It's still a converted, processed, finished (not necessarily to the photographers liking) version of what came off the sensor. As much as it's an improvement over existing jpegs, it's still just more of the same thing. If you want to have the ultimate flexibitly in post, what can possibly beat recording exactly what the sensor captured?
I see it as another compelling reason why raw is superior. Not only have we seen raw conversion, NR and lens distortion algorithms etc improve, but now we potentiomally have a new, improved format to output to. By shooting raw we ensure that the one off moment can be revisited using these new systems (and any others coming up) at a later date, should we not be happy with how we've already processed them.
I might be getting this wrong, and it would not be the first time
There was a lenghty debate in this forum (among which a member from Sweden was banned) about sensors and RAW files. At least to me it seemed appearant that RAW is not raw, as in untampered, but rather a conversion of the light that hits the sensor into meaningful elements as light, shaddows, colors ect. In this discussion someone posted a link to a site where someone had used a lot of time trying to dechipher the different ways Canon had programmed sensorinformation, thus resulting in different RAW files based on camera/sensor. Hence, if this is correct, RAW is not raw..
While RAW is far superior to jpg in the relative? uncompressed data made available to postprocessing, the point of my question was that will these new type of jpg. files not make postprocessing easier or being able to stretch the boundaries of the existing jpg. system that we have today?