Final Cut ProRes RAW

[markr041]

17 minutes ago, jonpais said:

@markr041

 What hype, Mark? Apple and Atomos announce a new codec and instantly it's labeled as hype. 

Hype is promotion without information. Which is what we have now. It separates serious forums and YouTube videos from those of marketeers. Do you know why having this new codec improves on anything we already have? 

 

3 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

Here's the thing that makes ProRes so slick for us (and I'm guessing many people.)

Shooting in ProRes HQ delivers a really solid "negative" that plays back in real time even on small MBPs in the field - and it's really fast to edit.

There's someone here that's ranting about Apple and ipods and whatever makes them see Mac as a scary clown face thing, but really they just deliver solid creative tools for a lot of professionals.

I love ProRes HQ, and shoot with it. It works well in Resolve and Vegas Pro; I do not need Apple's system for Pro Res to be a good codec choice. But what does Pro Res HQ have to do with Pro Res RAW? I can shoot in Pro Res RAW or Cinema DNG or Pro Res HQ, so I am not asking the sensible question because I am "left out" (really, you question motives?): why we should care about this new codec if we can select any codec we want?

And, again, if Apple was so good-hearted as to want to "serve" their users, why have they always withheld support from many much-used codecs, including other flavors of RAW? If this new codec is not an improvement, what else is this but an attempt to keep their existing users from exiting (which is different from making their users happy)?

So, in what way is this new codec better than what we already have? Are we next going to wax happy if Apple decides to design their own proprietary versions of AVCHD or X AVC? 

[jonpais]

9 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Hype is promotion without information. Which is what we have now. It separates serious forums and YouTube videos from those of marketeers. Do you know why having this new codec improves on anything we already have? 

 

I love ProRes HQ, and shoot with it. It works well in Resolve and Vegas Pro; I do not need Apple's system for Pro Res to be a good codec choice. But what does Pro Res HQ have to do with Pro Res RAW? I can shoot in Pro Res RAW or Cinema DNG or Pro Res HQ, so I am not asking the sensible question because I am "left out" (really, you question motives?): why we should care about this new codec if we can select any codec we want?

And, again, if Apple was so good-hearted as to want to "serve" their users, why have they always withheld support from many much-used codecs, including other flavors of RAW? If this new codec is not an improvement, what else is this but an attempt to keep their existing users from exiting (which is different from making their users happy)?

So, in what way is this new codec better than what we already have? Are we next going to wax happy if Apple decides to design their own proprietary versions of AVCHD or X AVC? 

Sorry, Mark, but as much as I value your contributions, I have to disagree with you here. Hype is extravagant or intensive promotion, often exaggerating its importance or benefits. I'm not seeing that anywhere. BTW, the forums are not exactly free from hype or its opposite either.

[markr041]

45 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Sorry, Mark, but as much as I value your contributions, I have to disagree with you here. Hype is extravagant or intensive promotion, often exaggerating its importance or benefits. I'm not seeing that anywhere. BTW, the forums are not exactly free from hype or its opposite either.

Please disagree whenever you think it right! But, no, hype is the absence of information, not the intensity of the promotion. I like enthusiasm. So, if someone said (correctly) - this Pro Res RAW retains 23% more color information in a smaller space than existing codecs!!! I am fine. I am happy if they put that on balloons launched over the Eiffel Tower and/or had it said by a basketball celebrity has-been, or put it subtly on signs in the backgrounds of blockbuster movies (23% better!).  That's promotion, not hype. But just saying Wow, we have new codec - from Apple. No other info. That's hype. And anyone waxing enthusiastic about this announcement in the absence of information on why it is an improvement...(although having more choices is better ceteris paribus, having a new choice which is no better is not better )

Again, I am one of those who can actually use this new codec right now, so I actually care what it does for me and others. I thus read the announcement, and have no clue as to what this codec does for us that we cannot do now. I am not locked into anyone's "system" either. I use Pro Res HQ to shoot and edit.

So, what's so good about this new Apple product? This is not an anti-Apple question.

[Jim Giberti]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

So, what's so good about this new Apple product? This is not an anti-Apple question.

What I can tell you should be obvious but I'll tell you anyway.

It delivers (I "know" this 2nd hand but from the best 2nd hand) the capabilities and post controls of RAW that so many of us would love to utilize regularly but are restricted from using because of busy produciton workflows. And it will deliver it to hundreds of thousands of FCPX suites and editors to incorporate those strengths going forward.

It's a pretty big deal to a lot of us for those reasons.

If it is for you, great.

if not...still great.

[markr041]

28 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

What I can tell you should be obvious but I'll tell you anyway.

It delivers (I "know" this 2nd hand but from the best 2nd hand) the capabilities and post controls of RAW that so many of us would love to utilize regularly but are restricted from using because of busy produciton workflows. And it will deliver it to hundreds of thousands of FCPX suites and editors to incorporate those strengths going forward.

It's a pretty big deal to a lot of us for those reasons.

If it is for you, great.

if not...still great.

Sorry, you do not seem to understand the issue. Is it better than CinemaDNG RAW or not? We all know the benefits of RAW, what does this new flavor of RAW add?

Or is it that Apple Software will not let you edit using CinemaDNG RAW? So Apple offers something like it - no better- that people can only use with Apple software? 

For people who can choose a codec based on its performance we still do not have any info.

 

[Jim Giberti]

12 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Sorry, you do not seem to understand the issue.

I'm sorry I don't understand your issues.

But I do understand that ProRes Raw will be pretty breakthrough for a lot of producers.

If you spend a little time on the BM forum right now you can get a better sense...or maybe not, I can't know what is meaningful to you.

But I do know it's very meaningful to a top DP/producer that's demoed it. He knows his shit and while under ND, he considers it a really big deal.

That's all I have for you. And I'm sure it's not enough.

 

[markr041]

Ok, so we can conclude there is no hard information indicating the benefits of ProRes RAW over CinemaDNG RAW. I am glad that you and the others are happy about this new product. But do wish you could answer whether or not Apple software can work with Cinema DNG RAW. If not I can well understand why you are happy, since the new offering surely will be useful to Apple software users given what they are unable to do now.

So, the product is announced but no one is allowed to say what it does. That's hype! Zero content.

[Jim Giberti]

5 minutes ago, markr041 said:

But do wish you could answer whether or not Apple software can work with Cinema DNG RAW.

Oh, that I can answer no problem (pretty sure I did earlier.)

No - FCPX cannot work with DNG RAW files. Shooting RAW requires Resolve (for most of us) to debayer and utilize the purpose and power of shooting in RAW.

But do keep in mind that most producers (even shooting ARRI, BM etc.) don't shoot in RAW specifically because of the workflow requirements.

They DO shoot in ProRes specifically because of the ease of the workflow.

Because we now know (little sparrows...not formally because NDAs exist everywhere - sorry if that upsets you) that it will provide the power/post capabilities of true RAW - it is better than Cinema DNG because of everything I just wrote.

Relax a little. Stop shouting hype and zero content.

Life is complex and doesn't always happen the way you want it to. Just wait a few days and you'll know everything you need to.

 

[KnightsFan]

@Jim Giberti so essentially, you're saying PRR is better than DNG solely because it provides a better workflow for FCPX users?

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense just to give FCPX native DNG support?

[cls105]

I hope avid or blackmagic have their version of this.  Single file "raw" video that is cross platform and works in Premiere and Avid Media Composer natively.

[sam]

22 hours ago, markr041 said:

Don't forget - the Sony FS700R (that old thing) can now also record in ProRes RAW in 4K DCI 60P and 4KDCI 120P and 2K DCI 240P! (so can the FS5) using the new upgrade of the Inferno.

 ha! it is old isnt it! same sensor and 12 bit raw image as the fs5 though! any ways carry on.  

[Jim Giberti]

47 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

So essentially, you're saying PRR is better than DNG solely because it provides a better workflow for FCPX users?

I didn't say this at all. I said most producers shoot in ProRes and so ProRes Raw will be a great codec for any camera - like Arri BM etc.

It will, of course, be great for FCPX editors who don't want (as most don't) to go through the extra step of debayering and inital grading in Resolve as they do now if they want to have the unique gradeability of the RAW file.

53 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

In that case, wouldn't it make more sense just to give FCPX native DNG support?

Those decisions are a bit above my pay grade but I think we can assume that ProRes is a next gen codec that improves on DNG in ways that will appeal to some and perhaps not to others.

It seems all good to me though.

[cantsin]

6 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

Funny how cineform raw existited since 2012 and is open source and platform independent

Actually, Cineform Raw is still not Open Source. Only the conventional flavors of the codec were publicly released.

[Don Kotlos]

3 minutes ago, cantsin said:

Actually, Cineform Raw is still not Open Source. Only the conventional flavors of the codec were publicly released.

I wasn't aware of that. I saw they released support for the RAW in open source SDK under MIT licence here:

https://gopro.github.io/cineform-sdk/

[KnightsFan]

14 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

I think we can assume that ProRes is a next gen codec that improves on DNG in ways

 I think this was the sticking point mark was querying, which we don't know yet.Though,as an open standard, DNG continues to evolve and improve as well.

15 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

I didn't say this at all. I said most producers shoot in ProRes and so ProRes Raw will be a great codec for any camera - like Arri BM etc.

My mistake, I misunderstood. It seemed like you were saying that the reason producers shoot in ProRes because it has an easy workflow, and that since PRR has the same workflow as ordinary ProRes, it is preferable to DNG.

[jonpais]

Interview with the CEO of Atomos. A great company.

 

[cpc]

20 hours ago, cls105 said:

I hope avid or blackmagic have their version of this.  Single file "raw" video that is cross platform and works in Premiere and Avid Media Composer natively.

There is support for MXF containers in the CinemaDNG specification. AFAIK, no support in cameras and apps though.

On 06/04/2018 at 7:45 PM, BenEricson said:

Playback/Size? Those are huge. ProRes Raw is supposed to perform very well. 

CinemaDNG 3:1 is similar size to ProRes Raw HQ and CinemaDNG 4:1 is similar size to ProRes Raw. DNG performance in Resolve is excellent.

[kye]

I see this from a slightly different point of view.

The main "pro" that I see is that it has the potential to improve workflows for those who are already using the compatible equipment (FCPX and external recorders) or are willing to change their workflow to do so.

The main "con" that I see is that this is quite a deliberate move on Apples behalf to further separate themselves and their ecosystem from being globally compatible.  As someone who is now an Apple user (MBP, iPhone, iPads) but didn't used to be (PC, Android) I became acutely aware of how Apple will deliberately do things to restrict global compatibility and drive people to an all-Apple ecosystem.  My distain for Apple is significant, and perhaps only surpassed by my distain for Microsoft, who are also masters of playing this game, which is one of the main reasons I changed platforms.
It's not the creation of a new codec that is the risk here, it's that it places a greater likelihood that other more open codecs will not receive as much attention or support.  We have all suffered as the innocent bystanders in 'format wars' from Blu-ray v HD DVD to VHS v Beta and before that with Quad etc.  Some of us have also suffered at the hands of a feature that promised interoperability but was unusable due to some kind of bug, but unfortunately the manufacturer never fixed it and we lost months or years waiting and hoping that it would be rectified. 

Manufacturers are out for themselves and will shaft the customer as much as is possible to get away with while still gaining sales by being the 'least worst'.  Take Canon and ML as an example of what was possible vs what was delivered.

[webrunner5]

Sony has been about as big of a horses ass as any of them for goofy standards. They have become a bit more Normal lately, but this proprietary stuff just sucks for the average Joe, Jose' out there.

[kye]

19 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Sony has been about as big of a horses ass as any of them for goofy standards. They have become a bit more Normal lately, but this proprietary stuff just sucks for the average Joe, Jose' out there.

Most of the big names are doing it.  

The strategy when you want to get on top is to take your advantage of being smaller and with less technical 'heritage' to hold you back and invest some of your potential profits in a better value-for-money product to grow your market share.  

Then once you're at the top the strategy becomes to push the boundaries of the Anti-Competitive laws in order to squash the little people trying to steal your market share.  Freeze them out by technology licensing, do deals with them and then refuse to pay and bankrupt them in court, or if they have patents then buy them out and shelve the tech.  Lots of strategies and lots of hours spent by smart people getting paid by the big bully to keep control of the playground.  To badly paraphrase Captain Jack - "There is only what a <company> can do and what a <company> can't do".