Talk:List of cameras supporting a raw format

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reason the list was created

Refer to Talk:RAW image format#List of cameras supporting a RAW format for the reason this page was created. --Berland 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAW vs Uncompressed Video

RAW video and uncompressed video are two different things. Uncompressed video generally means clean HDMI out usually with a 4:2:2 color subsampling. RAW has no sub-sampling and is just the original date captured by the sensor in full. There are a lot of cameras listed here as supporting RAW even though they don't (with or without proprietary firmware enhancements), but only a clean HDMI signal. I believe these should be removed, moved to a different article, or very clearly marked so as not to confuse the two formats. Doorzki (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed HDMI clean output descriptive text plus cameras included on that basis - i.e. the Nikons. It's hugely misleading to conflate the two things, and additionally the inclusion of only the Nikon cameras that were listed implies that clean HDMI output is somehow unique to them, instead of the reality of it being extremely common, in contrast to actual RAW video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.88.97 (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the main issue. The analogy with RAW image is false, because the images in all these videos are already de-Bayered. Artoria 2e5 🌉 05:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

questions on photos used for medical purposes

my most concern as a practicing medical assistant and esthetician is using my personal device for capturing photos of patients in a medical setting and then using my phone for at home use and leisure. from that job I resigned and I felt a constant following of a client too hard neck abrasions and a twisted neckline and I have to stay positive because that was in the past when I worked at A New You Spa and pictures are archive and is not under my management. Certainly they are satisfying medical board advisory and HIPAA commission. Creative Celinda in San Antonio. Babyadame (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]