FS7: ProRes Raw

[markfpv]

I am looking forward to testing the Atomos ProRes RAW with RAW FS7 output. It very well may be that the issues we've seen with CinemaDNG output to Atomos or C-D recur with Atomos ProRes RAW. But I'm keeping an open mind until I and others with more critical eyes than mine can test it.

This is exactly how I feel. Not that I've been clamoring or begging for raw... but it just might be one more arrow in the quiver, from a camera I already really like & own. I never liked the spanning cDNG thing on the Ody either... so this intrigues me and we shall see. Secretly hoping Sony eventually drops that silly xdca thing & tells us - guess what, you can now buy a raw license - just like on the fs5 - and perhaps those 12bits are distributed slightly different in a new codec.

 

[moldcad]

This is exactly how I feel. Not that I've been clamoring or begging for raw... but it just might be one more arrow in the quiver, from a camera I already really like & own. I never liked the spanning cDNG thing on the Ody either... so this intrigues me and we shall see. Secretly hoping Sony eventually drops that silly xdca thing & tells us - guess what, you can now buy a raw license - just like on the fs5 - and perhaps those 12bits are distributed slightly different in a new codec.

Re-distributing 12 bit more favorably in the new codec would be great, but forget about ability to "drop the XDCA all together". The XDCA is the only way of getting 12G out of the FS7 - period. The camera's own SDI is HD-only, and its HDMI-out is definitely just 8bit 420 at anything above 30p (for all resolutions is what I hear, but for UHD and 4K DCI is what I know for the fact). And I for one am not one of those who believes "filmic" is 24p; to the contrary: not being educated in this field, I find UHD@50p (or DC 4K@50p - I know, I know - there isn't even such standard) one of the most important virtues of this cam, so inability of getting it out with more than 8bit 420 is a deal breaker).

Also - again, very likely thanks to not being a pro enough "pro" - I find even the current 12bit RAW SDI of a much better quality than anything else that can be recorded with my FS7 onto my Inferno, and that's with the current "unfortunate" bits distribution in this linear 12 bit signal. But what do I know?

Piotr

 

[Saddler]

Lol @ “JAC”. I think Apple should have stuck to their clever marketing of yore and referred to ProRes RAW as “visually lossless RAW”.

So is the FS7’s primary weakness with raw export due to the linear application, or are there other factors at play?

Does the FS5 have the same limitations as the FS7 in regards to raw export? Does the FS5 II have any advantage in raw export over the FS5?

Also, did I read that the FS5/FS5 II only exports raw over hdmi?

 

[cyvideo]

ProRes Raw, Black and White full bandwidth luminence of 4 plus metadata. There is no color science included. Grant Petty describes ProRes RAW as a container that carries a LUT and a Debayer information algorithm.

I read somewhere that RAW metadata color science is specific to each camera. RAW formats are developed by each camera manufacturer to suit their particular sensors. Resolve carries all that specific color science from the respective camera manufactures by prior business agreements. How all this applies to and how it is to be implemented with regards to ProRes RAW is a bit confusing at this point. It's very interesting to hear an overall view of what Grant Petty from Blackmqagic had to say about ProRes RAW when asked about it in relationship to the BM 4K Pocket Camera. Especially his comment about how it is "... it's a bit consumery at the moment..."

More info required I think!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQHH-o_rmK8

Chris Young

 

[Saddler]

Yes, I’d really like more info on how color science is stored and translates within ProRes RAW—can it be contained within a metadata wrapper like a LUT?

 

[sleekmedia]

Does anyone know how to view Pro-Res Raw 4K .MOV files? Recored a few Pro-Res Raw clips at the beach this weekend with my FS5. Previous with regular Pro-Res I was always able to preview files with quicktime player on my MacBook Pro prior to editing. Quicktime is now not recognizing Pro-Res Raw so I am forced to pull all my clips into FCPX for review or am forced to view on my Shogun Inferno which is greatly reducing workflow. Anyone know of another player that will recognize this codec?

 

[ZumaDog]

At this point in it's infancy ProRes raw is only viewable on the recording device (Atomos) or via FCP 10.4.1 version or above. There are no standalone viewers like QT or VLC that can parse the file and play it. This will change quickly as NLE makers crunch the codec into their programs, Resolve, Premiere, etc. but since Apple EOL'd QT Player there isn't much hope for standalone playback for a while at least.

One other thing, raw is not an acronym for anything, it is just raw. It might be compressed, and almost always is like Redcode, Sony raw, Canon raw, except for Arri raw which is the only uncompressed raw I am aware of and it's a true beast to deal with. So the proper and accurate way to refer to a raw codec is to use lower case and not all caps as the letters R A W don't stand for anything unique and actually only describe a not-yet demosaiced image file which records the full sensor output in linear fashion.

 

[Doug Jensen]

So the proper and accurate way to refer to a raw codec is to use lower case and not all caps as the letters R A W don't stand for anything unique and actually only describe a not-yet demosaiced image file which records the full sensor output in linear fashion.

I disagree. RAW in all caps helps set it apart from plain old "raw" (unedited or ungraded) footage that could be any codec or type. RAW (in all caps) is still the right way to spell RAW file formats even if the letters R.A.W. don't actually stand for anything. RAW will always be the best way to refer to a not-yet demosaiced image file which records the full sensor output in linear fashion.

 

[ZumaDog]

I'm referring to the proper linguistic method of description, you are referring to the common colloquial method. Using all caps may be the more common way to refer to raw footage, but it's not proper English usage. I see your point in separating it from unedited "raw" footage though.

Doesn't matter, as long as the user is processing the raw footage properly, then what it's called is unimportant. I for one will always refer to it in lower case, but I recognize that most users will not as a way to delineate it from log or non-log footage.

Coming up with an actual acronym would solve the issue, as would me just shutting up about proper English usage - LOL

JPEG (or JPG): Joint Photographic Experts Group
TIFF: Tagged Image File Format
PSD: PhotoShop Document
GIF: Graphics Interchange Format
CPT: not sure where you got this from
raw: raw, as in it's not an acronym

 

[Run&Gun]

My understanding of why raw(referring to un-demosaiced/unprocessed images) is written as RAW goes back to still camera manufactures displaying it in all-caps to make it easier to read on the LCD screens on digital cameras when the screens were smaller and lower rez.

 

[OnSet]

I'll vote for Doug's logic on this one.

 

[combatentropy]

it's not proper English usage

I would argue neither is "raw" in all lower case, which means uncooked. Since all codecs are uncooked, all codecs are raw. Okay yes, it can also mean more generally "unaltered" but that's not totally true, as it has gone through a little processing, like analog-to-digital conversion. I may be splitting hairs. But I still object because "raw" is too vague. It could mean unedited, as that is a very common phrase in the video world: "raw footage."

You might convince me that we should spell it Raw.

Coming up with an actual acronym would solve the issue

Rawish Acquisition Writing. There