Leaderboard

From what I’ve seen I think the Z8 and Z9 have the best image and colour separation of all the mirrorlerss cameras, there is something special going on there, the R5c just looks like all the other Canon mirrorless, nice image but lacking a bit in DR and slightly noisier. The sensor tech just seems a bit less cutting edge. Canon have always struggled transferring the DR from still into video on their mirrorless cameras. A real shame as it is there in the rest of the Cinema line from the C70 upwards For me with the IBIS too the Nikon’s are the clear winner. Their lenses also look like they are better suited to video especially if you use AF being almost silent. I always had trouble finding fast affordable Canon lenses that weren’t noisy

Well the most obvious reasons it can are: (i) because AI has almost 100 years of data (i.e. film history) to draw from, and (ii) because it likely has (or eventually will have) access to data mined from all these programs we're using right now to make our art. I mean why else do you think some of these apps with these fantastic tools are being offered for us to use for free? And remember AI doesn't need the entirety of that data - it just needs a large enough sample size to crack the code. The mistake we continue to make as humans is thinking that the things that make us complex cannot be reduced to 1s and 0s. But it totally can, if given enough data. And again, none of this will ever end our human need to create or be creative. It will however make it harder for us to monetize our creativity in economically profitable and sustainable ways.

Agreed. Not to mention OP couldn't probably tell a difference between 24/48 (Titanic being 48p turned out to be factually wrong). I also find it funny when people think 50/60p is anything close to real life, as 50p is technologically still heavily compromised. For human eye it is certainly much smoother than 24p, but it's also it has this weird motion that sits in somewhere between 100 and 24, where the footage somehow ends up looking actually less real and seems hollow compared to the cinema standard. If you want your production to have videogamey/behind the scenes/soapy/whatever look, then go ahead. But no, it doesn't look real. When we talk about realism that can fool the eye, it starts from 100 fps minimum. Yet I think none of the cinema projectors currently in use are technically able to show 100 fps material, most TV's in use also don't have the ability. YouTube is capped at 60, not to mention streaming services. There is a long way to go. But once we are there, even then 24p will have it's place, as it has been said multiple times in this thread, that people experiencing movies crave to escape from the reality and 24p is perfect for that. But don't tell me 50p = realism.

If you’ve ever dealt with Panavision then you know they only do their own Anamorphic optics. Meaning they don’t have other brands that aren’t Panavision made. Certainly not In the US. https://www.panavision.com/camera-and-optics/optics#!optics=anamorphic Dan Sasaki is the head of optics at Panavision. He’s the guy who designs the lenses. You can go to him and ask for a custom design. A lot of lenses like the new Panaspeeds can also be custom tuned to your taste. I worked with someone who had a set that had purple / pink flares, worked like a superspeed above T2.8 and had a built in diffusion. Thats not stock, that’s an optics recipe that you can ask and test for. And when you work with Panavision you know that they also make a lot of one-off custom lenses typically to order for a customer.

Saw this:

Read the link? Its a Panavision custom anamorphic lens made by Dan Sasaki himself

I don't understand why this is so hard for some to understand. Just watch the footage. The more frame per second, the more it looks like a Broadway show in a theater, not a movie like the ones most of us grew up with. Are there technical advantages to "seeing more data"? Yes, absolutely. Is that "better"? No, not always. Here's the rub: if a film takes you out of the story, it's bad. That's exactly what happens when I watch high frame rate stories. Is the inverse true? When watching 24p, does it take you out of the story? I'm rather certain it almost never does.

The Fuji IDT file needs to be modified to conform to DCTL syntax, extension renamed to .dctl and placed in /Blackmagic Design/DaVinci Resolve/ACES Transforms/IDT/ Credit to Hook Stowers from LGG.

I absolutely agree with @Ty Harper that with enough data it will be able to differentiate the movies that got nominated for an academy award from those that didn't, those that did well in the box office from those that didn't, etc. What it won't be able to do, or at least not by analysing only the finished film, is know that the difference between one movies success and the next one is that the director of one was connected in the industry and the second movie lacked that level of influence. But, if we give it access to enough data, it will know that too, and will tell a very uncomfortable story about how nepotism ranks highly in predicting individual successes... I also agree with @JulioD that the wisdom will be backwards-looking, but let's face it, how many of the Hollywood blockbusters are innovative? Sure, there is the odd tweak here or there that is enabled by modern production techniques, and the technology of the day changes the environment that stories are set in, but a good boy-meets-girl rom-com won't have changed much in its fundamentals because humans haven't changed in our fundamentals. Perhaps the only thing not mentioned is that while AI will be backwards looking, and only able to imitate / remix past creativity, humans inevitably use all the tools at their disposal, and like other tools before it, I think that AI will be used by a minority of people to provide inspiration for the creation of new things and new ideas, and also, it will give the creative amongst us the increased ability to realise our dreams. Take feature films for example. Lots of people set out to make their first feature film but the success rate is stunningly low for which ones get finished. Making a feature is incredibly difficult. Then how many that do get made are ever seen by anyone consequential? Likely only a small fraction too. Potentially these ideas might have been great, but those involved just couldn't get them finished, or get them seen. AI could give everyone access to this. It will give everyone else the ability to spew out mediocre dross, but that's the current state of the industry anyway isn't it? YT is full of absolute rubbish, so it's not like this will be a new challenge...

What it will be able to do is combine visions or auteurs... what if Kubrick made John Wick or what if Spielberg made ... What would naturally take a person with his/her own vision and craft will soon be realized by a soulless machine. Sad.

Sure AI will have data. But it’s inherently backward looking. It’s not going to be an innovator. Just at best, mash ups of existing auteur. You have to prompt it with whose work you want to plagerise and it’s really good at copying that. It can’t innovate new. All it can do is regurgitate old. Before you had Kubrick how would you tell it to emulate a Kubrick sensibility….

This couldn't be further from the truth. As someone who designs CPUs for a living, probably know a little more about this than most. Yes, all computers perform binary logical and arithmetic operations, but they are far more sophisticated that a pocket calculator, and it's not just speed. It doesn't take much to implement a pocket calculator. One of the first, the HP-35, used a 1-bit CPU with a serial ALU. More recent calculators tend to use more general-purpose CPUs, but the sophistication needed is not that great. By contrast, modern desktop and laptop CPUs have 64-bit data paths, can address gigabytes of memory, run at multi-gigahertz speeds, are superscalar (can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle), implement sophisticated branch prediction and speculative execution of instructions. They implement virtual memory, hyperthreading, virtualization, support for multiple SMID instruction set extensions, floating-point coprocessors, support for PCI Express, DDR4 and DDR5 memory interfaces, and have megabytes of on-chip cache. Some even have hardware support for encoding and decoding H.264/H.265, ProRes, and VP9. Yes, modern desktop and laptop CPUs have multiple cores, but not billions of them (four to 24 cores is typical). What they have billions of is transistors. Comparing a modern CPU with a pocket calculator is like comparing a Ford Model T with a Lamborghini. Supercomputers used to be very fast single core machines (like the Cray-1), but modern ones use thousands of the same CPUs and GPUs used in desktop PCs. These computers are increasing in power and sophistication every year, and combined with the advancements in AI, will soon be able to do the things no one dreamed of ten years ago. The human brain, by contrast, isn't as fast as a modern computer, but is massively parallel in a way that's as yet unmatched by even the most powerful supercomputers. We can still do things computers can't, but the gap is closing.

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want. But take this thread as an example. It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better. Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned? The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better. What does better even mean? What goal are they trying to achieve? They haven't specified. They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is. You prefer 60p. But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic. Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism. If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us? Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake. Do you think there was any learning here? I am under no illusions. I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion. I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose. A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist. I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV. Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Exactly the type of user this was made for https://www.instagram.com/p/C0mhRzoOIYt/?igshid=MzY1NDJmNzMyNQ==

Just when you thought the Z mount could not get any more adaptable, along comes an adapter to let you mount Fuji X lenses on your Z mount camera with full AF, aperture and OIS functionality. Price is around $299 and available on back order / pre-order from Amazon. APS-C only of course. https://www.amazon.co.uk/BORYOZA-Adapter-Fujifilm-Micro-Z-Mount/dp/B0CPBRTMTX

Darn. I've been a member here for 8 years by now. But never have I given anyone a thumbsdown. You righteously earned all of those I could have had potentially given towards other nonsense before, dear og poster. What nonsensensical, arrogant and depreciative statements you've been coming up with just to feel being right. Your statement could have even been an attractive thesis for me to talk about with you. But your argumentation is without any respect for any good nor in the service of your claim. "24p is dead". Maybe it is. Maybe not. Maybe 25p as here in Europe is the current 24p. But no need to act up like a triumphator about it. Something like "Your old world is dying, let's celebrate that." NOT. That doesnt mean, you are not a lovely person with possibly an adorable filmmakers mind. But your statements are a long way to go from in order to be a good testimonial for a convincing positive assumption about you. Wasting our planet for consumption of 4k 60 video junk is not a thing to be goofy about. 8k 60p- like looking outside of the window. Let's look outside of our window for sure: the world is burning. No tolerance for most terrible display of ignorance and stupidity in behaviour nor speech. "Thongs", "clothes forum", are you a chauvinist scared of thongs? Never seen a thong in your life or someone undressing a thong? I will do that now for a change. Seeing is believing. So many people trying to provide awesome content here. So many good reasons to reason with THEM, because they make it possible. Never used capitals before. Oh, well..

Here's a video that explains the basics of lens choice: Perhaps the single biggest take-away from this video is how the cinematographer is speaking - he is talking about how he wants the audience to feel, not what is 'realistic'. In fact he introduces the video by saying "Hello. I'm Tom Single and I've been a cinematographer for the past 40 years. Today I'm going to be focusing on how film-makers achieve the desired mood as it relates to lens choices". Think about that... "the desired mood". Realism isn't the goal, and it's not even relevant to the context. It's completely besides the point for the industry that he's in. You can take almost any aspect of film-making and when you find very experienced people talking about it, it will always be discussed in the context of the mood and perceptual associations you want to create.