ProRes RAW Getting Significant 3rd Party Support

Tom Roper said:
This reads like an endorsement but the comment is a mischaracterization of the 20; they simply have existing raw outputs that are inherently compatible with external raw recording to the ProRes raw format as with any other compatible raw recorder that would typically format bayer sensor + metadata info to cDNG.

The real support given is by FCPX to ProRes Raw. It's wonderful for users to have faster running scripts that are smaller and more efficient on Apple platforms, and for all the raw capable cameras that don't already have a native raw codec. I don't think RedCode Raw or Arriraw are going away. For Sony FS7, FS5 with 12 bit raw output ProRes raw could be a nice upgrade but for a Venice, or F55/F5 16 bit raw you don't even have access to the output without the AXS-R5/R7 recorder and AXSM memory cards, and Sony already have E-OCN.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that one of the principal things that Apple and ATOMOS want with this 1.0 version of ProRes RAW is to get as many people shooting it as possible. I think that's why they have prioritized cameras like the EVA1, FS7, FS5, and Nikon Z series that can be enable without hardware changes or third party licensing. Their reasoning seems pretty sound to me as it will be harder for NLE vendors to say that don't want to support ProRes RAW if it the most popular RAW format.

I also have trouble seeing ProRes RAW replacing REDCODE RAW, ARRIRAW and from what I have read Arri has clearly stated their top priority is ARRIRAW. However, I don't think ProRes is only of interest to shooter with lower end cameras since Arri has had enough customers asking about ProRes RAW that they had to update their FAQ. Most of the ARRI shooters I know typically shoot ProRes instead of ARRIRAW so I'm not surprised many of them want ProRes RAW.

ARRIRAW does seem pretty cool for very high end work and this new feature of ARRIRAW on the LF seems sweet: "New in the ALEXA LF is Enhanced Motion Detection (EMD) in camera. EMD is possible because the ALEXA LF has more processing power than all previous ALEXA cameras. EMD additionally checks the pixel behavior around each pixel and thereby avoids temporal artefacts in high motion areas. This feature is newly introduced with the ALEXA LF to make noise reduction more robust for footage with high motion." It's also cool that RAW noise reduction is in the metadata and not burned into the footage. ARRI is working hard to be to best and I can see why ARRI engineers might not be as impressed with ProRes RAW as ALEXA shooters are. I'd love to see some test footage with this new EMD noise reduction and some comparisons with Neat Video.

When I read ARRI official statement about ProRes RAW in their FAQ, "ProRes RAW is a new addition to the family of ProRes Codecs which is in its early stages and we are currently looking into it," it sounds like Apple is already talking to them about what comes next. Maybe they are planning something like a ProRes RAW XQ for higher end cameras.

https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/...e675/arri-whitepaper-texture-control-data.pdf
 
Gary T said:
I had heard Jeromy Young used to work at BMD but I didn't know there was a legal case. No wonder there is so much antipathy on all sides.

My read of the details in the document you linked is Jeromy Young looks like a pretty standup guy. He wasn't sanctioned in any way by the courts for wrongdoing, and he apparently kept others from doing anything he thought was dishonest or improper. It looks like he didn't like his boss or job, and had an idea for new company so he quit said job to plan his new company. His former employer sued him but he was cleared of wrongdoing. The court then instructed him to keep doing what he had already committed to doing, not use any of his former employer's trade secrets in his new business.
Click to expand...

That’s an optmistic take. Maybe read it again and look at the dates.

Two employees of BMD secretly went into business together while working for BMD. They created documents that indicated they intended to compete with the company that still employed them, in breach of their contractual obligations to their employer. To suggest that Young wasn’t complicit in this would be naive.

A search revealed that they had stolen IP. Confidential documents relating to Blackmagic... Code.

When taken to court, the judge ruled that they had indeed stolen IP and restrained them from manufacturing competing product.

That’s hardly a classy way to start a business. Young’s wife was exonerated, not Mr Young.

To ProRes RAW...

External recorders were a bad idea to begin with.

Now that so many cameras are offering high bit depth and better codecs I think they’re becoming less and less relevant.

The true milestone of ProRes RAW acceptance is deployment of ProRes RAW in-camera recording. So far it’s only a launch partner, DJI that have this.

I doubt any major camera manufacturer would do ProRes RAW until a major post software developer would also agree to do so.

Catch 22.

And the Japanese don’t like having to pay royalties to RED / APPLE to use their codec.

ProRes RAW could have been great, but I think it’s stalled mid-flight right now.

JB
 
There is nothing wrong with having yet another RAW format as a codec, it is just one codec out of many.
It's not rocket science, you take raw data and compress it.

The problem is if some vendor tries to push a particular RAW codec down people's throaths by eliminating other codecs and forcing royalties upon or denying access to NLE vendors.
The problem is further that some users do not see that as a problem because they think that everything Apple does is gold.
 
Cary Knoop said:
The problem is if some vendor tries to push a particular RAW codec down people's throaths by eliminating other codecs and forcing royalties upon or denying access to NLE vendors.
The problem is further that some users do not see that as a problem because they think that everything Apple does is gold.
Click to expand...

The original intent with patents was to protect inventors. Now it's another part of the control system of the top corporations. Resulting in truly strange products instead of the best possible products. In my experience, wavelet compression is better suited for light compression as well as raw compression over DCT. The fact that QuickTime + Cineform (wavelet) produces over 2x better efficiency than ProRes (DCT), and the fact that Apple essentially banned Cineform (after it became open source / free in 2017!), I'm less motivated to use ProRes raw knowing that there's something better available that's also free (Cineform also has a raw format). Does Red's raw patent block Cineform-raw in cameras? It's been used in cameras since at least 2008 (SlumDog Millionaire) (designed in 2002): http://www.kinefinity.com/workflow-cineform-raw/?lang=en

Why isn't Cineform raw being used in more cameras- it's free and superior to ProRes?
 
jcs said:
Why isn't Cineform raw being used in more cameras- it's free and superior to ProRes?
Click to expand...

I still use the codec frequently on Windows as it works seamlessly as an intermediate between AE, Resolve, Vegas, Edius and Premiere. Being wavelet based It has one of the lowest CPU drains of the better codecs and tends to have less artifact compression issues on fine fast moving detail but sadly after GoPro bought Cineform out it kind of fell by the wayside. David Newman one of the originators of the codec continued to offer support but I haven't seen posts of his now for quite some time. In the early rage of Canon 5D MkII's invading the production world Cineform's NeoScene was the go to tool for batch converting Canon files to Cineform 422. With a quick enough PC it could capture on the fly and convert incoming video to Cineform. I had high hopes that there was going to be a big future for the codec when Cinedeck started to make monitor/recorders that captured in Cineform 12-bit. It was way expensive back in 2010 at $12K but a recorder that used SSDs with a great codec was a promise of things to come. Mitch Gross may know and chip in as to why Cinedeck dropped Cineform as he was around at AbelCine back then and was giving Cinedeck and Cineform a decent plug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWIArbKlvI

Cineform being freely available seems to have the same problem as x264 (x264 a free and open-source software library that produces high quality H.264 files) in that no large corporate entity wants to get into bed business wise unless some kind of legal commitment / agreement can be arrived at. This is of course impossible with open source material as there is no corporate entity to enter into an agreement with. That I think is one of the reasons Cineform kind of withered on the vine. That aside it is still one of my fave intermediate work codecs with various levels up to 4:4:4:4 Film Scan.

Chris Young

EDIT! Forgot that Kinefinity from China are using Cineform... probably because it's free and they don't have to license to the west for a codec. Maybe that's a bit cynical?

http://www.kinefinity.com/tag/cineform-en/?lang=en
 
Last edited:
cyvideo said:
I still use the codec frequently on Windows as it works seamlessly as an intermediate between AE, Resolve, Vegas, Edius and Premiere. Being wavelet based It has one of the lowest CPU drains of the better codecs and tends to have less artifact compression issues on fine fast moving detail but sadly after GoPro bought Cineform out it kind of fell by the wayside. David Newman one of the originators of the codec continued to offer support but I haven't seen posts of his now for quite some time. In the early rage of Canon 5D MkII's invading the production world Cineform's NeoScene was the go to tool for batch converting Canon files to Cineform 422. With a quick enough PC it could capture on the fly and convert incoming video to Cineform. I had high hopes that there was going to be a big future for the codec when Cinedeck started to make monitor/recorders that captured in Cineform 12-bit. It was way expensive back in 2010 at $12K but a recorder that used SSDs with a great codec was a promise of things to come. Mitch Gross may know and chip in as to why Cinedeck dropped Cineform as he was around at AbelCine back then and was giving Cinedeck and Cineform a decent plug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWIArbKlvI

Cineform being freely available seems to have the same problem as x264 (x264 a free and open-source software library that produces high quality H.264 files) in that no large corporate entity wants to get into bed business wise unless some kind of legal commitment / agreement can be arrived at. This is of course impossible with open source material as there is no corporate entity to enter into an agreement with. That I think is one of the reasons Cineform kind of withered on the vine. That aside it is still one of my fave intermediate work codecs with various levels up to 4:4:4:4 Film Scan.

Chris Young

EDIT! Forgot that Kinefinity from China are using Cineform... probably because it's free and they don't have to license to the west for a codec. Maybe that's a bit cynical?

http://www.kinefinity.com/tag/cineform-en/?lang=en
Click to expand...

I was surprised to see Cineform provided by PP CC and after testing it and doing more research vs. ProRes (e.g. it's at least 2x more efficient than ProRes), wondered why it wasn't used more, since it's now free and open source. It's currently stable, has no known issues(?), and complete source code is available. What could possibly prevent anyone (large corp) from using it? It was apparently developed before Red's wavelet raw- any patent issues if used in a camera for live capture? Kinefinity is in China, so not clear if that means anything re: patents and IP for using a wavelet codec in-camera vs. Red's patent(s).

If there are no technical/quality reasons to use ProRes raw over Cineform raw, why should we bother using an inferior codec? (especially when it's not free). ARRIRAW, X-OCN, Canon Raw Lite, BM* raw all appear inferior when comparing efficiency vs. quality over wavelet raw. What could be super useful is a transcoder to convert the fatpig-raw formats to a slimgazelle-raw format (Cineform or Red) to maintain the raw advantage without the bloat.

* BM raw is also free / open source, to be fair it would be cool to see a technical comparison of BM raw vs. Cineform raw. https://ymcinema.com/2018/09/16/bla...ed-to-know-about-blackmagics-brand-new-codec/ (BM raw doesn't appear to be fully 'raw'- is slightly cooked). EDIT: I had download the BM raw SDK- there's zero source code provided. It's a completely abstract virtual interface class for C++ (you can link their compiled library to your code- no source code to see how it works, fix any bugs, add enhancements, etc. Until source code provided, calling it Open Source is misleading- where's the Github download link?).

Here's what Open Source looks like: https://github.com/gopro/cineform-sdk
CineForm Introduction
GoPro CineForm® is a 12-bit, full-frame wavelet compression video codec. It is designed for speed and quality, at the expense of a very high compression size. Image compression is a balance of size, speed and quality, and you can only choose two. CineForm was the first of its type to focus on speed, while supporting higher bit depths for image quality. More recent examples would be Avid DNxHD® and Apple ProRES®, although both divide the image into blocks using DCT. The full frame wavelet as a subject quality advantage over DCTs, so you can compression more without classic ringing or block artifact issues.

Pixel formats supported:

8/10/16-bit YUV 4:2:2 compressed as 10-bit, progressive or interlace
8/10/16-bit RGB 4:4:4 compressed at 12-bit progressive
8/16-bit RGBA 4:4:4:4 compressed at 12-bit progressive
12/16-bit CFA Bayer RAW, log encoded and compressed at 12-bit progressive
Dual channel stereoscopic/3D in any of the above.
Compression ratio: between 10:1 and 4:1 are typical, greater ranges are possible. CineForm is a constant quality design, bit-rates will vary as needed for the scene. Whereas most other intermediate video codecs are a constant bit-rate design, quality varies depending on the scene.

Included Within This Repository
The complete source to CineForm Encoder and Decoder SDK. C and C++ with hand-optimized SSE2 intrinsics for x86/x64 platforms, with cross platform threading.
TestCFHD - demo code for using the encoder and decoder SDKs as a guide to adding CineForm to your applications.
WaveletDemo - a simple educational utility for modeling the wavelet compression.
CMake support for building all projects.
Tested on:
macOS High Sierra with XCode v8 & v9, El Capitan with XCode v8
Windows 10 with Visual Studio 2015 & 2017
Ubuntu 16.04 with gcc v5.4
License Terms
CineForm-SDK is licensed under either:

Apache License, Version 2.0, (LICENSE-APACHE or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
MIT license (LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
at your option.
Click to expand...

Why isn't Atomos & Convergent Design (and everyone else that supports ProRes) supporting Cineform and Cineform raw- superior efficiency and free / truly open source!? Demand the best if you want the best and vote with your wallet.
 
Last edited:
John Brawley said:
It’s not free if you manufacture a camera.

ProRes is the same kind of “free”

JB
Click to expand...

Am I missing something? Where do you see restrictions for camera (or recorder) manufacturers? Apache License (MIT license is similar): http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Click to expand...

Or did Red sneak in a patent that covers this separately? Red referenced Cineform in their patent application (as well as wavelet-based JPEG2000): https://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/more-jim-jannard-red-lawsuit , so it's clear Cineform was first...

EDIT: more shenanigans: https://ymcinema.com/2019/01/24/ato...to-court-due-to-infringement-of-reds-patents/

Easy way around any patent issues: let users install whatever codec they want! Thats how ffmpeg gets around all the patent issues- everyone can compile it from source code. Everyone uses it: YouTube, Vimeo, pretty much everyone that needs general transcode capability. MPEG-LA may collect H.264 fees, though YouTube isn't using H.265 (they own the IP for WebM (VP9,VP10), which has disputed IP, however Google is powerful enough to deal with it apparently). When you see 4K and up on the web, that's likely WebM (not H.265, though it appears H.265 is supported: https://caniuse.com/#feat=hevc).

What patent(s) is/are causing trouble for recorders/camera makers? https://patents.justia.com/assignee/red-com-inc?page=5 . If recording in 2K or higher is considered the 'trigger' element in the patent claims... seriously how did this get issued? A foundational aspect of patent claims is novelty and non-obviousness of one skilled in the art! Maybe I'm missing something?
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
If there are no technical/quality reasons to use ProRes raw over Cineform raw, why should we bother using an inferior codec? (especially when it's not free). ARRIRAW, X-OCN, Canon Raw Lite, BM* raw all appear inferior when comparing efficiency vs. quality over wavelet raw. What could be super useful is a transcoder to convert the fatpig-raw formats to a slimgazelle-raw format (Cineform or Red) to maintain the raw advantage without the bloat.
Click to expand...


1.) Let's look at the terms, raw is not a codec, it's a bulk container for storing pixel voltages with metadata that describes the content.
2.) It's not really bloated either when you consider it only has to store 1/3 of the pixels of RGB.
3.) 12 bit log raw is visually equivalent to 16 bit linear raw according to its proponents.
4.) Quantity is its own quality and there are proponents for 16 bit as well.

So the more we define raw as a codec, the less raw it becomes. If what we want is a superior codec, it's fair to ask why we should want raw.
 
jcs said:
... after testing it and doing more research vs. ProRes (e.g. it's at least 2x more efficient than ProRes).

It's currently stable, has no known issues(?),
Click to expand...
Cineform is arguably slightly more efficient than ProRes but in no way is it twice as efficient, that's sheer nonsense.

One problem with Cineform is that certain industry resolutions are not supported due to the requirement that resolutions have to be a specific multiple.
 
John Brawley said:
That’s an optmistic take. Maybe read it again and look at the dates.

Two employees of BMD secretly went into business together while working for BMD. They created documents that indicated they intended to compete with the company that still employed them, in breach of their contractual obligations to their employer. To suggest that Young wasn’t complicit in this would be naive.

A search revealed that they had stolen IP. Confidential documents relating to Blackmagic... Code. .,

When taken to court, the judge ruled that they had indeed stolen IP and restrained them from manufacturing competing product.

That’s hardly a classy way to start a business. Young’s wife was exonerated, not Mr Young.


JB
Click to expand...

Given your close relationship with BMD you're obviously much better informed on the details of what happened. My comments were limited to the contents the case summary Chris Young linked in his post above. In the absence of contrary evidence I assume the judge who had access to all the evidence presented wasn't naive and decided the case rightly.

The case summary says Overliese created a spreadsheet that containing confidential BMD pricing information for their video capture cards and shared it and other documents with Young stating that "plans for SDI (video) cards to be developed by Atomos would “blow away everything Blackmagic has”." The court found that "these and other documents were made available to Young via an internet-based file-sharing facility. Young strongly rebuked the idea of competing with Blackmagic upon reading the documents." How does that make Jeromy Young the bad guy?

It sounds like you might be attributing Ian Overliese actions to Jeromy Young. I agree some of Overiese's actions were improper, but the judge evaluated Young and Overiese as two separate people and determined Jeremy Young did not violate his contract or act improperly. The summary states: "Blackmagic argued that Young was in breach of the non-compete restraints in his employment contract." The judge didn't agree determined "Young was not found to have improperly used any confidential information," and "the argument that Young breached his employment contract was dismissed."


John Brawley said:
To ProRes RAW...

External recorders were a bad idea to begin with.

Now that so many cameras are offering high bit depth and better codecs I think they’re becoming less and less relevant.

The true milestone of ProRes RAW acceptance is deployment of ProRes RAW in-camera recording. So far it’s only a launch partner, DJI that have this.

I doubt any major camera manufacturer would do ProRes RAW until a major post software developer would also agree to do so.

Catch 22.

And the Japanese don’t like having to pay royalties to RED / APPLE to use their codec.

ProRes RAW could have been great, but I think it’s stalled mid-flight right now.

JB
Click to expand...

I agree that major camera vendors were likely waiting on software support before committing to ProRes RAW. That's why I think support from vendors like Assimilate, Colorfront, and Filmlight is such a big deal since these companies don't generally target the low end of the market. This sounds like exactly the kind of support a Netflix show would want before they would ever consider shooting in ProRes RAW. Now all we need are the higher end cameras to support the format.

We see devices like the Shogun Inferno and the Shogun 7 very differently but that might have something to do with you being a skilled cinematographer and me being somewhat less skilled. I think an HDR monitor that happens to record RAW is great and I expect my Shogun Inferno will save my back a few times over the next few months. I also love BMD and plan to buy at least one of their cameras later this year. I'm kinda nonpartisan. I

Have you generally chosen to shoot ProRes or ARRIRAW on The Resident and Queen of the South? If it's ProRes wouldn't you want the extra flexibility that ProRes RAW would provide?

I expect we will find out sometime over the next year or so about whether or not you're right about ProRes RAW being stalled mid-flight, but I think there is a good chance you are wrong. I doubt we will hear much from the camera guys until just before the new cameras are released so let's check back closer to the end of 2020 to see how accurate our crystal balls were.
 
Last edited:
Cary Knoop said:
There is nothing wrong with having yet another RAW format as a codec, it is just one codec out of many.
It's not rocket science, you take raw data and compress it.

The problem is if some vendor tries to push a particular RAW codec down people's throaths by eliminating other codecs and forcing royalties upon or denying access to NLE vendors.
The problem is further that some users do not see that as a problem because they think that everything Apple does is gold.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're complaining about Red not Apple.
 
Tom Roper said:
So the more we define raw as a codec, the less raw it becomes. If what we want is a superior codec, it's fair to ask why we should want raw.
Click to expand...

You're right; there are a lot of people who don't understand the difference between the data and the codec. CineformRaw, Redcode, X-OCN, cDNG, etc are all codecs that store raw data.

Everyone wants a codec for raw that makes it easier to deal with, because cDNG is a royal pain to manage and is very inefficient since it's not designed for motion pictures in the first place, but a lot of what's driving the debate is the irrational belief that "raw" means "uncompressed" which of course shows a lack of basic understanding of how digital cameras work as well as of what a codec is, or what it does.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Cineform is arguably slightly more efficient than ProRes but in no way is it twice as efficient, that's sheer nonsense.

One problem with Cineform is that certain industry resolutions are not supported due to the requirement that resolutions have to be a specific multiple.
Click to expand...

What industry standard resolutions won't work? 1080p, UHD 4K, DCI 4K are all good. Higher resolutions are supported: for a camera system the codec can pad and then crop for decode. Curious to learn where this has been a problem?

Wavelet's tend to show less artifacts vs. DCT, where the 'error'/artifacts are an overall softer image vs. block artifacts as with DCT. More info here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0a3/d75a6a36d0f7192db915488db7b0b7c82ec2.pdf
DCT works better for motion estimation with IBP encoding (along with sophisticated deblocking to fix the edge/block artifacts).

My personal tests showed Cineform outperforming ProRes by a wide margin (as expected by the math), and this table provides the greater than 2x supporting evidence for efficiency: https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/

What are the results of your tests?

Note that Digital Cinema (DCP) uses JPEG2000, which is also wavelet based, for the same quality+efficiency reasons over DCT.
 
Tamerlin said:
Based on what? Apple's the one that's been restricting access to its codec.
Click to expand...

Red is the company that sued BMD and forced them to drop compressed Cinema DNG. Red is the company that forced Atomos to pay a royalty to record ProRes RAW. As far as I know doesn't license REDCODE RAW to any other recorder or camera. Red is so proprietary that their codec is encrypted so even owners can't freely read the file.

How is Apple more restrictive than Canon or Sony? Who as Canon licensed Cinema RAW Light to? Sony won't even let licensed recorders capture the compressed RAW signal from FS7, FS5 or FS700 cameras. Convergent Design and Atomos originally had to decompress it and save it as CinemaDNG. Only later were CD and ATOMOS able save it as ProRes. In my view Apple saved the day by licensing their codec.

To be clear none of what Red, Canon, Red or Sony does bothers me. These companies are just doing the best job they can to stay in the biz. I just don't understand why Apple triggers you all so badly since they are more open than any of them.
 
jcs said:
What industry standard resolutions won't work? 1080p, UHD 4K, DCI 4K are all good. Higher resolutions are supported: for a camera system the codec can pad and then crop for decode. Curious to learn where this has been a problem?

Wavelet's tend to show less artifacts vs. DCT, where the 'error'/artifacts are an overall softer image vs. block artifacts as with DCT. More info here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0a3/d75a6a36d0f7192db915488db7b0b7c82ec2.pdf
DCT works better for motion estimation with IBP encoding (along with sophisticated deblocking to fix the edge/block artifacts).

My personal tests showed Cineform outperforming ProRes by a wide margin (as expected by the math), and this table provides the greater than 2x supporting evidence for efficiency: https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/

What are the results of your tests?

Note that Digital Cinema (DCP) uses JPEG2000, which is also wavelet based, for the same quality+efficiency reasons over DCT.
Click to expand...
Try to export 2048 x 858.

I am not going to bother to respond to the "twice as efficient as ProRes" commentary.
 
Gary T said:
Red is the company that sued BMD and forced them to drop compressed Cinema DNG.
Click to expand...

Do you have any actual proof of that? People keep making that claim, but haven't backed it up yet with anything but hearsay and the Atomos deal.

As far as I know doesn't license REDCODE RAW to any other recorder or camera.
Click to expand...

Yet makes its SDK available to anyone who wants to integrate it into post production software...

Red is so proprietary that their codec is encrypted so even owners can't freely read the file.
Click to expand...

That's not the only reason for the encryption.

How is Apple more restrictive than Canon or Sony?
Click to expand...

Been living under a rock?

To be clear none of what Red, Canon, Red or Sony does bothers me. These companies are just doing the best job they can to stay in the biz. I just don't understand why Apple triggers you all so badly since they are more open than any of them.
Click to expand...

Because of Apple's history... it should be pretty obvious.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Try to export 2048 x 858.

I am not going to bother to respond to the "twice as efficient as ProRes" commentary.
Click to expand...

PP CC QuickTime+Cineform 2048 x 858 worked fine. What NLE are you using?

What makes you believe that Cineform is only slightly better than ProRes? Have you done any tests, did you read it from another source or ?

From the chart: https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/

...............................................................Mbps
Cineform 10-bit UHD Film Scan...3840 x 2160 310 140 Variable 3 Minor 4:2:2 10-bit Yes
ProRes 422 HQ (UHD)................3840 x 2160 707 318 Variable 3 Minor 4:2:2 10-bit No*

707/310 = 2.28
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top