Jump to content

Final Cut ProRes RAW


photographer-at-large

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Apples reasons for developing their own solutions for the entire chain has a lot to do with reliability. Their reliability comes from controlling all the bits and making sure they work together. 

No need to feel sorry for us PC users. Resolve has been cutting through 4K raw like butter for years. I've been shooting raw exclusively since 2013. Stopped using proxies in 2015. I've only ever

Funny how cineform raw existited since 2005 and is open source and platform independent but companies drag their feet. Whereas when Apple does something that is restricted toac ecosystem they implemen

Posted Images

EVA1 with the raw update (5.7K 30P, 4K 60P and 2K 240P in RAW) in combination with Inferno's Prores RAW seems like a big winner to me, much more flexible than C200's internal raw which is only available in 4k.

 

 

 

When shooting 4K60P prores raw gives you about 21 min vs 15min on C200's Canon light raw on a 128GB card, but if you decide to shoot 4K 30/25/24 you can get around 40 min of prores raw vs 15min on C200 lol, similar to GH5 with 400Mbps get you around 40minish footage too.. but Prores RAW gives you much more flexibility!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ntblowz said:

EVA1 with the raw update (5.7K 30P, 4K 60P and 2K 240P in RAW) in combination with Inferno's Prores RAW seems like a big winner to me, much more flexible than C200's internal raw which is only available in 4k.

 

 

 

When shooting 4K60P prores raw gives you about 21 min vs 15min on C200's Canon light raw on a 128GB card, but if you decide to shoot 4K 30/25/24 you can get around 40 min of prores raw vs 15min on C200 lol, similar to GH5 with 400Mbps get you around 40minish footage too.. but Prores RAW gives you much more flexibility!

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Alex4D is right - and he often is - this is a very aggressive strategy on Apples side. PRR will be acquisition only. Apple will help any camera or field recorder manufacturer to implement the encoder - probably even for free. But the decoder will be exclusively for Apple software:

Quote

Add any camera you have into a RED-like RAW workflow with an Atomos recorder and Apple professional video applications

The competitors may soldier on with Arri-Raw, RedRaw or DNG, these solutions don't become extinct. But if you want an alternative, try FCP.

This might initially lure only a few hundred pros and semipros to FCPX. It could be a DOA scenario.

How much could Apple charge for PRR licenses for Resolve, Premiere, Edius or what have you? 

But let's assume the advantages over other raw solutions are as self-evident to everyone as they look right now. 

> Apple would confirm and prove that it still invents and develops for the pro market

> by initially making PRR proprietary and not trying to make it an 'industry standard', Apple could make the 'industry' look like the video-version of 'the rust belt'.

> if PRR is successful, Apple could consider to sell licenses to competitors

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Danko said:

Is it true that it is not a true raw format? Reading it like this, it sounds like an idiotic question. It comes from the conversation on the newsshooter where that seems to be the conclusion.

I think we lost the term RAW to the marketers back when Redcode arrived. I'm inclined to believe that, like Redcode, Prores Raw is "mildly compressed images with a color filter," rather than  "uncompressed linear sensor data" which would be truer to the concept of Raw. The fact that there are two flavors--Raw HQ and Raw--tells me that at least one of them has lossy compression. And it also seems that some cameras that do "Raw" over SDI have done some processing already, like the C200's Raw Lite which apparently has a log curve applied to it.

None of that is to say it's a bad format, of course! Just slightly dishonest naming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what exactly is better about Apple's so-called RAW compared with CinemaDNG RAW? The cameras named by Atomos that can take advantage of ProRes RAW already can use CinemaRAW - same resolutions and frame rates. Is this just the same thing with a proprietary component so that Apple can fool people into thinking they need to buy Macs? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how cineform raw existited since 2005 and is open source and platform independent but companies drag their feet. Whereas when Apple does something that is restricted toac ecosystem they implement it before it even gets released. I do belong to the Mac ecosystem and while the proresraw might offer faster performance I hate the closed system strings that apple attaches. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, markr041 said:

So what exactly is better about Apple's so-called RAW compared with CinemaDNG RAW? The cameras named by Atomos that can take advantage of ProRes RAW already can use CinemaRAW - same resolutions and frame rates. Is this just the same thing with a proprietary component so that Apple can fool people into thinking they need to buy Macs? 

It could even be a conspiracy to steal young children but more than likely it's a new codec that bridges raw acquisition and editing in FCPX.

Why is everything always so tribal and conspiratorial? We've got enough of that crap in the political world.  

Apple has a shit load of FCPX seats around the world and most of them don't want to use Resolve in order to process raw footage and most production companies turning out most of the work don't deal with the raw workflow either.

So the logical conclusion is that Apple has developed a new codec for Their users to (potentially) utilize the strengths of raw in their current, preferred workflow.

The word "fool people" suggests people are so stupid that they'd use something they don't need or that Apple is working with Dr Evil to deceive the masses with their nefarious new codec.

I'm pretty sure it's just a new option aimed at serving their users (free update for us) and dear god don't let this be true - perhaps even increase their market share.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

It could even be a conspiracy to steal young children but more than likely it's a new codec that bridges raw acquisition and editing in FCPX.

Why is everything always so tribal and conspiratorial? We've got enough of that crap in the political world.  

Apple has a shit load of FCPX seats around the world and most of them don't want to use Resolve in order to process raw footage and most production companies turning out most of the work don't deal with the raw workflow either.

So the logical conclusion is that Apple has developed a new codec for Their users to (potentially) utilize the strengths of raw in their current, preferred workflow.

The word "fool people" suggests people are so stupid that they'd use something they don't need or that Apple is working with Dr Evil to deceive the masses with their nefarious new codec.

I'm pretty sure it's just a new option aimed at serving their users (free update for us) and dear god don't let this be true - perhaps even increase their market share.

Fine. I won't quibble with you on what "fool" implies. But - so is ProRes RAW better than the open CinemaDNG Raw or not? Do you know? If it's not better in some way, what's the point?  why the hype? Apple could just as well as made their software work with CinemaDNG for their users who would like to shoot RAW. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Fine. I won't quibble with you on what "fool" implies. But - so is ProRes RAW better than the open CinemaDNG Raw or not? Do you know? If it's not better in some way, what's the point?  why the hype? Apple could just as well as made their software work with CinemaDNG for their users who would like to shoot RAW. 

 How could anyone possibly know what it is or isn't - it's just an announcement...and thank you for not quibbling.

I have several stations running FCPX and several cameras shooting raw.

We all hoped they'd implememnt support for BM cameras directly in FCPX but I don't think it falls into the category of conspiracy. Just what a company decides to do or doesn't, and In this case raw is simply not used in the vast average amount of editing seats.

The fact that they're building on their pretty awesome ProRes standard that their systmes are optimized for just sort of makes sense to me. But I'm vested in that universe.

For others who aren't', I'm sorry if they feel left out, or denied or whatever happens at times like this.

To me it's just a codec that I haven't used yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, markr041 said:

Fine. I won't quibble with you on what "fool" implies. But - so is ProRes RAW better than the open CinemaDNG Raw or not? Do you know? If it's not better in some way, what's the point?  why the hype? Apple could just as well as made their software work with CinemaDNG for their users who would like to shoot RAW. 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...