is probably of secondary importance to Apple.
    They are likely looking at pushing that capability more on iPhones.
    It's how you truly expand on a $2 trillion market cap.
    Not so sure about that.

    ProRes RAW has been "announced" for what...3 years? Still hasn't made it into it into a iPhone or iPad yet though....

    And I'm not sure it ever can be because, as far as we know so far, ProRes RAW can't be used in-camera...

    But you know what has made it into an Apple device?

    Apple ProRAW Photo. You know...they announced it AND it shipped in a product right away?

    https://petapixel.com/2020/12/14/app...-on-an-iphone/

    You know what else? And this is ONLY a guess.....

    If you look at Apple's own technical explanation of ProRaw you find this...

    "Starting in iOS 14, and available on iPhone 12 Pro and Pro Max, you can use the new Apple ProRAW format. Apple ProRAW is a demosaiced RAW format that gives you the benefits of Bayer RAW capture, but applies many of the multi-image fusion techniques previously unavailable to RAW workflows."

    (my emphasis)

    Gee....where have we heard the phrase "demosaiced raw format" before?

    https://kirkville.com/apples-new-pro...r-pro-nor-raw/

    I'm wondering if Apple aren't developing a IP workaround video codec using a partial or debayered RAW codec for video simply because they mis-fired with ProRes RAW and didn't realise they wouldn't be able to use it in-camera....

    A video version of ProRaw wouldn't have that problem and could have most of the features of a true raw codec.

    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