Leaderboard

I doubt it - for example, AFAIK including MPEG/AVC/HEVC in a product requires license fees to be paid to the patent holders (normally via a patent pool licensing organization). As end users we don't usually see those fees directly, because they are paid by the companies selling the products i.e. the fees are included in the purchase price.

You could check the cined lab tests for both. If you do, the a7 iv seems to have better DR (though much worse rolling shutter).

Mark my words TicoRAW is a dead dodo Nikon is all about R3D from now on and it will be on all their cameras in place of N-RAW which is going away. I don't know if it has already been mentioned earlier in the thread but Adobe has already put on hold support for it.

It's also worth pointing out that the film you posted could have been shot with almost any camera just by controlling the ratio on set with lighting. I'm not being dramatic here - you could literally shoot that with the GH1 or my GF3 (of course the resolution and bitrates would suffer..) but the contrast could be replicated.

I think comparisons like this are a journey into very tricky territory. I'm not saying that DR doesn't matter, or that the A74 doesn't have more than the FX3, but I wonder what situations this will really make a meaningful difference in. 12.9 vs 12.4 isn't that much of a difference, especially once you've got this much DR already. I like to think about this in terms of "what shots can you get with one and not the other?". I have spoken a lot about DR in my work, but that's because I tend to regularly be shooting people in front of a sunset, and I want the persons face and also not to clip the sunset behind them. I think I could get that shot with either of these cameras. Another shot is of people sitting by a fire, and wanting to show the surroundings as well as not clip the fire (white fire looks odd but you can clip little bits of it as they end up looking like fire highlights). This isn't a shot I do so I'm not sure if this needs more DR than the A73. You also need the skill to pull the shadows out in post. I don't mean just raising the shadows slider either, I mean having the skill to match a shot with (let's say) 12.9 stops of DR with the previous and next shots which are likely to have dramatically less DR. Imagine that the surrounding shots are of people sitting around the fire - they might have half the DR of the previous shot. When you have the contrast / curves / LGG wheels / etc cranked one way for one shot, then cranked the other way for the next shot, will all the colours remain similar? Will the contrast seem natural? Colour grading software is getting better but did you know that the normal colour grading controls were developed with algorithms that were simple for computers to do (to reduce processor requirements) rather than looking good? This often doesn't matter when you're only adjusting things a little bit, but large changes will ruthlessly reveal the weaknesses. Things like the Resolve HDR Palette were designed to be perceptually uniform, but are you grading in Resolve using this panel? You also have to consider the other implications of a choice between the FX3 and A74, for example. Comparing DR is great but it's an "everything else being equal" comparison, but of course, everything else isn't equal. The extra DR might come at the cost of something else that is more meaningful to what you're doing. Film-making doing anything other than shooting still-life images on a tripod inside (where everything is controlled and you have all the time in the world) is an exercise in having less time and attention than you'd want to, so you're always trying to work out what is most important and paying attention to that. I don't know about you, but I routinely look at the footage I have shot and see all kinds of things that I should have done differently - but then I have to remind myself that I was walking down a staircase holding the camera with one hand and the railing with the other and trying not be steady and use the ninja walk while keeping the right focus distance to my subject and keep the nice framing and also not hit my head etc etc etc. I didn't have mental capacity to do anything else, and if I had paid attention to that other thing then maybe I would have screwed up the shot entirely, etc. You have to look at the total situation and review what the requirements are for you in your situation and think through what implications you'll have of swapping from one camera to another and the effect on your viewers as they are watching the final edit. Everything else other than how your viewers feel is a means to an end.

intoPIX and Fraunhofer IIS are the two major contributors to the JPEG XS patent pool - https://www.jpegxspool.com/ and https://www.jpegxspool.com/s/JPEG-XS-Patent-Pool-Licensed-Patents-01-Oct-2023.pdf and https://www.tinynews.be/jpeg-xs-intopix-belgique/ As JPEG XS uses a wavelet transform, there is a reasonable chance TicoRAW uses a wavelet transform in its implementation, especially as JPEG XS has built-in support for RAW Bayer/CFA images - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XS#Sensor_compression But as intoPIX is a developer of video compression technology, TicoRAW unlikely to be "just another branded version of something that someone else wrote."

Jarred Land speaks out about the Nikon buyout here: The question is.... is he sticking around at the helm, or will Nikon replace him?

I recently asked for book recommendations to learn about human vision and was given a link to a free PDF. It is incredible. I'm only a quarter of the way through, but I'm absolutely blown away. The human vision system looks like it was designed by committee and then re-imagined by Dali and Picasso, while on drugs. It is a wonder we can see anything at all! Did you know that the rods and cones (which detect light) are BEHIND a bunch of nerves and nerve cells and blood vessels, so the light has to go through a bunch of crap before you even sense it? The book is actually a mix of how the human vision system works and also what we have done with the tech to try and align to it, so it's a nice blend of biology and tech. It's also very readable and tries to be as non-technical as possible. This is a rare find compared to other books that are hugely tech heavy. Take the red pill with me... download it here: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/support/documents/colourbook/colourbook.php (download it by clicking on the box next to the file size).

I'm quite interested in raw myself, though have never used it. Not so much (or at all actually) for pure video capture and production, but rather for video capture with a view to using the material for both video production and extracting stills as if 'from a movie', ie, 100% matching other than perhaps crop. On that basis, having tested 4k, it's not quite good enough for stills, at least not at the level I would be happy with, so 6k for me is a minimum plus shot at 50/60p because I do have a requirement for up to 50% slow mo at certain times. Yes I know I can do the latter in post but it isn't quite the same. Instead, I am looking for a capture that is not too hard drive heavy so something up to about 600mbs maybe (but none of this 2000mbs stuff which is waaaaay too high for me) which I can then edit into a finished production, real time and slow mo and then extract 500+ 'movie' stills from it. And it HAS to be internal for me, or at least to a slim external SSD. Lumix currently does not offer me this and as someone who is currently shooting video with L Mount, but stills with Nikon Z plus adapted E Mount glass, there are several directions I could go in but Nikon for me has the current best options and probably future potential. Building up a modest set of E Mount glass means I can use this on a totally Nikon or Sony body system, but equally, I am not so heavily invested that if within L Mount, something 'internal raw 6k 50p not too heavy' comes out in the future, I could go fully back to using L for everything. I'd like to at least explore raw though as the biggest benefit to me other than having identical matching video and stills, would be because I can then down-size my kit. Down-size as not necessarily in terms of size of individual bodies and lenses, but number of units. Currently using 4 but could equally use 3 but there is a very good option for 2...except *cough*, it's Canon. I am currently most interested however with my more modest budget, in what the Nikon Z6iii is going to be, but I suspect it probably won't be 6 or 8k 50p full frame internal and if not, a single used Z9 still remains and option for 2025 with it's 8k 50p raw internal ability.