Is ProRes RAW just compressed RAW in a ProRes wrapper?

cpreston said:
You also have to be a FCPX user and an Atomos owner. I am sure that will change soon.
Click to expand...

DPStewart said:
Okay - so it seems that ProRes RAW is really a format primarily intended for Final Cut users, of which I am not one.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind it is very early days. I'd expect Premiere & Resolve to add support very soon. Perhaps followed next by Blackmagic - though RED & Arri, who knows?

It wasn't that long ago that ProRes was Mac-only, and generally only used for post production. It really only became a viable field-recording option recently, first via external recorders, then eventually finding its way onto many cameras as the defacto standard format. So there is still plenty of room for more support by other manufacturers. Eventually I'd expect any hardware or software that supports ProRes to also support ProRes RAW.
 
Asking a question here. Still a bit confused here but then it's probably my old brain.

If I understand this correctly it means no de-Bayer from camera in these ProRes RAW files so no camera color science. Does this mean that all NLEs are going to have to have the color science data from all camera manufactures encoded into their software? Take Blackmagic for example. Do you think they will release the color science data for their cameras to other NLE vendors? I can't see them doing this. It's a bit like IDTs. Resolve comes with all their BM cameras data but getting IDTs for other specific cameras into Resolve for ACES workflow is a bit of pain. Are we going to see the following type of scenario as is happening with camera IDTs.

"While major players like Arri, Sony, Canon and BMD have IDTs for their camera systems, there aren’t specific ones for every camera. Sure, there are generic Rec 709 or P3 IDTs, but in my mind, the generic nature of those IDTs in some ways defeats the precise scene linear approach of ACES."

So unless NLEs have the specific color science from each camera maker and each model from that maker how do you use ProRes RAW unless you have that accurate camera specific color science be applied to the files you are working on?

Just curious?

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
Asking a question here. Still a bit confused here but then it's probably my old brain.

If I understand this correctly it means no de-Bayer from camera in these ProRes RAW files so no camera color science. Does this mean that all NLEs are going to have to have the color science data from all camera manufactures encoded into their software? Take Blackmagic for example. Do you think they will release the color science data for their cameras to other NLE vendors? I can't see them doing this. It's a bit like IDTs. Resolve comes with all their BM cameras data but getting IDTs for other specific cameras into Resolve for ACES workflow is a bit of pain. Are we going to see the following type of scenario as is happening with camera IDTs.

"While major players like Arri, Sony, Canon and BMD have IDTs for their camera systems, there aren’t specific ones for every camera. Sure, there are generic Rec 709 or P3 IDTs, but in my mind, the generic nature of those IDTs in some ways defeats the precise scene linear approach of ACES."

So unless NLEs have the specific color science from each camera maker and each model from that maker how do you use ProRes RAW unless you have that accurate camera specific color science be applied to the files you are working on?

Just curious?

Chris Young
Click to expand...

There is a ton of color science that goes into encoding a RAW signal in the first place. Anyone who tells you that RAW is just data "straight off the sensor" is oversimplifying the process on a vast scale. And then yes, the deBayer process will happen in the post system and the post system will need to know a bit about the RAW files. This is nothing new and this information has been shared on various platforms for various RAW formats for years. There are a bunch of systems that can read a bunch of different RAW formats, so that part of the process is nothing new. What is new is the ProRes RAW compression structure and how that will need to be decoded, but the RAW processing aspect is not.
 
DPStewart said:
Because there are already an armful of compressed RAW formats, and because like combatentropy stated above, if they had come up with a NEW encoding method they would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Click to expand...

This may be smoke and mirrors but 'ProRes' does have 'brand'

I mean if you are a production house do you want to archive in slimRaw.. some small yard hacker format whos developers may dissapear without trace, even cineform has been through the mill being bought by the now in a mess GoPro company

So.. its about reputation.

As a production house executive, I think..
Red, Cineform, uncompressed and DNG are too large to archive
I think slim raw is a hacker code

All of my thoughts may be completely wrong, but I pay the bills so I sign off the formats

ProRes goes raw and, I trust it and might be happy to deal in it.

Good result for camera folks as we get to shoot a format we want to, raw, and the production houses dont run a mile.

Smoke and mirrors that works well for operators who want to record in a good codec :)
 
Last edited:
Mitch

I understand what you are saying. The question for me is as follows. I understand the color information is in the data stream but that the Debayer now has to take place in the NLE or player software. This then means that each NLE system is going to have to have its own Debayer algorithms. Who's to say that the algorithms used by the various NLE providers are going to be equally efficient and transparent vis-a-vis one another, and that interchange of material between different systems with their own proprietary ProRes RAW Debayer algorithms isn't going to cause color science problems. All this has to be squared away. Other NLE producers will have to license this proprietary ProRes RAW from Apple. I think this will meet with a fair amount of industry reluctance. Already Blackmagic are looking pretty cool on this PR Pro development. Understandably to some degree when you see Apple and Atomos getting cosy with one another. There is no love lost between BM and Atomos as is well know in the industry. Politics plays a part and always will.

The way I see it today for a proprietary codec even with the cache associated with the brand ProRes it is going to be a hard sell for Apple to get all other NLE manufactures on board unless the license fees are extremely reasonable. If you don't get support for ProRes RAW from the likes of BM with Resolve I think it will be a struggle. Why? Because at the moment as popular as FCPX is it is no way close to a substitute as a complete NLE/correction/grading package as Resolve. If there is a wide lack of professional industry support from NLE manufactures who like open formats such as CNDG, MOX, DPX and open EXR I think as good as ProRes RAW may be it will struggle. Apple are very much into their own closed ecosystem. Some cynics are saying that Apple may not license ProRes RAW to other NLE manufacturers. That it may be a move to say if you want to use ProRes RAW you move to our NLE and hardware. Sound familiar? To those of us who have been editing NLE since day one it stirs some memories.

Summing up I think for ProRes RAW to be flying success Apple need to license it for free and supply their proprietary Debayer algorithms to all other NLE system manufacturers. Much like Grass Valley with their true cross platform HQX codec. A mighty codec for swapping between different NLEs and VFX software. GV make this codec family free to anyone who wants to use it. Although the latest news with HQX is that it will no longer run in FCPX 10.3. and later. It ran on earlier versions of FCPX. I wonder why it won't function now? I hope ProRes RAW does take off but I'm not holding my breath as I think it might take some time.

Chris Young
 
Apple does have a history of just stopping work on a product, and then removing all traces from the web as quickly as possible. QuickTime Streaming Server comes to mind, Xserve hardware also comes to mind as two products that they burned me with. Even the Server OS is pretty much not a thing anymore. What about QuickTime for Windows?

When it comes to Apple, my opinion is to be very cautious.
 
Yes I remember many of the products that just disappeared. The big classic some years back was Shake on Windows. Apple purchased it code swapped it to Mac and instantly dropped the Win version hoping that there would be a mass exodus of Win users going to Mac hardware to use Shake. It didn't happen so Apple decided to drop Shake. Back then that little exercise cost a colleague of mine something like $70K plus. Adding to what Greg listed you can add these and this isn't a complete list, Shake, Color, DVD Studio Pro, Aperture, Cinema Tools, Soundtrack Pro, XServe, XRAID, Final Cut Server, etc.

I will be cautious until I see broad acceptance of ProRes Pro across the bulk of the NLE professional market. Would like to see it happen but Apple has some work to do I think.

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
Mitch

I understand what you are saying. The question for me is as follows. I understand the color information is in the data stream but that the Debayer now has to take place in the NLE or player software. This then means that each NLE system is going to have to have its own Debayer algorithms. Who's to say that the algorithms used by the various NLE providers are going to be equally efficient and transparent vis-a-vis one another, and that interchange of material between different systems with their own proprietary ProRes RAW Debayer algorithms isn't going to cause color science problems. All this has to be squared away. Other NLE producers will have to license this proprietary ProRes RAW from Apple. I think this will meet with a fair amount of industry reluctance. Already Blackmagic are looking pretty cool on this PR Pro development. Understandably to some degree when you see Apple and Atomos getting cosy with one another. There is no love lost between BM and Atomos as is well know in the industry. Politics plays a part and always will.

The way I see it today for a proprietary codec even with the cache associated with the brand ProRes it is going to be a hard sell for Apple to get all other NLE manufactures on board unless the license fees are extremely reasonable. If you don't get support for ProRes RAW from the likes of BM with Resolve I think it will be a struggle. Why? Because at the moment as popular as FCPX is it is no way close to a substitute as a complete NLE/correction/grading package as Resolve. If there is a wide lack of professional industry support from NLE manufactures who like open formats such as CNDG, MOX, DPX and open EXR I think as good as ProRes RAW may be it will struggle. Apple are very much into their own closed ecosystem. Some cynics are saying that Apple may not license ProRes RAW to other NLE manufacturers. That it may be a move to say if you want to use ProRes RAW you move to our NLE and hardware. Sound familiar? To those of us who have been editing NLE since day one it stirs some memories.

Summing up I think for ProRes RAW to be flying success Apple need to license it for free and supply their proprietary Debayer algorithms to all other NLE system manufacturers. Much like Grass Valley with their true cross platform HQX codec. A mighty codec for swapping between different NLEs and VFX software. GV make this codec family free to anyone who wants to use it. Although the latest news with HQX is that it will no longer run in FCPX 10.3. and later. It ran on earlier versions of FCPX. I wonder why it won't function now? I hope ProRes RAW does take off but I'm not holding my breath as I think it might take some time.

Chris Young
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't license its codecs. It certifies others' implementation. If you don't pass certification to Apple's standards then you don't get to use it. Apple does this to maintain the quality and consistency of the product.

Apple doesn't license. The money would be peanuts to them. This is Apple we're talking about.
 
Thanks for the clarification Mitch.

If this is the scenario does this mean that all the various camera models Debayer algorithms supplied by all potential NLE providers have to meet Apple's ProRes Pro certification standards? This sounds like it will be a major impost for most NLE programmers. For example what if BM decide not to supply their algorithm 'secret sauce' to their NLE competitors. That could lead to a scenario that Blackmagic's cameras might not be abled to be Debayered accurately in ProRes Pro without BM's proprietary camera model specific color algorithm information. Just think every time a new model camera comes out that is capable of RAW out every NLE provider is going to have to issue updates that include that camera specific Debayer data. Assuming that they have access to that camera algorithm data.

Every camera brand shoots RAW files a bit differently. In still cameras for example Nikon users will see a .NEF after each image, while Canon shooters will see .CRW. Even within the same brand, the newest models may have a slightly different file type than older models.

Programs like Lightroom and Photoshop are often slow to add compatibility to RAW files from the latest cameras. If you pick up a camera just a few days after it was first released, your software might not be compatible with those files yet... or for a while.

All of the above has been problamatic in stills RAW processing, waiting for software updates to address new camera models. My final question is are we going to see the above sceanrios developing with NLE software as we have seen with Lightroom. Firms like Adobe are renowned for being a bit tardy in bringing updates to their software when everyone is screaming for it. It took a long time before Premiere could even handle GH5 10-bit 422 files.

Not wanting to be a doomsayer but I do see a bit of a complex road map ahead.

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
The market dictates what codecs and formats are supported...as BM make their real money off Resolve, I doubt strongly hey are going to be protecting their "secret sauce" in their cameras. It behooves all NLEs to keep up with all the latest and greatest, as the market is what Producers want in terms of the codec for their films/shows....Prores is already very in demand and probably, if more efficient so will be Prores RAW...and yes, this is after all Apple we're talking about. Those who use FCPX, already knows this is Apple's new NLE...the only place it's going, is it's constantly being improved, and as for Prores RAW, and in my case the EVA, it instantly changed the camera for me from a won't buy, to a buy...whether Prores RAW had anything to do with Netflix's certification of the EVA, I have no idea...what is however pertinent about this camera for me now (the lovely image aside) is it can now produce what in the future project Producers may and will ask for...and any company of software or hardware that does not keep up with that, simply gets left behind...so I don't see a choice for either any NLE developer or camera hardware devoper...as to Apple dropping things, Prores is Apple's own and so is Prores RAW...it's not going anywhere
 
Agreed Apple is going nowhere. Well I guess the next question I'll ask is what will Apple do for NLE providers that have versions for Windows, Resolve, Premiere, Edius, Avid, Vegas etc. Apple never officially supported ProRes encoding on Windows. Apple has dropped all official Quicktime support for Windows.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/14/11436932/uninstall-quicktime-windows-apple-stops-support

Does this mean that Apple will now support ProRes on Windows under 64-bit architecture? It would seem very odd if Apple allowed the running of ProRes Pro on Win versions of Resolve, Premiere and Avid but not the next step of encoding from that to ProRes. How will the NLE providers feel about offering ProRes Pro playback and ProRes encode support on the Mac versions of their software but not on their Windows versions? Still a lot of sorting out questions to go me thinks! I guess all will be revealed to us mere mortals in due course.

Addendum: A little correction Mitch. I have just realized that Apple do indeed license their software.

"For information on Apple ProRes licensing, development, and product certification, contact the Apple ProRes Program Office at ProRes@apple.com."

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
Thanks for the clarification Mitch.

If this is the scenario does this mean that all the various camera models Debayer algorithms supplied by all potential NLE providers have to meet Apple's ProRes Pro certification standards? This sounds like it will be a major impost for most NLE programmers. For example what if BM decide not to supply their algorithm 'secret sauce' to their NLE competitors. That could lead to a scenario that Blackmagic's cameras might not be abled to be Debayered accurately in ProRes Pro without BM's proprietary camera model specific color algorithm information. Just think every time a new model camera comes out that is capable of RAW out every NLE provider is going to have to issue updates that include that camera specific Debayer data. Assuming that they have access to that camera algorithm data.

Every camera brand shoots RAW files a bit differently. In still cameras for example Nikon users will see a .NEF after each image, while Canon shooters will see .CRW. Even within the same brand, the newest models may have a slightly different file type than older models.

Programs like Lightroom and Photoshop are often slow to add compatibility to RAW files from the latest cameras. If you pick up a camera just a few days after it was first released, your software might not be compatible with those files yet... or for a while.

All of the above has been problamatic in stills RAW processing, waiting for software updates to address new camera models. My final question is are we going to see the above sceanrios developing with NLE software as we have seen with Lightroom. Firms like Adobe are renowned for being a bit tardy in bringing updates to their software when everyone is screaming for it. It took a long time before Premiere could even handle GH5 10-bit 422 files.

Not wanting to be a doomsayer but I do see a bit of a complex road map ahead.

Chris Young
Click to expand...

You are really overthinking this and it simply isn't how things work on a starship.

"does this mean that all the various camera models Debayer algorithms supplied by all potential NLE providers have to meet Apple's ProRes Pro certification standards?"
No, nothing of the sort. Individual processing values for individual camera RAW signals are proprietary to each camera. How faithfully a ProRes RAW reflects that and how well is the compression standard maintained? Those are what get certified. If manufacturer X wanted to have their camera's look like crap then I guess the point would be to faithfully represent that crap.

"Every camera manufacturer shoots RAW files a little differently."
Yes, and those aren't ProRes RAW. So far there are exactly three devices that actually record ProRes RAW: the Atomos Shogun Inferno and Sumo 19, and a DJI camera. DJI worked with Apple directly to do the encode properly. Atomos worked direct with Apple, and of course involved the supported manufacturers. And everyone worked to make sure that the recordings were done properly. So far only Apple decodes the ProRes RAW files, inside their programs. But anyone who wants to encode and anyone who wants to decode will have to work with Apple to get certification, and that's all about maintaining consistency and accuracy.

You would be surprised how small this industry actually is. How competitors in one area are also partners in another. Everyone knows that we have to work together at least to a certain degree in order for things to actually work right. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean the companies aren't doing it. We're all in this together.
 
fboonzaier said:
The market dictates what codecs and formats are supported...as BM make their real money off Resolve, I doubt strongly hey are going to be protecting their "secret sauce" in their cameras. It behooves all NLEs to keep up with all the latest and greatest, as the market is what Producers want in terms of the codec for their films/shows....Prores is already very in demand and probably, if more efficient so will be Prores RAW...and yes, this is after all Apple we're talking about. Those who use FCPX, already knows this is Apple's new NLE...the only place it's going, is it's constantly being improved, and as for Prores RAW, and in my case the EVA, it instantly changed the camera for me from a won't buy, to a buy...whether Prores RAW had anything to do with Netflix's certification of the EVA, I have no idea...what is however pertinent about this camera for me now (the lovely image aside) is it can now produce what in the future project Producers may and will ask for...and any company of software or hardware that does not keep up with that, simply gets left behind...so I don't see a choice for either any NLE developer or camera hardware devoper...as to Apple dropping things, Prores is Apple's own and so is Prores RAW...it's not going anywhere
Click to expand...

Couple of clarifications needed here.

Blackmagic Design does NOT make its "real money" off of Resolve. BMD makes its money off of the hardware its software enables. All those Teranex boxes, those little converters, the ATEM switcher and associated studio suite. Why do you think they keep adding functions like audio mixing and editing to a color program like Resolve? The goal is to have entire post facilities with dozens of bays doing different work, but all running Blackmagic Design gear in rack after rack. That's where the money is.

ProRes RAW had nothng to do with the EVA1's certification by Netflix. In fact if you check the published list of approved cameras on the Netflix website, you'll find that it only mentions the All-I 400 internal recording. I believe Netflx is still testing the CinemaDNG and ProRes RAW recordings and workflows.

I do agree that what Apple has done is to create a standard. A whole bunch of cameras outputting a signal that is all recorded in the same format, and that format is the native editing format as well. That what they already had in video ProRes and that's what they now have in ProRes RAW. People can naysay all they want, but watch this become an industry standard and contractual deliverable within a year or two.
 
cyvideo said:
Agreed Apple is going nowhere. Well I guess the next question I'll ask is what will Apple do for NLE providers that have versions for Windows, Resolve, Premiere, Edius, Avid, Vegas etc. Apple never officially supported ProRes encoding on Windows. Apple has dropped all official Quicktime support for Windows.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/14/11436932/uninstall-quicktime-windows-apple-stops-support

Does this mean that Apple will now support ProRes on Windows under 64-bit architecture? It would seem very odd if Apple allowed the running of ProRes Pro on Win versions of Resolve, Premiere and Avid but not the next step of encoding from that to ProRes. How will the NLE providers feel about offering ProRes Pro playback and ProRes encode support on the Mac versions of their software but not on their Windows versions? Still a lot of sorting out questions to go me thinks! I guess all will be revealed to us mere mortals in due course.

Addendum: A little correction Mitch. I have just realized that Apple do indeed license their software.

"For information on Apple ProRes licensing, development, and product certification, contact the Apple ProRes Program Office at ProRes@apple.com."

Chris Young
Click to expand...

Two notes:

For support on Windows NLEs, don't confuse ProRes with ProRes RAW. Support or lack thereof for one does not reflect anything to the other.

As for ProRes licensing, I guess what I should have written is that Apple doesn't look to this as an income source. The license is a legal matter so that Apple can maintain contractual control over the format. It's all about maintaining a technical standard. The license is the contract, which means that you have to abide by Apple's rules including the certification process.
 
Thanks for you experienced opinions Mitch. If ProRes RAW does become an industry standard all well and good for all of us in the industry. "...but watch this become an industry standard and contractual deliverable within a year or two." I wish I had your confidence Mitch. Time will tell I guess.

Chris Young
 
I think some people clearly have a bias towards Apple including 'explaining' Apple's 'on our hardware only or you have to pay a fortune' closed policy as something that is really positive.
One would hope Panasonic, as a company, takes a more neutral stance on this.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I do agree that what Apple has done is to create a standard.
Click to expand...

"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." --- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

I don't understand the advantage of Prores RAW over CinemaDNG.
If cameras want to record RAW, then I think they should do it in CinemaDNG.
If uncompressed CinemaDNG is too much data, then I think they should use CinemaDNG's documented compression methods. Not only is there mathematically lossless one (which I admit doesn't save much data) there is lossy compression, like what Blackmagic uses. CinemaDNG's lossy compression is JPEG, but I am not convinced there would be much difference between Prores and JPEG at the same data rates, especially since JPEG added higher bit depths (up to 12 bit) to its standard.
 
combatentropy said:
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." --- Andrew S. Tanenbaum

I don't understand the advantage of Prores RAW over CinemaDNG.
If cameras want to record RAW, then I think they should do it in CinemaDNG.
If uncompressed CinemaDNG is too much data, then I think they should use CinemaDNG's documented compression methods. Not only is there mathematically lossless one (which I admit doesn't save much data) there is lossy compression, like what Blackmagic uses. CinemaDNG's lossy compression is JPEG, but I am not convinced there would be much difference between Prores and JPEG at the same data rates, especially since JPEG added higher bit depths (up to 12 bit) to its standard.
Click to expand...
Makes all sense but we are arguing with people who simply like Apple because it is Apple, a hardware company that try tries to force people to use the software they develop on their platforms only.
Why some people are so set against open software or at least software that can be deployed easily on various platforms is beyond me.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I think some people clearly have a bias towards Apple including 'explaining' Apple's 'on our hardware only or you have to pay a fortune' closed policy as something that is really positive.
One would hope Panasonic, as a company, takes a more neutral stance on this.
Click to expand...

And I would say some people clearly have a bias against Apple that no matter what they do - it is really negative. Try out the codec and the workflow - or if you dislike Apple so much don't - but don't make presumptions or assumptions based upon on a non-neutral stance of your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top