mercer

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.

1 hour ago, JulioD said:

It’s just not how it works.  Sony semi sells and DESIGNS sensors.  They don’t hold back tech from any customer who is willing to pay.  They also do business with Sony direct competitors.
 

They all co-operate a lot more than us consumers realise   

Think of them as a seperate company to Sony cameras.  

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?

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

I'm not sure pixel shield PDAF IP is totally owned by Sony, since Nikon has a lot of patents related to that technique. Of course many cross licencing is happening in this industry. Dual gain was invented by Aptina, now part of ONsemi, which doesn't provide sensor for any of Japanese ILC makers, but everybody is using the tech. However if they want to add AF capabilities to RED, I don't think they would use pixel shield technique, cause it degrades image quality a little bit (the shielded pixel has lower S/N ratio than the rest of the pixels). Dual pixel and quad pixel is the way to go. Nikon has some interesting patents about that too. People put too much emphasis on sensor license fees. The fees are not really a big deal. The fab costs is. 

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. 

55 minutes ago, JulioD said:

57 minutes ago, JulioD said:

 

41 minutes ago, JulioD said:

PDAF isn’t owned by Sony. 

Dual gain sensors are on some canon cameras and some Blackmagic sensors too.

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/dgo-sensor-explained/

 

 

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.

3 minutes ago, D Verco said:

why do you think sony owns autofocus, or that nikon licences it from them? 

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.

2 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

There is no Sony sensor with the same spec. Can you show us a 45 megapixel stacked sensor from Sony in other cameras??? If you think Sony sensor division which is magnitude bigger than their camera division, is going to alienate their customers, Nikon being one of their biggest ever. You need to grow up. Nikon builds the steppers that Sony produce their chip on, their is no school yard mentality between those billions dollars companies.

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. 

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

What reassurances would you be needing? 

 

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.

I wonder if Red (Nikon) is planning on reassuring their customer base after this news. I know I would need it, or a new release under the new management, before I invested anything into Red right now.

12 hours ago, D Verco said:

Lol what. Only some of Nikon's sensors are Sony designed. Others like the z9 are designed by Nikon and then manufactured by Sony. 

Haha, actually the Z9 is supposedly a stock Sony sensor with a couple tweaks. I assume it's like the whole D850 debacle Nikon found themselves in. And I don't know what difference it makes who designed the sensor? If Sony owns a patent for their AF, and Nikon wants to use it, Nikon would still have to pay a license fee for it... if they designed the sensor or not.

24 minutes ago, QuickHitRecord said:

Does the motion from Fujifilm cameras look really off to anyone else? It's so disappointing to me. The colors that those cameras produce can be so nice. I've never used one before and I wonder if it could be improved by shooting at 1/40.

Never really shot with a Fuji but I watched a lot of videos and I think the XH2s looks great... in ProRes anyway (that's all I'm interested in with that camera) but I think the camera is way overpriced. I'd get an R5 or R5C for just a little more.

Deleted for joke in poor taste. 

7 minutes ago, PPNS said:

what else would you call it?

Most non-alien entities on planet Earth would probably call it an opinion. Regardless, since your reply was filled with your own irrelevant value judgement, I found it humorous that you deemed mine as such.

52 minutes ago, PPNS said:

you don't have to, your value judgement is irrelevant. the fact is that nikon now gets to control red's patent, and now gets to decide who gets to use "compressed raw" on their terms: 

• either we get more more cameras with internal raw from other companies, where nikon will be profiting from the income of licenses (imo unlikely)
• or nothing changes. instead of red going after other companies in court, it's going to be nikon, and thus having another source of income by claiming damages (imo more likely)

this was red's business model after all. nikon probably doesn't care all that much about making products or entering the cinema market. my prediction is that red as a brand, as well as their cameras will cease to exist in a few years. nikon will probably keep making hybrids with a focus on photography, and i doubt that any of the red tech will trickle down. why would it after all? Who's going to buy a nikon branded camcorder in a world where sony dominates the market? reds are kinda dead in the european high end rental market, why would nikon even start?
 

here's a value judgement from me: lol

Haha "value judgement" 

2 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Nikon use intoPIX's TicoRAW  for high-efficiency encoding of raw stills and raw video. It's a different algorithm from what RED is using. RED's patent has been suggested to be invalid anyway, as RED demonstrated it in a camera more than one year before applying for the patent (which was Nikon's counter-argument when RED sued them and so the case was settled outside of court, which also happened with Jinni Tech who used a similar argument). I doubt very much Nikon bought RED for the patents but simply to get a foothold in the higher-end video camera market.

 

There has been no mention of n-raw being ticoRAW since 2022, so I couldn't say with any certainty if the current version of n-raw is the same as was announced before the Z9 or Z8 was released.

As far as Red's patents... I'm not a patent attorney or a patent judge but I do know that many companies, including Apple, could not convince a court that their patent was invalid.

We do know that in May of 2022, Red filed a lawsuit against Nikon for patent infringement and less than a year later, in April of 2023, the case was dismissed at the request of both Red and Nikon and less than a year after that, it's announced that Nikon purchased Red.

So it may be possible that Nikon wants to enter the high end cinema market, but based on the timeline of events, one can ascertain that Nikon's purchase of Red is about Redcode Raw... maybe... but I haven't sat in on any of the meetings between Nikon and Red for a while...

5 hours ago, andrgl said:

Right? This is such a wildcard change in the industry.

I was planning to switch to an R5 and R5C combo this year for Canon's 28-70MM f/2 zoom.

Now I'm going to wait and see what happens. I own no mirrorless glass so I have no bias, I'll choose whatever platform that suits me.

Exactly. I don't even know what to think. I wasn't planning any upgrade anytime soon, so I can wait to see how things pan out, but how Canon responds will definitely sway me one way or the other.

Hell, this was so out of left field, that for all I know, Canon could announce they bought Arriflex next week.

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

Probably Nikon has wanted to acquire a cinema company for a while. When Nikon first announced Z mount, they mentioned cinema a lot, but never backed that up with a full feature set. There were little things, like the tripod locating pin (so critical for solid cinema rigs). And of course supporting Raw outputs. But Nikon didn't make the big jumps, like timecode, internal NDs, XLRs. Maybe they wanted to, but didn't quite have the tech, personnel, etc. and buying out a smaller company was the easiest option.

So really there are three possible futures.

1. Red's tech moves to Nikon's mirrorless cameras. Redcode perhaps, accessory compatibility e.g. their new EVF, the global shutter sensors.

2. Nikon's tech moves to Red. Z mount, autofocus, or even simple things like LCD screens, mirrorless-size EVFs. And the other huge category: lenses. Perhaps some of Nikon's excellent optics will find their way into cinema housings, either in PL or Z mount.

3. Nothing changes, but Nikon owns a more diversified product line

Doesn't Nikon license their AF from Sony when they purchase their sensors? If that's the case, will future Red cameras have Sony sensors if they have AF?

2 hours ago, PPNS said:

Now nikon gets to be the patent troll. Red will probably get to pretend to remain a company for 2 years and then nikon will probably fire the entire workforce, and we get to hear about “the constantly changing landscape of media” in some press release justifying the gutting of the company.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I could not care less about Red's patent. It held up in court and I am a firm believer in intellectual property so whatever. And I don't believe raw video is for most videographers, so I don't see the point of it being in most cameras. But again, whatever. 

2 hours ago, JulioD said:

That’s what I’m saying. 
 

Nikon bought RED so they can do N-RAW and stop their competitors from using internal RAW. 
 

win win

I'm saying that they bought Red so they could own RedCode and everything that goes with it. I think NRaw was just a stop gap and will disappear or become their uncompressed Raw format. I wouldn't be surprised if the current version of NRaw is just RedCode under a different container.

2 minutes ago, kye said:

We all know the camera and imaging industry is being disrupted heavily, first with the move to digital that sunk Kodak, then with smartphones slowly eating the whole industry from the bottom up, and now right at the start of generative AI.  In situations like this market consolidation is an enormous game of 9-dimensional chess, so this move will be the result of more analysis than a person could read in a week, even if we had post-graduate qualifications in corporate law, economics, and accounting.

It's not like Nikon was sitting on a huge pile of cash to begin with - in this phase of a market disruption where the manufacturers are literally fighting to stay alive if this wasn't a great match for the two companies across many/most factors then it will be a mistake that might cost them everything.

I feel very confident being a reader of this former for the past decade to fully understand every aspect of this acquisition. 

2 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

Its too soon for a collaborative work. But all they have to do, for now, is add REDCODE and active cooling to upcoming Z6III, and call it RED Phoenix or something, with $3k price.

This has probably been in the works for at least a year, if not longer, so it should be possible to introduce RedCode with their next big release. 

56 minutes ago, JulioD said:

I doubt we see REDCODE on a Nikon.  
 

But I bet this is why we have N-RAW.

And that’s all this is. 

What would be the point then? Red isn't a huge company with large profits but they do have RedCode with a great plug in workflow. I'd think it's the only reason for Nikon to purchase Red.