Cruncher for Windows ProRes Encoding

Randy Rubin Oct 12, 2016

  1. Does anyone have experience working with this software for ProRes encoding on Windows?

    https://getcruncher.com/

    Thanks!
    Randy
     
  2. https://www.shotcut.org
    This is a very cool free open source editor on Windows, that can write Prores.
    Actually, they have OS X, Win and even Linux versions.
    It even uses the Decklink for the client monitor output.
     
  3. I had it a go and was satisfied with my inital tests, mostly to see if ProRes colour shift would occur.
    GUI is cool and has potential but still lack support of more complex file (like ARRIRAW if someone would ever be in the position to transcode directly to ProRes)
    I'm thinking to implement it in our current workflow as Resolve on Windows still lacks the encode to ProRes option.
     


  4. Dare I ask, are either of these officially apple licensed? Ie, will they pass QC on itunes if sent as ProRes? I'm assuming not, but thought I'd ask...
     
  5. That's a no for ShotCut.

    Can't find any solid info on GetCruncher - they don't specify on the website. I sent them an email to check, will post update as soon as they respond.
    I would not hold your breath, though.
     
  6. Marc Wielage and Ryan Nguyen like this.

  7. That's a good point actually. What's the real difference between ffmpeg, etc and all apple-approved. I mean the standard specs should be available to everyone in to code it, or is it done by reverse engineering? (maybe too technical question)
     
  8. Got a response from Alan over at GetCruncher.com.
    As suspected, it's not officially licensed and is an ffmpeg variant.

    "Crunchers implementation isn’t licensed by Apple, however is functionally the same and in A/B achieves identical image quality."
     
  9. FWIW, the concern over this not being apple approved is kind of overblown. We used ffmpeg for quite some time before switching to Scratch (because it's faster and I wanted to learn Scratch) and had no problems at all. No rejections, no issues with picture quality. We did extensive testing on picture quality, and it took a while to get ffmpeg to output exactly what we wanted, but once we had that recipe, it worked fine. An application that does that for you, and uses ffmpeg under the hood, is likely fine.
     
    Ryan Nguyen likes this.
  10. Same - I've had no practical or tangible problems with reversed engineered ProRes.
    Except that it can't hook into Resolve.
     

  11. I wish Blackmagic would simply give third party developers an SDK for export. This would allow someone else to make a ProRes exporter, freeing Blackmagic from responsibility and licensing entanglements.
     
  12. And in the process that would also "free" Blackmagic from being able to sell any Prores enabled software on Linux and OS X. That also, would be great for Blackmagic;)
    Prores is Apple's IP and they potentially could stop any company from using their IP, if they feel that company is trying to pull the fast one with use of their IP. At least, one would think so from the business perspective...
     
    Marc Wielage likes this.
  13. That's possible, but do any of us here actually know the licensing details? I doubt it.

    There's more than ProRes that could benefit from this. Any new codec could benefit from it, and would free up BMD from having to explicitly support them within the application. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but they've been pretty good about making SDKs available with their hardware, and it'd be nice to see a similar move on the software side, for extending Resolve's functionality.
     
  14. Can't give any details, but Apple employs a lawyer, whose only job is ProRes licensing - pretty busy guy :) .
    But the main and most obvious difference between ffmpeg and Apple licensed ProRes is the fourCC code (and some other atom content that differs).
    That causes some ingest systems here and there to reject a file.
    Image qualitywise there is close to no difference.
     
    Ryan Nguyen likes this.

  15. No doubt. I guess my point is that BMD seems to be a special case. They're able to license prores for their cameras and other hardware devices, but it's not in the Windows version of Resolve. None of us know the specifics of the deal (assuming there is a formal deal) between BMD and Apple. It seems to me that it must be something different than the standard licensing deal that other companies use because it would require Apple to have told them "if you do this, you lose all your licensing for the other products."

    maybe that happened, but it's purely conjecture on our part. Anyone who actually knows most likely can't say anything in a public forum.
     
  16. fourCC label can be force-conformed.
    SOURCE: https://davidtorcivia.com/decoding-proresxq-on-windows/

    Still, extra steps I'm sure we'd all rather not have to take..
    Cineform has yet to win the hearts of the populace - I hope that will change soon.
     

Share This Page