-
EVA1 and ProRes RAW
-
[Michael Gissing] ”
[Shawn Miller] “I always use eXFAT, but DNx is grayed out for me. What firmware version are you running and which Ursa Mini? I’m on the original UM4.6k.”Same model as me. I’ll check and let you know. The camera has been on ProRes to match a long form doco I have been doing over the past three years. A friend borrowed the camera earlier this year and was shooting DNx I think after I updated to the latest software.
EDIT: Yes you’re right. That’s a shame. I updated to 4.8 a while back but the DNx job must have been before that. I was thinking of ditching ProRes on future jobs but I guess I’m stuck with it.”
Ah, that is a shame. I’m not sure why BMD ditched DNx on the Ursa Mini, it’s on all of their recorders and most of their cameras. I’m in the same boat with regard to wanting to move away from ProRes, but it just seems to be a fact of life in post. I’m also really hoping that BMD doesn’t adopt ProResRAW while deprecating CinemaDNG, if that were to happen, I would be in search of a new camera vendor.
Shawn
-
[Shawn Miller] “Ah, that is a shame. I’m not sure why BMD ditched DNx on the Ursa Mini”
DNx requires a licensing fee as does ProRes. It could be minor. Not sure. But maybe BMD has data that not enough users of that camera also work with DNx to make it worthwhile.
[Shawn Miller] “I’m also really hoping that BMD doesn’t adopt ProResRAW while deprecating CinemaDNG”
Unfortunately, the downside of cDNG is that it uses image sequences, which poses major workflow issues in post. ProResRAW will become a popular option, once it goes beyond Atomos and FCPX.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Shawn Miller] “Ah, that is a shame. I’m not sure why BMD ditched DNx on the Ursa Mini”
DNx requires a licensing fee as does ProRes. It could be minor. Not sure. But maybe BMD has data that not enough users of that camera also work with DNx to make it worthwhile.”
That’s probably true, it would be nice to have an alternative to ProRes though.
[Oliver Peters] “[Shawn Miller] “I’m also really hoping that BMD doesn’t adopt ProResRAW while deprecating CinemaDNG”
Unfortunately, the downside of cDNG is that it uses image sequences, which poses major workflow issues in post. ProResRAW will become a popular option, once it goes beyond Atomos and FCPX.”
Sure, I can sympathize with people who don’t have much experience working with image sequences, or who work on software that doesn’t support the format very well. But, the answer to those woes could just as well be CinemaDNG wrapped in .mxf or Cineform wrapped in .mov. I suspect folks would be a lot less excited about those options though.
Shawn
-
[Shawn Miller] “That’s probably true, it would be nice to have an alternative to ProRes though”
I completely agree. But just like ProRes versus DNx (non-raw), the market has spoken.
[Shawn Miller] “I can sympathize with people who don’t have much experience working with image sequences”
It’s not experience, but time. More often than not, you end up having to transcode the sequences into something else, or use a proxy workflow. A lot of projects haven’t really budgeted in the necessary time or storage space.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Shawn Miller] “I’m also really hoping that BMD doesn’t adopt ProResRAW while deprecating CinemaDNG,”
Me too. I feel no confidence in codecs that are at the whim of Apple. I would love to avoid Quicktime frankly and just stay with mxf so if BM does restore DNx codecs, I hope they go with the mxf wrapper too. We might finally see an end to gamma issues with QT.
-
[Oliver Peters] “[Shawn Miller] “I can sympathize with people who don’t have much experience working with image sequences”
It’s not experience, but time. More often than not, you end up having to transcode the sequences into something else, or use a proxy workflow. A lot of projects haven’t really budgeted in the necessary time or storage space.”
Ah, fair enough. I don’t think ProResRAW will change that. Instead of stumbling over five or six TB of CinemaDNG files, it will be eight or ten TB of ProResRAW… because “it’s easier to edit”. ☺
Shawn
-
[Shawn Miller] “Instead of stumbling over five or six TB of CinemaDNG files, it will be eight or ten TB of ProResRAW… because “it’s easier to edit”.”
But with ProResRAW, there won’t be a transcoding step. Most NLEs choke with image sequences, thus transcoding is required before you can even begin to edit. Some formats actually require the camera manufacturer’s software to do that.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[EDIT] Post removed – no new points to be made 🙂
-
For those going to IBC in September:
https://alex4d.com/notes/item/fcpx-prores-raw-at-ibc-2018
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up