IronFilm

Wow, I didn't think it was possible to sink any lower with trashy reality tv? O ye of little faith! What new fresh horrors is this, deep fake AI merged with the worst aspects of "reality" tv? Yes, yes it is

There has just been leaked the upcoming release schedule for their slate of movies: I've heard that von Neumann will be 7hrs long.

That is where having a Physics degree will benefit me 😉 As expect it would be lot easier for me to follow along, as I already know the various timelines, and I already know nearly all the main characters involved in this. Because it's based on physics history, The Manhattan Project after all was one of the biggest ever physics projects ever! (if you ignore space related stuff, as their costs are obscene, then The Manhattan Project is I think still the most expensive ever! Although, with the projected costs for ITER, then it might be higher in the end by the time it is finished) So anybody with a bit of interest in Physics, and has studied Physics, would be very familiar with The Manhattan Project.

You need to have scanned them before they died! (ideally, before they even became infamous) Yes, Netflix has a TONNE of customer data, they know what appeals to each market segments, and can make films targeted to that market segment even better than Hollywood can. That's why you feel "the script was generated using a particular algorithm", because Netflix is intentionally commissioning and buying films in particular niches. But what if AI Generated Films takes this to the next level? Not just the next level, but a 100x more levels up?? With films being made not just for a particular market segment, but an even smaller micro niche within that market segment? Or even... films specifically made and targeted for you?? (why not? If the costs of making films drops from $1M per film, for even the cheapest of cheap low budget Netflix fare, to merely 1c per film, then this is what will happen)

I don't like your odds @MrSMW! Benefits from having a physics degree to follow along with it?

Yeah I've been hearing from both acting friends and on the crew side that work has really slowed down a lot here in Auckland, and it has been quiet. Haven't noticed that quite so much myself just yet, have been working the last few days, and on another shoot again tomorrow. But also I've been trying to juggle a heavy study load too, thus I'm happy turning down work as I have been sometimes lately.

Nice profit generating process there! Seems that Panasonic G7 sells for sub $300 these days on ebay On the topic of Panasonics, was working on a film this weekend being shot on a Panasonic S1H

South Park AI anybody? https://twitter.com/fablesimulation/status/1681352904152850437 https://twitter.com/DrJimFan/status/1682086586593443841 What if we have AI celebrities?

No, I am a time traveler, and am talking about what is coming in the future: the Panasonic GH7.

For most of us though then money is a limiting factor. And sub $2K (FX30) vs $6K (Komodo) is a hell of a large difference! And if I am going to spend $6K, I'd rather get a Sony FX6 instead.

Would rather take a GH7 instead I think you might be low-balling your estimate...

Anybody checked out the "M-LITE"? A 3D printed modification of the EOS-M: oh snap....

You're working on the new Narnia films? https://www.indiewire.com/news/breaking-news/greta-gerwig-chronicles-of-narnia-netflix-1234880911/ I was a huge fan of the books as a kid, read all of them multiple times over. But I'm afraid these new Netflix films will be completely ruining them. Oh well. But no NDs for the S5mk2? How are you dealing with that? Quick clip on magnetic filters?

As "full frame" is what is being discussed, I'm naturally referring to what's commonly normal standard focal lengths for photographer. Of course for sets of cinema lenses then what is normal is completely different. 750gm?? Are you crazy??? My OCD will accept 700gm or 800gm as being acceptable, but 750gm is a totally unacceptable weight for a camera.

Well, a very long time ago I used to work as a software developer, so I thought I'd return back to study it for a bit, get another degree, then perhaps do a semi-shift in my career. It's as good as that? That's nice to know! Been a very long time since I last shot with a Sony EX1/EX3 (pehaps 7 years), I remember it been ok, but not great. https://www.eoshd.com/creative-filmmaking/optimising-the-gh2-for-iso-12800-a-video-tutorial/ Whaaaaaaat............. there is FZ to M-mount?? The rangefinder mount??? 😮 This is big news to me!

Hello end times...

Compared to what you are used to from all those years ago (or compared to your iPhone) then the the Sony FX30 has spectacularly amazingly jaw dropping incredibly gorgeous low light capabilities! People who complain about the low light of the FX30 being "bad" are just spoiled brats who 1) don't realize what we had to struggle with just a few years ago 2) have never touched a light in their life 3) have never used a cinema camera before. (which are often rated at a much lower ISO than what a FX30 can do, even though they cost many times more $$$$$) Also, because you do a lot of filming while walking / hiking, then you'll really appreciate the lower weight of the Super 35 / APS-C lenses vs the heavier weight of the so called "full frame" lenses.

Australia doesn't exist. That's why it confused @MrSMWthat someone could be posting from that timezone.

It is because "24/35/50/85, 24-70, 70-200 in full frame" (and a few others) are the most standardly useful focus lengths. For someone starting out in photography/videographer then 24-120mm f4 (if Nikon, or 24-105mm otherwise) plus 35mm & 85mm f1.8 primes are the bare minimum kit to get started with. Then add on 16-35mm f4 , 24-70mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and you've got yourself a very complete-ish lens set for a working professional. The reason they had 30-70 , 40-80 , 28-85 is because they didn't yet have the technology to design a standard 24-70mm f2.8 zoom But many more years have passed since then, and computer aided designs are normal, and we've got mirrorless mounts not DSLR mounts (which allow more to be done with optical designs). I feel it is time for them to make the next move (to take advantage of better tech and the more shallow mirrorless mount, offer even greater range with the same f-stop such as imagine a 20mm to 100mm f2.8 lens!! 😮 Or offer similar range but even faster, such as a 24-70mm f2 lens Seems like only Canon has done this so far, with the 28-70mm f2 lens for RF mount.

It's a prosumer recorder. There are heaps of reasons to not use 32bit. Such as a desire to not be fired from my job! 32bit is not acceptable from a PSM on normal usual professional shoots. Imagine if you got hired to do a quick piece to camera for that night's 6 o'clock news, and you gave them 8K red raw 3:1 files, do you think you'd ever be hired by them again? Nope! You record that in 1080 50Mbs 422 PAL (or whatever is locally expected from you). It is a far from perfect analogy, but hopefully you get the gist of it.

I'd rather it is 18-50mm even if that meant they made it a little slower f2 lens We already have a 28-70mm f2 lens for FF, why can't S35 get some love too? The fact that lens exists make me certain an 18-50mm f2 S35 lens could exist if people are willing to pay a similar cost & weight penalty (because S35 is a smaller sensor, it could likely be even more ambitious, such as 16-60mm f2) 18-35mm is just such a short range, I'd prefer the zoom ranges I suggested above, especially if we can have them overlap a little too: 12-20mm f2 16-60mm f2 50-150mm f2

I kinda wish Sigma would do an update of their APS-C / S35 zooms too. As I really like my Sigma 50-150mm f2.8, and while the f1.8 of the Sigma 50-100mm is cool, it doesn't have the extra 50% reach that my older Sigma zoom has. I'd like to see for S35 (having a little bit of overlap between each zoom, so you don't need to swap and change it up quite so much): 12-20mm f2 16-60mm f2 50-150mm f2 Too much to dream for? Maybe. (but f2.8 versions of all these lenses have already existed for many years)

I mean, you don't even need to be an amazingly perfect audio engineer wizard to get the levels right for a 24bit recording. With only a little bit of experience you can get the gist of it right.

Microphones, wireless, and recorders all have limits. Just because you're recording it in a digital bucket with 12,345,678 bits doesn't mean you can recording unlimitedly loud sources as close as you wish. If you travelled back in time to 1883 to record the volcanic eruption of Krakatoa, don't expect just because you're using 32bit that the recordings will all go perfectly smoothly (well, ignoring the possibilities of death... which obviously is a far greater worry than your audio recordings!!). Because it was 180dB even at 100 miles away!! The question was if the sound was already clipped when it reached the recorder, could then the recorder recover it? The answer of course is "no". This is one of the many reasons why 32bit is so utterly pointless on professional film sets, and why not a single professional recorder on the planet supports 32bit recordings, because there is no demand for it. As we're operating in a 100% wireless environment. (and besides, 24bit is already a massive dynamic range! No professional Sound Mixer should ever be so utterly incompetent that they'd normally screw that up. It's not like in the bad old days when we recorded to 16bit, with weak preamps too, and it was a tricky dicey job to get the levels just right, not too hot and not too low either)

Correct. You need to find a mic that can handle that high SPL. Or think more about your mic placement, that would be the easiest/best fix. This is also true for wireless, you distort that, there is no way to recover it.