mercer

I agree the lawsuit and the patent for Redcode was probably the driving force, but they didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy Red solely for the patent. They could have licensed it for 2 decades and developed their own cine line of cameras and lenses for less than that. Other than the RedCode patent... what other tech does Red have? They have an established brand in the high end cinema space and a lower tiered customer base that will pay top dollar to be a part of that brand. Don't get me wrong, I love photographic history and I am a huge fan of Nikon. I own a small set of ai-s lenses and a small set of scalloped ringed non-ai lenses with the "C" coating. They're obviously one of the greatest photographic companies in history with an amazing lineage... in the photographic world. Until very recently, their video capabilities were lacking. It will take a while for them to gel with a lot of cinematographers... they'll just use Arri cameras instead. Then again... I reserve the right to be completely wrong.

Doubtful. Antiquated cultural practices aside, Nikon didn't need Red to create a lower tiered cinema camera. They bought a patent and a brand. A brand with a VERY loyal following in the lower tier and a loyal user base in the higher tier, Hollywood, cinematography world. If they aren't, at all, interested in the brand, then they spent hundred of millions of dollars for a patent. Red doesn't make lower tiered cameras, but they can help each other. If Nikon eventually dismantles the Red brand, it won't be in 2 years. Maybe in a decade after they gain the trust and reputation with the Red loyal user base and the Hollywood cinematography community. I do think the Komodo could bridge the gap between Red and Nikon, though... with the OG Komodo being more Nikon with a new composite, user friendly design and the Komodo X staying truer to the Red brand. But I think Nikon will use a "powered by Red" moniker, or something like that, in their higher tiered MILCs.

It would be utterly ridiculous for Nikon to absorb or abolish the Red brand, especially since they aren't natural competitors. They purchased Red for the Redcode patent so they didn't have to license compressed raw from Red or ticoRaw. It's really that simple. If they use the Red branding in any future Nikon release, who knows. If they decide to venture into the low tier cinema camera market, it will involve the Komodo and they won't change the name of it other than add Nikon to it somewhere. Maybe... Nikon CineRed Komodo. They won't take the Red name away, they'll just add Nikon.

I believe it only offers a S35 crop. Due to the compression methods from the 6K sensor, some say that the S35 crop is superior... but I didn't buy a FF camera to shoot in S35. And the difference is probably minimal and I don't care about minimal. But as usual, I'm probably the weirdo here, because I still prefer good 1080p over run of the mill 4K. For instance, I mentioned earlier that I think some lenses shine with certain cameras. After thorough testing, most lenses look pretty good in 4K. By that I mean, most vintage lenses have a certain level of sharpness that is good enough due to the 4K. In fact, I think vintage lenses help to tame the sharpness... resolution of 4K. Now with my 5D3/ML Raw, some of those same lenses just don't work. But with a more modern lens, the image looks really good, in my opinion better than the FP. Here's a shot from the 5D3 with the older non-Art Sigma 50mm 1.4... And here are a couple shots of the Takumar on the 5D3... Obviously, they're different shots so in some ways they're incomparable... And here's a B&W shot with the Tak on the 5D3 that's a lot more interesting... So what's my point... I have way more options than I need and B&W makes everything look cooler. That is all.

Thanks, I think I should clarify my earlier statement about the battery life... when I said it's not much better, I was probably exaggerating... it's no GH series camera regarding battery and considerably less than my 5D3, but it's not nearly as bad as my experience with the P2K. And even with its flaws, which there are many, I still think the FP is probably the best camera for your money on the market today... if you're interested in narrative filmmaking... or even casual video if you don't mind taking your time and using a bunch of storage. Even the internal 8bit 4K cDNG raw is quite usable if you want a smaller set up. One of the reasons I tested the camera with the Tak was to see how the internal 4K 8bit raw was for a B&W delivery... knowing the yellowing from the Thorium could help with the final B&W image.

Here's another shot from the Tak/FP combo. I don't know about anybody else, but I have been noticing some major disparities between the image in my computer and what the image looks like posted to different sites/devices, so this is also a test of that for me. Either way, I really like this lens with the FP. I've been saying for years that some lenses just work better with certain cameras. I was about to sell this lens, now I'm going to dig through my closet and find my 35/3.5 Tak.

I'll have to take a look one of these days because I would like to mess with it... plus I have all these c-mounts lying around and I'd like to have a camera to use them on. Thanks, I feel like I am flying blind some times with color work because my screen sucks so bad. The idea I am outlining right now is kind of a coming of age horror film about adult characters.. kinda like Stand by Me if the dead body was looking for them.

In other news, I finally had a chance to get out and shoot some stuff yesterday with the FP. For this outing I brought along an oldie, but a goodie... the Super Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm 1.4. Here are a couple shots that didn't turn out terrible... I'm still using my old MB Air from 2014, so I can't always say the image posted looks exactly like my graded image. I hope to upgrade my computer soon enough. That said, I'm in the middle of a test for a short film I am hoping to make this summer. But to stay on topic, I forgot how amazing the Tak 50mm is and I really like it with the FP.

Haha, I haven't used mine in so long that I can't say if it suffers from the same afflictions. I'd love to mess around with ML on the eos-m, but it seems my camera is broke and won't turn on any more. It could be that all of my batteries went bad... I used to buy really cheap ones.

I think by moving the zoom and focus ring at the same time is creating a hyperfocal thing. I just checked the zoom lens I used to use with the eos-m years ago with magic lantern and it's a Cosmicar 12.5-75mm f/1.8... But with that S8 crop, it's hardly a wide angle. I remember it being okay enough optically though. I believe there are a few 8-48mm c-mount lenses floating around too. If you weren't looking for a zoom, I'd recommend the Kowa 6mm 1.8 lens that seems to be a great little lens and can still be bought new... although a little pricey.

Didn't you ask this same question 2 other times in the past 3 months?

I still suspect it will be a novelty, though. For years, all we've heard are rants about internal, compressed raw and those fuckers at Red but I think when everybody has the opportunity to shoot with it, they'll move onto needing 8K 120p and internal compressed raw will become a lot less important. But it's highly unlikely that Nikon won't enforce their new patent. I assume they'll probably license it like Red did, but look how long it took these companies to pay licensing fees for ProRes.

BRaw had it and it wasn't enough to keep people interested. Even internal ProRes Raw in the Z8 didn't force people to switch systems to get an internal compressed raw format. But with the price of storage coming down and if it opens up into more cameras of choice, then perhaps you're right. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Another example was the C200... that was released in 2017... I think? I had just started shooting ML Raw on a 5D Mark iii and I was blown away that Canon was releasing an official raw format in their base cinema camera. But most people were extremely pissed off due to the huge file sizes, expensive CFast cards and lack of codec options.

I'm not sure internal raw video will have the impact that people think it will have. Time and time again you see people on this forum or on YouTube say... I've been shooting IPB instead of all-i because of the data rates. When the GH5 came out, so many people chose the lower quality 4K over the all-i 4K. And when reports that the all-i 1080p was as good, or better than the IPB 4K, they still chose the 4K. When the OG BMPCC came out, ProRes was often used over raw on so many videos because the shooter couldn't tell that much of a difference so it wasn't worth the storage for them to shoot raw. One of the greatest features of the GH6 and subsequently the S5iiX was internal ProRes HQ, but the file sizes are large... some people had already moved onto the S5 and they weren't going back to the micro4/3 just for ProRes but then when the S5ii and S5iiX came out, it seems that more people chose the S5ii to save some money. Look at the P4K... BRaw was all forum members talked about for the better part of a year and then the S5 or whatever camera was released and people got tired of the form factor of the P4K and moved on because they didn't really need raw video for their event work, or whatever. For me, I'd rather have internal ProRes or Raw than any other feature including FF, AF or IBIS... I don't think others feel the same way once they realize the amount of storage needed, even with compressed raw formats. Raw Video is amazing but it isn't for everybody.

I understand that, thanks. This wasn't the intent of my original musing, but since we're here I'll ask... Do you think it's cheaper for Nikon to implement their tech, say AF, into a Sony manufactured sensor, or is it cheaper for Nikon to license Sony's version?

Thank you for this reply! Good points regarding DPAF. I agree about licensing fees vs fab costs which is one of the reasons I was wondering if Red would have Sony sensors eventually. I can only assume that customers get quantity discounts with sensors.

Sorry there were duplicate posts for sone reason.

Dual Gain uses PDAF but PDAF isn't necessarily DPAF. Again I didn't say Sony owns PDAF, but I assume... just an assumption... that they use their tech on the sensors they manufacture, especially if the competition's AF infringes upon their IP. Sony holds patents regarding PDAF specifically regarding AF points that are usable up to the array edges. Obviously, this is more complicated than I intended. I should have opened with... Does Nikon license their AF from Sony? My original thought was if Sony manufactured sensors would end up in Red cameras eventually.

Jesus man... I didn't say Sony owns autofocus. I said they have PDAF IP and I assumed Nikon licenses it from them. It seems Nikon uses/used Aptina for their on sensor AF which cross-licenses their PDAF tech with Sony. Again the point of the original question was based on an assumption other forum members made about Red cameras getting AF. I then wondered if Nikon does license their AF from Sony, would Red cameras need to switch to Sony sensors to have access to it. Again I meant no disrespect to Nikon... they're the best.

I didn't say the sensor was in other cameras. However, I did say it was a stock sensor, and that was probably a liberal use of the word on my part. Sorry. But I'll play along... Both this... https://www.popphoto.com/news/nikon-z9-sony-sensor/?amp and this... https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/28/the-nikon-z9-owns-a-very-impressive-sensor-unit/ state the sensor in the Z9 is the Sony IMX609AQJ. The second article states that the sensor in the A1 is the IMX610. Neither are listed on Sony's site as being in any other camera, but the nomenclature is pretty similar. I'm not a sensor nerd, so maybe someone else can tell me what the AQJ means on the Z9 sensor? So it seems like Nikon designed the Z9 sensor based off of a current Sony sensor design. They made some tweaks, added their own features and everybody was happy. But it seems that the word design is a pretty liberal use of the word in the sensor world. It seems like more of a drop down menu of a bunch of options and Sony takes some of their current sensor IP, and some of Nikon's and transforms it into a "new" sensor that gets manufactured and delivered to Nikon. My original question was about Sony's PDAF technology and if it was possible for Nikon to use it in a Red camera. Obviously, Nikon licenses it from Sony but do they pay an overall licensing fee to Sony for multiple cameras... or do they pay per sensor design/manufacture. I'm not knocking Nikon or Red... or even Sony. Actually, I'm kinda surprised a small army of dorks swooped down on such a banal question. This was fun.

Well, I don't need any because I'm not a customer at any point in the near future, but if I was considering buying into the Red ecosystem, I'd like a bit more information from Nikon or "Red" before I made such a big purchase... another press release... a new Red camera with a Nikon badge on it... something to let me know that they're not just going to ingest the IP and scale back their new cinema division.

Here's an interesting video regarding the purchase... For those that don't have the time, or inclination, to watch, he basically says that this purchase was so Nikon could get into the high end cinema market. He also claims it has nothing to do with the patent, but then kinda contradicts himself. Either way, it's a breakdown of what probably occurred over the past 2 years between Red and Nikon... Trigger Warning: if you despise Red and believe their patent is complete BS, then you may want to skip this video.