Ilkka Nissila

4 hours ago, kye said:

That's what I was asking.

My point was that the math that sits underneath the many branded names is mostly the same.  TicoRAW will be just another branded version of something that someone else wrote.

My original post was wondering what it was...

intoPIX's patents describe the algorithm. If it is the same as used in another previous product then it is unlikely to have been granted a patent.  Of course this assumes the patent office can understand the algorithms and the novelties in context, which is not necessarily the case. Given the patent text it should be possible to implement it.

7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

"In my opinion, the enthusiasm is because Atomos have a chance with Nikon to renegotiate or nullify their onerous licensing agreement for RAW recording. The agreement with RED in 2019 was necessary as Atomos were being sued for the use of compressed RAW codecs like ProRes RAW in their portable recorders, so now have to pay RED royalties on every sale (although the exact terms of the deal aren’t public)."

But if Nikon decides to Not defend RED patent, there will be a lot of cameras in the market with internal raw. Canon will introduce 8:1 compression, Sony will introduce a new Sony-exclusive raw codec and call it XcR, Panasonic S5m3 will record ProresRAW. And then, who would need/buy a monitor recorder? 

A lot of people use external monitors because it allows them to see the image properly without having to look through a hole for a long time and inadvertently shaking the camera from time to time by the eyebrows/forehead/glasses touching it. The recording function is useful because fast and high capacity storage for an external recorder can be an order of magnitude cheaper than for a camera. It also reduces the likelihood of overheating as the card inside the camera does get hot if used for longer takes at high data rates and it and the processor contribute to overall camera internal temperature. At events such as sports or big concerts I rarely see people use the EVF even when it is present. This is probably because it is more relaxing and easier to work with a tripod-based long focal length setup, you don't have to position your eye so precisely and the bigger screen gives leeway to change posture.

Wanting to do spontaneous, high-quality video is like desiring cheap intergalactic space flight. It's just not in the cards a lot of the time. 😉

I can see the integral recording reduce the risk of cable falling off and terminating the recording accidentally. But then if the camera stops or malfunctions because of overheating, the outcome could be the same or worse (if the camera needs to cool down it takes more time than plugging in the cable). 

3 hours ago, mercer said:

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?

Economies of scale would benefit the cost of producing more samples of the same design, so if considering the combined economies of Nikon and Sony, likely it would be cheaper to produce the same sensor for both Nikon and Sony cameras. But, there is the brand identity thing, and Nikon want to do their own thing so e.g. the 45 MP sensor that Nikon use in the Z8, Z9, Z7 series and D850 is not used in any Sony camera. Nikon could be doing that because they want to maintain their own brand identity or they want specific features that Sony do not want in their cameras, such as the ISO 64 which was developed first for the D810 and D850, and Nikon engineers interviewed by imaging resource felt it was the most significant thing they achieved, a true ISO 64. Originally this was implemented reportedly to allow sports photographers (e.g. in motorsports) to pan with slower shutter speeds without having to use an ND filter to get to the right shutter speed. But of course landscape and other photographers can also use it and benefit from the larger number of photons captured (increasing color sensitivity & tonal range), and for photographers who want to use very large apertures in bright sunlight as well. In those ISO 64 capable sensors the high ISO PDR seems to have experienced a slight drop compared to equal ISOs on the 36 MP sensor that had a base ISO of 100 (D800), as well as compared to some Sony models. So there is a tradeoff that Nikon wanted to make to achieve this base ISO and it's not a clear win for general-purpose use, rather it's useful for specific applications. I believe a part of the reduction of ISO was achieved by using a different color filter array (there are some published measurements on DPR and nikongear) which had a more flat blue curve maybe improving colour accuracy (?). Anyway this is an example of a feature which Nikon claims is their sensor designers' achievement. Of course, no one outside of Nikon and Sony know exactly how they work within their partnership, and this shouldn't really matter. Only how the cameras work for the users matters in the end.

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

RED's patent has stood up so many times in court, it is pretty much beyond doubt that it's valid for raw recording.

There is no "one" patent, it's a series of patents, and patents or some of their claims can be invalidated if new evidence is discovered.

intoPix's web site lists Nikon Z8 and Z9's N-RAW as using TicoRAW for stills and video (Zf doesn't have N-RAW video but does have the corresponding stills compression options HE and HE* which are similar to Z8's and Z9's HE and HE* so we can safely guess it too is TicoRAW).

Nikon's Z9, Z8, and Zf manuals state that they are "powered by intoPIX technology". Z8 and Zf were launched in 2023, so there you have mentions "after 2022". 

Since RED's earlier lawsuit against Jinni Tech was also withdrawn when the latter used the same argument as Nikon did with the same outcome, yet Jinni Tech didn't need to purchase RED the company to reach this outcome, so we can fairly safely assume Nikon's decision to purchase RED is unrelated to the lawsuit. Since Nikon's argument is that the patents are invalid they aren't likely to sue others for infringing those invalid patents. But RED may have other patents or aspects of patents that Nikon may want to use. And very likely they do want to enter the high-end video camera market since some customers won't purchase hybrids without system compatibility with higher-end video cameras.

7 hours ago, mercer said:

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.

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.

4 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

For photography I imagine this camera to be a great choice. I like the body size and design from looking at reviews. What's the difference between MK I and II? @MrSMW

The Mk II has subject-detection available also in wide-area L AF box, instead of only in the full-frame auto-area AF as in the Mk I. For me limiting the search area for the subject is key to obtaining controlled and reliable results in photographing people. In the newer Zf, the AF box size and shape can be adjusted with many different options and subject-detection is also available there. For me these are the most typical modes I use the cameras in, and the most useful as it gives just the right compromise between user control and automation for me.

I would expect the Z6 III to feature also the same custom area AF as the Zf has (which is ahead of the Z8 and Z9 in the number of box sizes available).

On 12/2/2023 at 4:49 PM, Django said:

Awesome, thanks for confirming that can be done, very handy indeed!  Here is another quick question: how do you set up that hi-res zoom function? last time I was on a Z8 I couldn't figure it out. I activated it in the video menu but couldn't find how to set it to a Fn button or anything else really. Its a very interesting feature I'd like to try, also can you set the zoom speed like have it zoom in slow or fast? 

You need to go to the custom settings menu and the g settings (video). There is a setting where you can assign the hi-res zoom to a pair of custom function buttons (such as Fn1 to zoom in and Fn2 to zoom out). You can also adjust the zoom speed. In addition to buttons on the camera itself, it's possible to control the zoom from the remote video grip that Nikon makes. The main limitation of the high-res zoom is that it limits the AF area to a central wide area of the frame. You can't move the box off center or control how big it is. So you lose some control over the autofocus. Subject detection is available though. I guess the limitation is because the box sizes are tied to the phase-detection sensor positions and those positions with the zoomed-in frame would then change as you zoom. But other than that I like the feature.

8 hours ago, Django said:

If you don't mind checking and letting me know, I can't seem to find that info online or in the manual.

Would be totally awesome though if you could store specific video resolution, frame rate, shutter speed, log/profile, codec etc in a custom bank and recall them on the fly with indeed the Fn buttons! Fingers crossed that is a possibility..

These things can be done. I just configured my video shooting bank A for Prores 422 HQ 25 fps and 1/50s SDR, and bank B for h.265 4K 50 fps 10-bit 1/100s with N-Log, and I can now switch between banks by pressing and holding Fn3 (which I programmed to act as shooting bank selection button from the video custom settings custom controls menu) and rotating the main command dial. Very handy.

6 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

in my own testing the 15B-C battery lasts for about 1h 10min in non stop 4K recording. add to that burst and LCD display then it's going to give you about 45min. I usually carried 3-4 batteries with me and it was a hassle if I didn't immediately go and put them to charge which was which and going through all of them to find out the empty and full ones.

The b type has lower capacity than c (and the difference is significant).  Recording time may also depend on which codec you use, some are more processing-intensive.

Django: You can use shooting menu settings banks (A-D) for video and the bank selection can be set to Fn1, Fn2, Fn3, or Fn vertical, for example. I am not a settings bank user so I would have to check if you can select the record file type, resolution and frame rate there but I would guess that you can.

42 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Re. The Z8, does it have C1-3 dial? 

The Z9 I think does and this swings me in that direction as do the ergos and battery life.

What is a C1-3 dial? If you mean custom settings like U1-U3 on some Nikons, where the mode dial has customisable options which remember most settings, then no, neither the Z8 nor the Z9 have those. But there are photo shooting banks and custom settings banks.

On 11/28/2023 at 10:41 AM, Django said:

Valid point, is the battery life that bad on Nikon bodies? I mean if it was bad on Z6 then its going to be horrible on a Z8? I don't quite realise as I didn't push the Z8 by any means when I tested it. Again using a USB-C external power solution is always an affordable option to get more juice out of it (same goes for R5C) but yeah Z9 I'm sure gives total peace of mind. I shoot a lot of vertical for stills as I mainly do portrait work so maybe Z9 is the body I should be considering if I go Nikon.

In my experience it isn't bad. A single Z8 battery (EN-EL15c) lasts about 2 hours of continuous video recording or 3-4 hours of active still photography (about 2000 shots). I often have the MB-N12 mounted with two EN-EL15cs inside, and that basically gets me through most events with the exception of all-day sports events that can last 8-10 hours - in those cases a third battery may be needed, or recharging during the day. 

If you need to do more than 2 hours of video recording or 2000 shots / 4 hours of active shooting then you do need two  batteries for the Z8. For winter weather conditions I'm not quite sure yet but with the dual battery setup in the vertical grip I just don't run into situations where the battery capacity becomes a limiting factor.

The Z9 battery is no doubt better, and the camera has some other advantages but with it you lose the option of having a more compact camera by taking the vertical grip off. It's just a personal choice of what you prioritise.

11 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The way to fix any dynamic range shortcoming with global shutter is to use multiple frame HDR RAW like a phone. 120fps at full resolution is easily enough to enable 6 or 7 frames, merged into one, without a noticeable hit in terms of shutter lag, or processing time

It doesn't quite work like that. If you shoot a sequence at 120 fps & 1/240s with the GS camera, and compare the results after processing (by taking the images and processing them to reduce noise) to native RS camera at 24 fps, 1/48s, then the latter will still have more dynamic range (unless an ND filter was needed to get the slow shutter speed in too bright light).

Phone cameras get away with a lot of stuff, including somehow merging the images even in the presence of moving parts in the image by algorithms only because the images are viewed as a tiny part of the human visual field so the imperfect guesses by the AI don't bother us as much as they would if they were shown on large screens. The images often look unnatural and fake to those who are experienced in looking at actual photographs, though.

1 minute ago, Django said:

"Global Shutter" kind of feels like a buzzword from Sony marketing doesn't it? And the usual suspects on Youtube sure are running with it.. "FIRST GLOBAL SHUTTER CAMERA" "This Changes EVERYTHING". "ZERO DISTORTION!!!". I mean cmon if you wanted to avoid distortion up until now as a stills shooter you could simply use mechanical shutter. And yeah 99% of cinematographers use CMOS sensor based cameras with minimal RS. 

Again not trying to downplay the tech advancement of this new sensor but it ain't really the game changer revolution it is hyped up to be. The read-out speed sure seems incredible but I personally can't imagine combing through 120fps of RAW images. I'm not even sure pro sporting events shooters have that luxury in their time race with FTP transfers. So who exactly is the A9 target? Wealthy amateurs that shoot birds/golf/tennis? Videographers doing 360 degree rotations at 100mph? Serious question.

Mechanical (focal plane) shutter produces some rolling shutter. You can see it e.g. if photographing a propeller plane or helicopter at fast shutter speeds. You can also see it when there is artificial light that flickers, in the past the advice was to use a slow shutter speed to avoid the banding from fluorescent lights; today the lights are often LED based but still there are circumstances where the lights or screens show banding even when photographing with mechanical shutter. The GS eliminates this problem. I would think that photojournalists, sports and music photographers would like it, but it's a pricey camera for sure.

Golf, yes, quite likely there even the fastest rolling shutter would show distortion, and the club swings quite fast so you can get some interesting timings at 120 fps or 240 fps. But those are kind of special applications. I guess specialists who work on these kind of sports with very fast motion would get it.

On 9/21/2023 at 10:04 PM, MrSMW said:

It makes perfect sense to me that ALL sensors today, other than that intended for cinema/TV should be square because then best of both worlds!

Just set up custom overlays on the screen and it's easy to see what is possible from any scene.

With my photography hat on, I'd MUCH prefer to shoot this way without having to continually rotate the camera physically, but see the projected result/cropping on the screen instead.

But how much would you be willing to pay extra for the larger sensor and lenses that cover it? After all, many lenses have masks that minimize flare but also limit the image coverage to a rectangle.  Let's say lenses for a square 36 mm times 36 mm sonsor would have 1/2 stop smaller apertures and 50% higher price as a result, and camera body would also be 50% more expensive. Flash sync speed would be 1/125 s and sensor read time 50% longer. Would you still want it, and would you expect that everyone would be fine with it so that mass production would be realistic and square sensors would replace rectangular ones all over the market?

On 9/13/2023 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Reid said:

X2D is a bit rubbish though isn't it for the price?

It doesn't have a proper shutter and doesn't even shoot video, not even 480p

GFX100 original gangster (is that the phrase kids use now?) is the one to get used as that will soon be under £2.5k

I was never keen on the GFX100S, it didn't do it for me.

By the looks of it the GFX100 II makes a very good full frame camera as well, with all those crop modes in DCI 4K and 5.8K, plus anamorphic modes too.

It is about time we finally had a Fuji full frame mirrorless cam.

Hasselblad has the advantage of use of central shutters in each lens, so you can flash sync normally at all speeds (Fuji is limited to 1/125s and slower, which is very slow). For daylight + flash shoots this is very useful, one can use much smaller flashes to balance with bright daylight. The Hasselblad is also very well-designed ergonomically and compact with some of the lenses being quite small.

Fuji has focus drift:

https://blog.kasson.com/gfx-100s/focus-drift-with-the-110-2-gf-on-the-fujifilm-gfx-100s/

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-af-accuracy/

On 8/5/2023 at 2:08 AM, Eric Calabros said:

1- the rate of decline in engagement in all of the photo/video forums and websites is depressing. Even comment sections are mini ghost towns compared to same place ten years ago. Maybe social media is stealing a lot of that free time usually spent on traditional web in the past. 

2- many of those people who could write informative blog posts are now like "why bother writting any more when no one reads any more?". Today they're making videos, and try hard to make it 10 min long, which means they have to add a lot of water to the milk. 

3- I don't see any other industry with so much negativity about the major brands of that industry. Telling people they don't need and shouldn't buy new released products is a norm in our corner of internet fora! There is hype moments before and after press release days, but overall discouragement is way bigger. But look at car enthusiasts or audiophiles online communities...They're constantly encourage each other to buy more!

4- lack of communication between experienced users and newcomers is hurting everyone, and sometimes it's sad. Many people who are upgrading from smartphone, are making mistakes related to misunderstandings that discussed and explained and solved seven years ago. They just don't know where to find the knowledge.

5-  a tendency to reduce everything to "matter of taste" has emerged to the point that the whole concept of critique apears as moot point, like there is no wrong way and right way of doing things!

 

Maybe its overthinking. I don't know.. just wanted to share my thoughts. 

I think the problem originates from photography (and video) being originally quite difficult to do technically so that when there is a really good photo or short movie, it was viewed with excitement, and people gathered around online to celebrate such things and try to learn the craft themselves. Online forums were quite active.

Eventually the cameras got better, easier to use and cheaper, and so hundreds of millions of people bought them, and making a decent photograph was no longer unusual, not a luxury or a rarity. Thus it became progressively more difficult to make a living from it, or be noticed with your images (whether amateur or professional). Forum activity reflects this - if it is no longer possible to make a difference with photos or videos then fewer people will enjoy the pursuit, or chatting about it. Of course, it is still possible but there is such a quantity of it readily available for consumption that people no longer stop to watch this content. And they don't value it because they don't see it as special.  Even if the photo is special, they are looking at it on a tiny screen the size of their hands at reading distance away, and that's really small. If you try to come back to it, chances are you will not find it again, as the feed has changed with new material. Rarely is the creator of the photograph mentioned online. What's the point then?

I think rather than give information for free, a lot of people are giving workshops and may try to commercialize their knowledge. In the beginning of the internet, people were so excited about sharing and it was not about making money.

Social media tends to show people what they've liked before, so then all the content gets likes and there is no space for criticism, or if you do, then your comment probably gets deleted, you might become unfriended, or get a fierce rebuttal to the criticism. No one bothers to read through the discourse. Forums are full of discussions where disagreements and agreements are on more equal footing, but in social media, it's all about likes, and agreeing with the opinion of the poster. The algorithms ensure that you basically only see things that are similar to what you have "liked" before. And if you do give a more neutral or negative comment, people get offended as you're clearly not subscribing to the same bubble that they are. There is no room for genuine discussion on social media.

That people don't read any more is a serious problem. It means they aren't being informed, and they probably aren't thinking much, either. Finding facts in videos is very time-consuming and that medium is more suited for dissemination of stories, emotions, etc. and experiences whereas text and illustrations usually are better in disseminating facts. All these media have their place and should be supported. How this happens, I don't know. Personally I enjoy watching videos from time to time, movies, documentaries etc. but find that often it is faster to find the information I'm looking for outside of the video medium. I would be surprised if young people can get through life without reading.

3 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I was somewhat disappointed (probably because I went into it with too high expectations).

Cillian Murphy's performance is epic but the film not so much. The scene cuts made a complicated story, overly complicated. Film seemed overly long, I just didnt care that much for any of the characters.

My guess is that 'Oppenheimer' will go down as a 'Gandhi'. Widely praised at the time, wins a bunch of oscars but largely forgotten afterwards (especially compared to ET (basically the same story, came out in the same year.)

It's easier to follow when one knows the story pretty well from books etc. I guess the different timelines are there to keep it a mystery, who was behind Oppenheimer's loss of reputation and security clearance after he opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb and wanted that there should be disarmament and  international oversight over nuclear weapons. That is revealed towards the end (at least one version). If the film had progressed in a linear time it would not be possible to make the story as exciting I guess, as they'd have to show the behind-the-scenes as the time went by.

21 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Just posted on another thread but to this topic related as far as Z8 concerns:

 

@markr041 @gethin @Ilkka Nissila you're Z8 users... can you add your opinion on overheating issues concern here, please?

I have had the Z8 since late May and have not experienced any heat-related warnings or other signs of overheating. I live in Finland so our weather is not like Florida but we've had 28 C days. When shooting video, I have used mostly Prores 422 HQ in 4K/25, 4K/50 or 1080p/50 but also tested 4K/120 h.265 and they all worked fine in and out of doors. The most I shot on a day was about 200 GB of video onto CFexpress type B (325 GB ProGrade Digital Cobalt). I've also used Sony 128 GB CFexpress and those didn't overheat in the time required to fill up the card in 4K/25 Prores 422 HQ but the card was very warm to the touch afterwards. 

Tests published on youtube by Ricci Chera (who works for Nikon School UK, so keep that in mind), Gerald Undone and others generally found that the Z8 can overheat in the most data-intensive video modes in about 30 min if using memory cards that tend to run hot, but using the right cards (Delkin Black is reported to run the coolest, Prograde Digital Cobalt is also good), the camera typically runs out of battery (2 hours on one charge of the EN-EL15c) before overheating, according to those reports. Both Delkin Black and Prograde Cobalt cards are sometimes significantly discounted at B&H, so if getting a Z8, one may want to look out for those deals. My own experience confirms that the Prograde Cobalt seems to run less hot than the Sony and I'm happy with the purchase although these cards aren't exactly cheap. For longer recording times I would likely go with Delkin Power as those are available in larger capacities.

I love the Prores 422 HQ; such amazing detail and color. I have no experience shooting 8K.

19 hours ago, Django said:

So I've now tested out the Z8 and like I said in that thread, I got mixed feelings about it. I love the body size, build quality, LCD hinge system.. but I hate the UI, menus, layout. N-Log is a can of worms with currently horrible rec709 LUTs that kill DR and boost saturation. Camera has weird quirks like no IBIS when adapting certain lenses and other options that get greyed out depending on settings. The AF is a little sluggish. Etc. I guess to me its a great camera on paper but not really for me in actual use (I've found that to often be the case with Nikon cams).

IBIS with non-CPU lenses works if you type in the focal length and maximum aperture into the list of non-CPU lenses that you use. This includes mechanical-only lenses that don't have electrical contacts.

https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z8/en/sum_non-cpu_lens_data_guid-fac0444d-3965-c25a-4c18-84574cb10167_285.html

After typing in the data for the non-CPU lenses, you can then select from the list the actual one that you are using and the data is recalled. This can be programmed to a custom function button.

The AF speed in video recording is adjustable:

https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z8/en/csmg_af_speed_guid-a4c4cd1b-0ad3-5c90-eac7-5c2fb524a4b5_247.html

and tracking sensitivity also:

https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z8/en/csmg_af_tracking_sensitivity_guid-54657d66-753f-7fcb-b56b-2b78446094a0_248.html

For me the video AF has been excellent on the Z8.

On 6/26/2023 at 9:13 PM, TomTheDP said:

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. 
 

for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean. 

This has to do with the creation of exposure latitude in N-log mode by exposing like this ISO 64 sensor like an ISO 800 sensor. 😉  From the perspective of stills shooting this would be the equivalent of underexposing the image by 3.7 stops and then pushing it to be brighter in post-processing. So yes, there will be noise. Even in video, you can shoot in SDR mode and use the base ISO of 64 of the Z8 and not get much noise, but then you don't get the kind of highlight recovery that you get in log. I think it would not be quite correct to say that these cameras are noisy, as the noise level is not that far from theoretical limits set by physics. While there is a little bit less noise recorded by cameras where there is better cooling and dual gain etc. it's not like a night and day difference. When watching a 4K UHD blu-ray of Rogue One at 60 Mbit/s what is evident is that there is a lot of noise visible that isn't as obvious when streaming. What's great is the audio quality compared to streaming. I'm surprised how much noise in the image there is and how they chose to distribute it like that given the large sensor used to shoot it (Arri Alexa 65). I suspect this has to do with people in the cinema field being used to the grain of color negative film and not going for a straight clean digital image due to aesthetic preferences. If they had shot it at lower ISO I would think the result could be squeaky clean. (I have seen videos suggesting that some colorists add noise on purpose, and there are even still photographers who do that to mimic film grain and to hide some imperfections. I'm not convinced that adding noise has more than a transitional benefit between generations of people where technology is changing quickly.)

There are cinema cameras which do record the image with two gains to improve the dynamic range and merge the data into the video file.  There are also other approaches on the sensor level to achieve increased dynamic range, such as Super CCD by Fujifilm some years back, but this requires a different photodiode layout and it seems they're not continuing this line of product development. What is possible, of course, is to take advantage of the temporal redundancy and reduce the noise based on the similarity of consecutive frames. But really, the easiest way to reduce noise is by giving up exposure headroom in the highlights and recording more light, which is also what you are saying.

I find it curious how cinema camera manufacturers define ISO differently than still cameras. I get it that displays can have a larger dynamic range than paper, and this could be a part of the reason, i.e. still cameras are designed to expose by giving as much light as possible to the sensor while still being able to display highlights up to the whites on a photographic print paper. Basically ink on paper has a dynamic range of 200:1, while high dynamic range displays have 20000:1 or higher. Thus there may be the need to consider the display when deciding on an exposure, and basically, it also means the images made for HDR displays would potentially be noisier in parts of the image because of the need to include those highlights in the shooting phase. In stills photography HDR images can be made by exposing two or more frames at different exposures, but this wouldn't exactly work for video; what they can do is record two sets of data with different gains, but the rewards obtainable from this approach are more limited.

On 6/12/2023 at 5:01 PM, BTM_Pix said:

My point was to the exposure, field of view, AF consistency and optical degradation.

If I am using my 400mm at f2.8/ISO6400 and 1/1250th and either crop in post to get to an 800mm FOV or use the Hi-Res Zoom then the exposure won’t change, the AF won’t change and the optical quality won’t change.

If I attach my TC-2.0x then my exposure WILL change (by two stops), the AF will degrade and as good (relatively) as the Nikon TC is then it does take a hit.

So the lenses will always be f2.8 and my exposure remains unchanged (which is hugely important when even category A stadiums for night matches are very tight when balancing high shutter speeds and ISO) and my FOV needs are met in a more dynamic way. A 70-200mm becomes a whole lot more useful when an extra 100mm can be activated without having to commit to having it on all the time.

Will they be “real” f2.8 in terms of absolute equivalence ALL the way throughly the range once they’ve got beyond their base focal length ?  

Nope.

But the compromise in those areas when using a clear image zoom type of function compared to using TCs when you need extra reach on tap are absolutely minimal compared to losing two stops of light and AF performance as and when you need it.

HOWEVER…..

Having said ALL of that, I’ve just discovered to my researching shame that unlike the Sony (and JVC) options  the Hi-Res Zoom feature is ONLY available in video mode not stills!

So disregard everything I’ve said on the subject from a sports photography point of view as it is moot 🙂 

When using the hi-res zoom, e.g. at the 2X setting, the area that each original image pixel takes in the final (zoomed-in) image increases by a factor of 4 which makes the noise more visible than when not zooming (because each pixel of a 4K image is normally (when not hi-res zoomed in) made by averaging four pixels in the 8K sensor, these resampled pixels are less noisy). 

However, I still consider the hi-res zoom a valuable and even exciting feature. The reason for this is that for video, 4K is arguably more than enough for almost all practical purposes, and already high-quality 4K video takes a lot of storage space; shooting in 8K would result in significantly increased storage needs and not necessarily give anything for the final presentation.  Using the 8K sensor in this way to solve a practical problem (current lack of powered zooms in the Nikon system) is quite sensible even if it is limited to 1X-2X zooming. A few limitations should be mentioned. First, in the normal shooting of 4K video, it is created by oversampling from 8K. When zooming in, the degree of oversampling is reduced. However, in my opinion the resulting quality is still very good. When doing hand-held footage, it should also be noted that only the optical (with VR lens) and sensor-based VR are available together with hi-res zoom, and the electronic VR is disabled.  Finally, when in hi-res zoom mode, the focus area is not displayed in the viewfinder or in the LCD, and it is automatically selected to be wide-area L presumably in the center of the frame. One can have subject-detection on while using hi-res zoom, but one can't see exactly where the limits of the AF area are, and one can't move it about in the frame. So there are a few caveats with this feature in its current implementation. I would like to see Nikon display the focus area even if it can't be moved about. Still I quite like the feature and the ability to zoom in and out in a way that is a bit more smooth than when using the mechanical optical zoom control on the lens. On the Z9 new firmware update 4.0, this feature gets more options regarding the rate of zooming.

As for your last point, I understand that Sony has a more advanced interpolation available to preserve details when digitally zooming in. Adobe and other software offer this kind of a feature in post-processing software, so I would guess the benefits of doing that in camera are mainly that one can have the final result immediately available. For sports photography, I suppose this is a priority. However, digital zooming always results in the amplification of noise.

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

When it comes to the specific case of the Z8/Z9, the answer to the question of “who the hell needs all that resolution?”, the answer, quite simply, is the target market for them do.

These are cameras intended for photojournalists/sports photographers/wildlife photographers.

In the case of the latter two in particular, with f2.8 long lenses costing £20-30 per millimetre of focal length, the variable 2x digital zoom functionality pays for the camera itself.

If you are shooting a match then from your fixed position at one end of the field you will generally not have enough reach with a 400mm. Depending on the stadium you might actually be so far behind the goal line that even 600mm will struggle. As the distance is variable you end up having to bring 1.4x, 1.7x and 2x TCs whereas with the Z8/Z9 you can dial it in and not have to worry about losing stops of light, IQ and AF performance.

Cropping using the digital zoom on these much higher resolution Z8/Z9 sensors, even at 2x is still giving you the D5 resolution and giving you impossible lenses such as 70-400mm f2.8 and 400-800mm f2.8 for free.

Just that one aspect - which is standard operating procedure for the intended market rather than a niche outlier- is absolutely massive and justifies the bump in resolution.

The image achieved by 2X cropping a 4K image from 8K to the center 4K in order to achieve a 400mm field of view using a 200mm f/2.8 doesn't look like the image from a 400mm f/2.8 lens (except for the field of view). The image will look like a 4K full-frame image from a 400mm f/5.6 lens, instead. This is in terms of image noise as well as depth of field. You cannot magically turn a 70-200/2.8 into the practical equivalent of a 400/2.8 by simply taking the center of the frame in a crop. Now, the digital zooming offered by the Z8 is handy and practical as it offers the equivalent of a motorized zoom which is not offered by Nikon on the lens side, at least not yet. By developing the firmware further, Nikon will be able to offer variable digital zooming rates and the image detail should hold up quite well in this case, due to the lens optical quality and the fact that it's using an 8K sensor to implement it. However, if you then actually take a 400/2.8 and compare the images to ones obtained using the 70-200/2.8 with the 2X high-resolution zoom, they will be very different. Nonetheless I think this is a smart use of the high-resolution sensor, as long as the lens itself can actually resolve that kind of detail and the focus can be maintained to the higher resolution level. If shooting in low light, however, one can then quickly see why it's not a real 400mm f/2.8.

IMO the high-resolution zoom is best used for tripod-based operation, as in the zoomed-in state, the hand-held stabilization is not as good as it would be without the zooming-in, and electronic VR is not available when using the high-resolution zoom feature. Of course, for wildlife use, a tripod used to be considered a given, but nowadays...

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Yes. Always. Mostly flipping between the two constantly but at times, need to do both at the same time which means video unit on sticks plus shooting stills with a second unit, or shooting 8k video with just one unit and pulling stills.

I do not have an 8k camera so have to do the at minimum, 2 camera approach.

The latter especially is something I am hoping for…

Nikon has a 24-120mm f/4 native Z-mount lens that is generally well-regarded. Oh, the Tamron is an f/2-f/2.8. That's pretty neat.

33 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Isn't it putting them in a more vulnerable position? The next attacker will be DJI. Whats the point of having a patent you can't defend? 

I'm not a lawyer but I guess that if a court decides the patent is invalid, RED would lose all income related to license agreements based on that patent. Since they pulled the lawsuit, the other companies cannot automatically stop paying license fees if they have agreed to do so as the patent hasn't been invalidated officially.