Leaderboard

If you're doing the colour grade yourself then here's my advice: If it looks good, it is good (and it doesn't really matter how you got there) If you're not sure what a setting does, and it doesn't make the image clearly better, then probably just leave it at whatever the default was That's literally it. As you gradually get better you'll build up a sense of what tools make what situations look better, and you'll get that from trial and error / reading forums / watching tutorials / etc, but as soon as you start using the word "should" a lot then you need to go back to the first bullet point above - if it looks good then it is good. The goal of the tech is to learn it enough to start thinking about other more creative aspects.

I don't think a photo real animation with no back end labour can be described as just a better animation tool. Current animation tools, critically, take years of practice and hundreds of paid hours to create each individual work. A production going from "writer, director, and 10,000 hours of professional, lifelong technical artists" to "writer, director, and a 2 month subscription to OpenAI" is, in my opinion, something to pay attention to and expect disruption from, whether you categorize it as a "just a better tool" or not. Switching perspectives a little, these tools are absolutely perfect for hobbyists like me. I'm never going to hire artists, so my productions go from crap CGI to amazing CGI, and no one loses a job. There are no downsides! If that's the angle you're coming from, then I agree with you. However, for anyone making a living off of video work, there's a very very large chance that the amount of money that anyone is willing to pay for ANY kind of creative content creation is going to decrease, fast.

It won't always look shitty. Remember 30 years ago when CGI looked like Legos photographed in stopmotion against a flickery blue screen? Let's wait 30 years on AI generated imagery. No technology can take away the enjoyment of doing something, though it can take away the economic viability of selling it. Which indirectly affects us, because if fewer cameras are sold, people like you and I will face higher equipment prices. Certainly AI is already used in the gaming industry to make assets ahead of time. It will be a bit longer before the computational power exists at the end user to fully leverage AI in real time at 60+ fps. When you have a 13 millisecond rendering budget, it's a delicate balance between clever programming and artistically deciding what you can get away with--and that it requires another leap in intelligence levels. Very few humans are able to design top-tier real time renderers. AI will get there, but it's a vastly more complex task than offline image generation. But yes, AI today already threatens every technical game artist the same way it does the film and animation industries, and will likely be the dominant producer of assets in a couple years. In the near term, humans might still make hero assets, but every rock, tree, and building in the background will be AI. Human writers and voice actors might still voice the main character, but in an RPG with 500 background characters and a million lines of dialog, it is cheaper and higher quality for AI to write and voice generic dialog.

I have the 12sUltra. 256gb. Typing this on it now. Havent tried to shoot raw with it. FWIW, The 24pro app on this phone pushes the hardware to the limit and drops frames. boo. Not perfect, but one can dial in the image much better than the native app. I'll play with the motioncam app and see how it goes.

I agree, but I think there is a distinction here between videos that contain people I know/care-about/etc and people I don't. If a movie people see has Brad Pitt in it, people probably don't care if it was the real Brad Pitt or an AI version of him, and if they go see a movie they probably don't care if the actors are even real people or AI generated fictional characters. However, if I watch a video that has anyone I know in it, and it's a depiction of a real-life event then it matters if it was real footage or not. This might seem to be irrelevant detail, but I think that this means that the following parts of the industry may not be completely gutted: Documentaries Sports videography Engagement/Wedding videography (although some might want a more 'enhanced' version than reality) Event videography (birthdays, bar/bat-mitzvah and other religious occasions, etc) Corporate videos All live-streamed event videography News and current affairs TV perhaps others? These are pretty significant percentages of the entire professional moving images industry. It's easy to start thinking that no-one will pick up a camera professionally any more, but that's just not likely to be the case. Even if you're right that people born from now onwards don't have any special relationship with reality (which I don't think will happen for a very long time), the people who are 10 years old now might live for another 100 years and they probably want to continue to want to see real life content, so that will be phased out pretty slowly.

Agreed. As you say, if people want to use cams and other traditional forms of real life capture for home/family use, no one will stop them. But it's unlikely that media/film production companies in the future will be hiring/paying people who offer camera capture, set design, lighting, etc, etc, as a sole and primary service - which is really what we're talking about. Also, the AI approach won't be seen as a 'forgery' to mass consumers in most circumstances. The ones intended for insidious deep-fake purposes? Yes, of course. But most AI-based video will be seen/consumed as a valid representation of real life ala a painting. It will also be impossible to tell the difference in the future. That's just based on how far a company like Open AI has come in a year. Also, these distinctions we're making around real vs fake will be irrelevant to the vast majority of humans born into it from here on out. All realms of commerce have experienced crushing human labor disruptions in the past and present times (car manufacturing being the most obvious example). What makes this stunning and unique is that it is happening to the realm of commerce (i.e art-based commerce) that we instinctively know humans will continue to do whether they are paid for it or not. You can't say the same for alot of other realms of the human labor economy. So it will be, imo, one of the most poignant blows in the history of human labor to date.

I've owned both (and the E-M1 iii, G80 and G9). 1. E-M1 ii is larger & heavier but has (for me) superb ergonomics and build quality. It's just a really nice camera to use. 2. E-M1 ii sound via the internal mics is way better than the GX85. It also has a mic input and headphone jack. 3. E-M1 ii 4k UHD is full sensor width (no crop) whereas the GX85 is cropped. 4. E-M1 ii has great battery life. 5. E-M1 ii IBIS is better than the GX85. If you are seriously considering the E-M1 ii and video C-AF and IBIS are important to you, think about the E-M1 iii instead if you can afford it - it has better video C-AF and a choice of IBIS settings (the +1 setting is almost tripod-level). Another cheap (used) alternative to the GX85 worth considering is the G80/G85 - same sensor in a larger body with better IBIS, larger battery and a mic input. Provided the size is OK for you, the G9 is superb value used, and easily beats any of the above cameras for video quality (it also supports 10-bit video and 4k 60p, which none of the others do). Here in the UK, the E-M1 ii and G9 cost about the same used.