Nikon Z6 / Z7 to go RAW with Atomos Ninja V - could Panasonic be next?

[DBounce]

6 hours ago, Django said:

Surely, given you have access to a mac with FCPX. You should then be able to convert to any codec including ProRes4444..

We're all aware of the benefits but also cons of using external recorders.

I'm not complaining, just saying I wish it could have been internal (just like i also wish N-log could be internal).

ML got the 5D3 (a 2012 camera!) to shoot 14-bit 3K Raw internally. The main issue going higher was the 100mb/sec card buffer cap.

Z series should manage with their super fast XQD/CFexpress. But i don't know, maybe ProRes Raw is too much to handle CPU wise.

Or maybe it's a licensing deal with Atomos..?

 

The Atomos guy states the Nikon Z6/7 internal raw is absolutely possible. He even makes it sound like something that they might well plan to implement at some point, 

 

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

You can essentially change the white balance on any video if you transform it into linear gamma before doing so. The only hindrance is that most cameras don't store the original white balance metadata in non-raw formats. As long as ProRes RAW retains all the information from pixels sufficiently, it should be just as flexible as any of the other Raw-lite formats for white balance adjustments. It does seem silly that it is not builtin, though.

The Atomos guy said they recorded in linear gamma.

[GiM_6x]

5 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Not exactly. RAW doesn't necessarily mean uncompressed (that is, can perfectly happen to be minimally processed) but more prone to be taken as a digital negative where information may be subject to be recovered lately. This is what generally characterizes the tool : -)

RAW is not about compressed or not compressed.
RAW is about not losing the "original" or "initial" quality, and once restored from container or compression, you have exactly, BIT by BIT, the same information.
If you apply the same "RAW" procedure ten times, at the end you will find exact the same info.
If it is a codec with quality loss, after ten instances you have a degraded info.

If you use RAW, it means no quality loss. And "true" RAW can be and it is compressed, more or less.

Then there are some codecs with the name "RAW" with quality loss.
They should be named "rawish", or "rawishly" or what ever, since losing quality is no more RAW.

[thebrothersthre3]

If they can do RAW in camera I wonder why they can't do internal 10bit. 

[Emanuel]

44 minutes ago, GiM_6x said:

RAW is not about compressed or not compressed.

Exactly.

[webrunner5]

There isn't hardly anybody going to do pure Raw on here. You would have to win the Lotto to buy the Media, let alone the Storage. You are talking minutes, even seconds of video on a card, even a SSD is a joke on a long take.

[Emanuel]

Let alone the dropped frames... LOL

[Geoff_L]

37 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If they can do RAW in camera I wonder why they can't do internal 10bit. 

Maybe, after all, they've decided to fully copy fuji concerning firmware updates policy ! On XT2 and Xpro2, we've seen a lot of big improvements (4k addition on xpro2 if I recall, F-log + 120fps on Xt2...). So, you launch a product, not fully developed at its highest capacity, and you make it become better and better with updates (I'm not saying it is deliberate, but more a kind of opportunity to make the camera live a long and evolving life !). Given the atomos claims in the above videos, and the Nikon decision to play the updates game, a lot of good stuff could happen (at least, I hope for that ? )

[DBounce]

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If they can do RAW in camera I wonder why they can't do internal 10bit. 

Raw requires less processing power from the camera, as all the processing of the image and compression is done in post or by the external recorder. The main bottleneck with internal raw is the write speed of the memory card. This should not be an issue with XQD/CF Express.

From what Atomos said, Nikon has been working on this for some time,  but kept it under wraps until now. I would not be surprised to learn that they can output both 4k and 6k... or perhaps even anamorphic modes. It seems a given that Nikon will offer internal raw at some point. 

This is what we have been waiting for.  Camera companies that are unrestricted by cinema divisions, that are willing to take the gloves off and add features that video shooters have been asking for. It's like Magic Lantern has their own department at Nikon. Did the release of the X-T3 sporn this seed? Who knows? One thing is certain,  once the Genie is out of the bottle, it's near impossible to put it back in. 

This development is a logical step forward... why should Nikon and Fuji protect Canon's, Sony's and Panasonic's cinema lines? This move will inevitably cause these companies to have to offer up more to stay relevant. Either that or give up on mirrorless. I sense a shift in cinema coming. And it's a great time for hybrid shooters.

[Castorp]

6 hours ago, Geoff_L said:

Maybe, after all, they've decided to fully copy fuji concerning firmware updates policy ! On XT2 and Xpro2, we've seen a lot of big improvements (4k addition on xpro2 if I recall, F-log + 120fps on Xt2...). So, you launch a product, not fully developed at its highest capacity, and you make it become better and better with updates (I'm not saying it is deliberate, but more a kind of opportunity to make the camera live a long and evolving life !). Given the atomos claims in the above videos, and the Nikon decision to play the updates game, a lot of good stuff could happen (at least, I hope for that ? )

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise.

Its only quite recently that the nature of software is starting to make an imprint in a wider sense. We are hardware minded in general. I know, for example, more recently in airplane software there are structures making sure flight critical software is completely separated from other software. This way systems can be upgraded continuously without the entire system needing to be re-tested and certified. So the concept of upgrade is built in to the core architecture from the start. We’re still quite a few years away before the nature of software is fully absorbed. To treat software based technology, like digital cameras, as if they’re fixed hardware objects from days old will look equally ridiculous as early cars that looked like horse carriages look to us now. In a sense the current transition is even weirder.

I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd. 

[Geoff_L]

25 minutes ago, Castorp said:

I don’t think it’s about releasing an “unfinished” product. It’s because our minds are stuck in pre-computerised concepts. Nobody would accuse Apple or Microsoft of unreleasing unfinished products just because they update the OS now and then. And it’s not only about fixing bugs. If you have a software system which you can improve, why wouldn’t you? I’d go so far to say there should be some regulation so that any product can be pushed as far as possible in firmware before releasing subsequent products. It’s horribly wasteful to do otherwise.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought when I wrote "I'm not saying it is deliberate, but more a kind of opportunity to make the camera live a long and evolving life !". My rather limited English bridle my capacity to express what I think ? I too need to update my software !!

[BasiliskFilm]

1 hour ago, Castorp said:

I would say all cameras should be continuously updated. The camera makers may charge for that. I would not expect it to be free of charge. The failure to properly valorise software is of course another remnant of old thinking. People don’t want to pay for these things which is, of course, totally absurd. 

You can keep a model on the shelf longer if you keep improving it through its lifetime. Sony have been a bit cursed by releasing so many different models of camera, some with major, some with minor improvements, but with no upgrade path - beyond the fact you could keep you lenses and accessories.
To some extent it makes sense to "build in" the cost of software upgrades, as later purchasers will get them included in the price of the camera. Like Apple now does with OSX and iOS updates. There is an argument that not many users use Log output, so perhaps only the few should pay, but there are quite a lot of folk who buy for the flagship features who never use them, so it is probably worth including all possible software improvements to boost sales.

This is the same company who produced the retro Df, which deliberately removed video to keep all the photo purists happy! Nice to see they have moved on. 

[webrunner5]

Yeah but I would imagine there is a hard limit to how much the Processor can do. I am sure it is not at the very top on delivery point, but I bet they are not crazy overdeveloped. With all this AI stuff like Apple is now using in their iPhones there will have to probably be a Huge need for a lot better processor every year, not just using it for several generations like they have done in the past. I don't envy any of them. A product you have now could be outdated before you can actually get it out the door, which seems to be the case I think with the Sony a7s mk III.

[ND64]

Its interesting to see which one of Z6/Z7 is capable of more than 4k resolution output. 

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but I would imagine there is a hard limit to how much the Processor can do. I am sure it is not at the very top on delivery point, but I bet they are not crazy overdeveloped. With all this AI stuff like Apple is now using in their iPhones there will have to probably be a Huge need for a lot better processor every year, not just using it for several generations like they have done in the past. I don't envy any of them. A product you have now could be outdated before you can actually get it out the door, which seems to be the case I think with the Sony a7s mk III.

The A7III is still the best choice for your average person. Small file sizes, no crop 4k, crazy ISO performance, super sharp 6k sensor, high dynamic range, great auto focus(right behind Canon).

[heart0less]

30 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The A7III is still the best choice for your average person. Small file sizes, no crop 4k, crazy ISO performance, super sharp 6k sensor, high dynamic range, great auto focus(right behind Canon).

It's a shame Sony doesn't introduce any new features in firmware updates, though. 

You get what you see, nothing more.

[liork]

19 hours ago, DBounce said:

Looks like Atomos is saying the Nikon can output higher resolution than 4K. Their video at CES was shot in 4K or more and at 12 bit.

 

The Atomos guy also say that Z can output 4K 60p.

[ND64]

20 minutes ago, liork said:

The Atomos gut also say that Z can output 4K 60p.

Yea its can, but its highly unlikely Nikon take the "heat" risk. 

[androidlad]

24 minutes ago, liork said:

The Atomos gut also say that Z can output 4K 60p.

No he didn't mean that. What he actually said was "We do up to 4Kp60, this camera does 30, HDMI would be capable of 60".

[liork]

So output through HDMI could give 60p...

[androidlad]

26 minutes ago, liork said:

So output through HDMI could give 60p...

Not on Nikon Z as it caps at 30p.