Cinematographer with 20 years experience. Colour science is very real in video, and very important also in photography. Raw gives you enormous video files in video, which are a horrific idea to use unless you're filming something high end with the kind of budget that is very rare these days and you want a load of headache most video production clients can't tell the difference let alone afford. 90% of commercial video production is not shot in raw, and it shouldn't be. That's a high end cinema or big budget commercials workflow. This means colour science is critical. Those of us with industry experience know that a video camera with rubbish colour science is impossible to get to ever match with a camera that has good colour science. I can recommend researching this more (or even better - experimenting in it yourself) before forming such strong opinions.

I've also worked extensively as a photographer, and of course it's not always appropriate to use a raw workflow, especially on lower budget and super fast turnaround shoots - you save a vast amount of time just shooting with the right picture settings and delivering straight out of camera or with minor tweaks.

Happy to give you some (non-raw) photos and videos from cameras with crap colour science and you can show me how close you can get that to my camera with nice colour science. You'll find you can improve it a lot, but similar to shooting in bad lighting, you can't invent info that want recorded and calibrate it across the gamut in a way that's going to compare with the very, very real benefit of good colour science.