[Robin S. kurz]

I worked with a client and set notes inside the compound clip like (from here… to this point…).

Why wouldn’t you simply do that in the event as with any other clip? Mark ins and outs, even multiple if you want, and favorite or keyword them. Done.

[Robin S. kurz]

Color Finale is just transcoding and doesn’t need the Apple SDK and therefore doesn’t need Apple’s approval.

It certainly needs to adhere to e.g. the FX Plug SDK to become a valid plugin (of that magnitude).

So, no, CF’s transcoder is not a system-level extension, therefore doesn’t need “approval” in the sense that a codec would. Companies like motionVFX or FX Factory wouldn’t be who they are today if there were some sort of “approval process” for any and every plugin for FCP. Anyone can use the FX Plug SDK and isn’t going to get very far without it.

[Robin S. kurz]

Instead of speculation about it being entirely up to BMD, here’s the word from the BMD employee behind Blackmagic Raw. https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=99200&p=745483#p744864
“We have tried a couple of times to get permission to do the work ourselves and develop a plugin to support Blackmagic RAW in FCPX like we do for Premiere/Avid. If users really want to see it then it may help to send more requests to Apple.”

Exactly. Which pretty much confirms exactly what I said. If BMD wants BRAW to run under FCP (no X btw) then they simply have to adhere to Apple’s QC requirements. Done. Which, yes, entails them working closely with Apple to ensure it a) works as expected and b) does not make for any incompatibilities or instabilities. So what’s the problem? The same goes for all the endless other OEMs that have done the same for FCP and the support for their codecs. From Arri to Canon to Nikon etc. etc…

So why exactly does BMD want/expect special treatment and why should they get it? Because they’re the hot shiz?

And exactly what excuse do they have for not supporting PPRAW in Resolve even though they already support every other flavor of ProRes and adding PRRAW does not require anything they’re therefore not already familiar with and agreed to? They certainly didn’t “do the work ourselves” then either. What’s changed?

Why did Apple give atomos exclusivity? maybe because they could shoot two birds with one bullet. 1, make PPraw available to all . 2, Hold braw back. All without showing their teeth.

So you’re saying Apple somehow knew of BRAW, literally years in advance, and only developed PRRAW to “hold back” BRAW?

😒

And how is requiring ownership of an AtomOS recorder and requiring OEMs to first support RAW output in any way “make PPraw available to all“?? Who in this scenario is “all“? 🤨

AtomOS contributed a near equal amount of R&D to PRRAW and were Apple’s ticket to getting around RED’s bs patent. I’d say that’s a pretty fair deal in exchange, no? And who says it’s exclusive? Who says that e.g. BMD asked to include it as an option on their video assists (but for some reason not in their NLE… sure) and were turned down (for either)?

Whoever believes that, raise your hand.

🦗🦗

[Robin S. kurz]

So you’re applying it to the Shear, not the clip as initially stated.

Well, either way, I can’t reconstruct. Doing that here works just fine. And if it plays normally in Motion <i style=”font-weight: bold;”>before export, then it can only have something to do with your export settings. Even if I can’t think of what that might be.

[Robin S. kurz]

By the looks of things most everything is just painfully OLD. You need to keep things at least semi-up-to-date. Universe, for example, is at version 5.1 (and is in fact Apple Silicon compatible) where you’re on 3.3.1!

https://www.maxon.net/en/red-giant-complete/universe

And whether the FX Factory plugins have updates can easily be seen in it’s app. The rest is simple googling.

[Robin S. kurz]

That I haven’t looked into, so I have no idea what I’m missing, if anything.

Well, I actually just did (unscientifically), and I have to say… I’m not impressed.

https://youtu.be/-gcx2Ujtn6o?t=154

Unless someone else can show me anything better to change my mind? Otherwise, at this point, I won’t be missing or shedding a tear over it.

Actually, I’m most surprised that it has to be rendered. Wha? How is the data not simply APPLIED? It makes no sense to me.

Some contents or functionalities here are not available due to your cookie preferences!

This happens because the functionality/content marked as “Google Youtube” uses cookies that you choosed to keep disabled. In order to view this content or use this functionality, please enable cookies: click here to open your cookie preferences.

[Robin S. kurz]

Really for most work, even broadcast work Apple ProRes HQ may be all that’s needed.

Why even HQ? I’ve never gone beyond 422 and more often than not even shot in mere LT and have yet to hear of any complaints.

BTW, when shooting with cameras that do PRRAW (to my AtomOS, obviously) I will in fact shoot in it. Not because I think I need it, but seeing that I would otherwise shoot in ProRes anyway, and I’m not getting hit either in terms of size or performance… why not? Basically getting HQ for the price of 422. 😉

Only in the most demanding feature film or high-end advertising would RAW (and BRAW isn’t quite raw) have notable advantages.

But even then… color depth, etc. are all the same. You merely have a few options more should you have cocked something up in-camera. Other than that I dare anyone to point to an actual, perceptual difference in the final (non-cocked) product.

Alas BMD cameras have a growing base given their low point of entry.

True. I’m the first to admit that price was at the top of my list of reasons for purchase, not because I thought they were otherwise above and beyond the competition. Because they’re not.

But then… not being a public company I honestly question how well that whole strategy is going for them and will continue to. Because looking at the level of development compared to pricing… from “oddly cheap” to FREE… I have to wonder how long that can last. 🤔 Not even Apple is that brazen, and they can afford it!! 😄

It’s as if BMD uses BRAW specifically to frustrate FCP users by slowing down the workflow with transcodes and adding to storage costs.

Well, storage cost really isn’t the largest factor. What is it? A fraction of a cent per GB? But on the other hand, my transcoded files aren’t larger and the originals are deleted, so… 🤷🏼‍♂️

Now they’ve thrown in gyro stabilization which is only supported in Resolve.

That I haven’t looked into, so I have no idea what I’m missing, if anything. But sure, much like Apple they are smart enough to leverage their power over everything in their ecosystem to their advantage! I, too, would love the multicams that an ATEM ISO generates on the fly for Resolve for FC as well for example. But, oh well…

BTW I hate track-based editing and I say that with experience going back to the earliest Avid around 1990 or so. You can throw in all the bells and whistles in an NLE but nothing beats the magnetic timeline and organizing tools in FCP for speed, efficiency, and flexibility.

100% +1, yes. I started with Premiere 1.0 after having sat at an Avid first, then moved to Media100 and an occasional Avid again, then FC pretty much exclusively ever since v1.25.

Now if only there were a way more cameras could record ProRes RAW internally (I suspect the RED patents stand in the way).

It is the (absolutely ludicrous IMHO) RED patent and only the patent, yes. Ironically also the exact same reason why BRAW is what it is: fake. Otherwise, they would have gotten pounded by RED, too. As well as why they suddenly removed recording cDNG on their cameras as well (of course… zero loss there).

If only Apple’s lawyers hadn’t IMHO cocked up the challenge against that stupid patent… this way we have to wait until 2028! 🤦🏼‍♂️

[Robin S. kurz]

Just on a side-note: this new forum is an absolute UX nightmare. Nothing appears to work as it, I assume, is supposed to. 🙄

The problem is the end user still has to make a difficult workflow decision.

I personally think that’s hyperbole. Because I have several BMD cameras and there is still absolutely no chance that I could switch to Resole or any track-based NLE for that matter just because of that of all things. Ever. But then I avoid shooting BRAW if and when possible anyway, since I can’t see a single advantage to shooting with it outside of some very specific and rare (lighting) exceptions, considering the workflow alone. I’d even go so far as to say that the vast majority only shoot in BRAW because they either bought into it somehow being “the thing” to shoot in—without knowing the first thing about how to process it in a way that even uses any possible advantage—or, as in my case, because BMD cleverly and inexplicably made it so you have to shoot BRAW with certain resolutions/settings. Which is clearly just a ploy. In which case, big whoop. I can run everything through Resolve in minutes or use the aforementioned plugin. 🤷🏼‍♂️

But obviously native is always preferred. So I hope BMD—i.e. certain people there—get off their high horse at some point and make it happen. We’ll see.

As far as the post production market is concerned one might has how many Blackmagic BRAW users are there vs ATMOS with ProResRAW users.

What one can say is that PRRAW has been adapted/is supported by multiples of OEMs that have come to support BRAW. Again, IMHO, for good reason. The range of cameras and manufacturers that support recording PRRAW is also extensive in comparison, whose joint market share is multiples of BMD’s. Software support on the other hand is pretty much equal I would say.

I would also far more trust the implementation/support of someone that had to go through rigorous QC with the developer of the codec first than some rando that got his/her hands on the SDK. Speaking of which, let’s also be very clear that BRAW is most certainly not open source.

Few people have the choice between both codecs so hardware (BMD Cameras vs other camera with ATMOS) is going to dictate the choice.

No, need does. And how many people actually and factually need RAW, no matter the flavor? Sure, a vast crowd has blindly bought into the “RAW” buzzword and now acts as if anything else is suddenly blasphemy and beneath them. If those people want to switch based solely on those false pretenses… er, ok. 👍🏼

While it’s only anecdotal I hear more about FCP users moving to Resolve than the other way around.

That’s truly anecdotal, yes.

I don’t doubt that’s added by BMD including the full version of Resolve free with the camera.

The difference between it and the free version being yet another something that only few even understand or factually benefit from. Or what is it that is specific to the “Studio” version that you think draws all these anecdotal people that they just can’t do without? To the extent that they’ll just upend their entire workflow willy-nilly?

That may mean BMD will win this war by attrition.

I think you vastly overestimate the power and relevance of a codec and especially its market share. Resolve will “win” just for being an exponentially better Premiere Pro, period. You either, like me, understand the far superior trackless paradigm and will never return, or you don’t. And in the case of the latter you are far better off using Resolve than PPro as your NLE, that’s for sure. That’s the only real and relevant realization I think people will come to more and more.

[Robin S. kurz]

First off, BRAW is most certainly not competition to ProRes RAW, since BRAW, unlike ProRes RAW, is by definition not even RAW to begin with. So Apple couldn’t care less if it ran on FCP. Otherwise, by that logic, why would they support any and every other (relevant) RAW format?

Secondly, it is entirely up to BMD to work with Apple to get BRAW working in FCP, as it has been for every other “RAW” vendor. So if it’s not working, BMD has chosen to not have it work. And having been there at the release of both, I can only say that, for me, it seems apparent that Grant Petty is staying true to his name after Apple unexpectedly stole all their thunder with the announcement of PRRAW just a few weeks prior to their announcement of BRAW. Top that off with a partnership and exclusive deal with their arch-rival AtomOS… boom. Yes, all of which also explains their refusal to support PRRAW in Resolve as well. So it’s quite the two- and not one-way street.

And sure, the fact that PRRAW is superior in both quality as well as in performance doesn’t exactly make it a high priority for BMD who is trying to establish BRAW as the go-to tie-in codec for their users. What’s more effective than not caring about what the user needs, but rather just dictating it to them? Clever.

I see certain parallels with Adobe. Jump ship there, and you immediately lose any and all access to your own intellectual property. Scary.

And no, it most certainly is not a matter of expense seeing that licensing ProRes is absolutely FREE (and something they already have for every other flavor of ProRes btw… it’s all one license). You merely have to subject yourself to Apple’s arduous, lengthy QC process to get approved/certified. As many much much smaller companies have done btw. Some that don’t even have a Mac version of the respective app!

AV Foundation, for safety/stability reasons, also does not have the plugin/extension framework/SDK that Quicktime had, which is why not just anybody can simply use the BRAW (or any other random) SDK to write a plugin in the meantime (for money, as others did for PPro).

Ergo: upset and frustrated? Talk to BMD about it. Unless someone has factual information to the contrary that I’m not privy to that points to anything else?

[Robin S. kurz]

DPI refers to the number of printed dots contained within one inch of an image printed by a printer. Therefore that value is completely and utterly irrelevant in the world of video. It’s also most certainly not interchangeable with PPI because PPI refers to the number of pixels contained within one inch of an image displayed on a computer monitor. Which, for example, is why displaying a video at 100% on a Retina display is smaller (generally half) than on a “normal” screen.

So your client needs to tell what resolution they need, nothing else, with which DPI has nothing to do.