Atomos ProRes RAW Tutorial

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Very interesting video, thank you for sharing.

I do think Prores RAW is a very interesting format, considering it’s space and speed. I hope Apple makes much more controls available in FCPX, and puts more weight behind it so more camera manufacturers would support it out of the box.

https://mathieughekiere.wordpress.com

[Oliver Peters]

[Mathieu Ghekiere] “and puts more weight behind it so more camera manufacturers would support it out of the box”

Technically, camera manufacturers are not supporting it. They are enabling raw outputs to the Atomos recorder. The camera is recording in ProRes RAW only because of the Atomos device. That might change, but I suspect RED’s patents continue to be the stumbling block.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Oliver Peters]

I should amend that statement. Camera manufacturers are not embedding ProRes RAW recording (yet). What we don’t know is whether the raw signal output from the camera is configured in a way specific to ProRes RAW versus other raw codecs.

For instance, ARRI cameras can export a raw signal, which is then recorded as ARRIRAW on an external Codex recorder. But (assuming compatible plugs), could the exact same signal be recorded on an Atomos as ProRes RAW? It obviously hasn’t happened so far. Maybe that’s a configuration difference or maybe it requires licensing.

If it does require a codec-specific configuration, then yes, the camera manufacturers are going to an extra effort to support ProRes RAW by way of Atomos.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com

[Herb Sevush]

Great video, thanks for posting.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf

[Joe Marler]

[Mathieu Ghekiere] “I hope Apple makes much more controls available in FCPX”

The limitations usually mentioned are lack of separate ISO and white balance controls in FCPX for ProRes RAW. I don’t fully understand this; maybe someone could help explain.

It is true for some RAW codecs, FCPX and other NLEs show an ISO setting. However in reality there is no adjustable ISO – that is fixed for all time during acquisition. What would be the difference between using exposure controls in FCPX vs Apple adding a separate “ISO” control? Are they not both just applying digital luminance gain to the captured data?

Besides white balance and ISO, the Sony FS5 also writes to a Shogun Inferno the camera ND setting as metadata in the RAW file. Do people also want yet another control in the NLE which “manipulates” the ND in post? I don’t see the benefit of adding NLE UI controls if they are simply providing redundant capability to the existing controls.

[Oliver Peters]

[Joe Marler] “It is true for some RAW codecs, FCPX and other NLEs show an ISO setting. However in reality there is no adjustable ISO – that is fixed for all time during acquisition. What would be the difference between using exposure controls in FCPX vs Apple adding a separate “ISO” control? Are they not both just applying digital luminance gain to the captured data?”

The absolute best level of control for RAW is RED’s module. Some of these settings are in fact, after the RAW conversion; however, it offers plenty of versatility. As far as what you get in an NLE, Resolve sets the standard.

But remember that Apple is trying to remove the complexity from dealing with RAW. What is being asked for goes against the design ethos. And besides, you get the same effect by adjusting exposure and color space settings.

– Oliver

Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com