jax_rox

​It all comes down to your goals. What if you want to make a feature? Do you want to make a feature that is able to commercially distributed, especially without needing to convince a studio to spend millions 'fixing' everything for you (especially the sound mix), or do you just want to make something that you can show to some friends, burn a few DVDs and attempt to drum up some interest online to be able to sell DVDs? Do you want to have a better chance of making your money back quicker? Or do you want to take the risk that you may never make your money back? It sounds like you've placed a lot of imposition on yourself. You don't want to record dual system sound, despite the fact that for ~$200 you can have a recorder and boom pole that you can have a friend hold and instantly you'll have better sound than simply sitting a mic on the camera and hoping you'll get close enough. Plug the lav into the recorder and hide the recorder in the actors clothes - makeshift wireless lav. I can tell you that the best Directors consider sound and sound design right from the start, rather than considering it simply a 'pain in the ass'. I don't look down upon you for doing what you feel you need to do. I just think you've unfarily impositioned yourself and by doing so, you're severely hampering your chances at major success. Now, maybe you don't want major success, and that's fine too. All I know is I shoot a lot of different projects - and I know many filmmakers I've worked with who are trying to get noticed would rather spent $5k-$10k making a really damn good short with a simple but excellent story, great production values, a good colour grade and proper sound design and mix - send it to festivals and eventually the internet and try and sell their feature script after that... Rather than attempting to make $5k-$10k stretch for an entire feature - as they know that the feature will be mediocre at best, and the production won't be of a level that they're happy having out there as their calling card.

That's why you have a Director - the 'head chef' callign the shots in your analogy. The Conductor of the orchestra if you will - what you're essentially saying is that the conductor of an orchestra doesn't need any other players to make great music. Perhaps that is true. Perhaps one conductor could spend many, many years learning multiple instruments, and then one day record a concerto all by him or her-self. But why would they, when there are so many talented musicians out there - most of whom are likely better than their one instrument than the conductor will be attempting to learn all the instruments. What you're essentially saying here is that good filmmaking and big budgets or large crews are mutually exclusive. Which is not the case. The Avengers may not tell a 'beautiful' story - but I'm sure the production values and the filmmaking craft are top notch, despite the story. Perhaps the dream is to tell amazing stories through the medium of film. But do you really want to cripple that dream by deliberately choosing not to take on the help of others? Do you want to also make money from telling these stories? Sure - if all you have the ability to do at this point in time is do it all yourself, then go for it. But is it really your dream to forever be the only person invested in making your film? The Hobbit has 2,709 people listed as crew. Do you think 'too many cooks spoiled the broth' in this case..? Do you think Peter Jackson would have been able to make the movie he wanted to make if he had attempted to do everything himself? Do you think any of the movies would even be completed yet if so? Perhaps you could argue that the less crew you have, the more you need to focus on telling an amazing story to be able to distract people from the fact that you don't have the same production values. But does that mean you should do it totally alone..?

No way. In ten years, maybe you'll be able to have a rudimentary knowledge of many disciplines, if you spend the whole 10 years learning and practising your guts out. A comment like this simply shows a lack of understanding of how real feature films are made.​ At the end of the day - even if you spent 10 years focusing on, say, sound and learning how to give your film great sound - if you're going to direct it, you're going to have to give the boom to someone else who probably doesn't have that same knowledge, unless you're paying them. Garbage in = garbage out. You can try and clean that garbage up, but if you record garbage audio, it's going to be really damn tough to be able to get audio for a full feature film that is even able to attempt to compete on the same level. The reason feature films look and sound the way they do is because they have teams of the best professionals who have spent at least 10 years (in most cases more) perfecting their one specific craft. Even if you somehow could perfect everything to that same level, it would not take you 10 years and you're still only one man - are you going to write your own script, go and find your own locations, write up your own budget and your own contracts, design and construct everybody's costumes, special props, buy extra props you don't have, get to set, make the actors coffee and breakfast, dress the set, build any special set pieces, set up lights, setup the camera, set up a dolly, mic the actors, set up a boom somewhere, figure out some way to keep an eye on the performance, operate the camera, and ride seperate audio levels for each actor for each shot, while also pushing a dolly... Then load all the footage into your computer, do a picture edit, then compose the music, build a Dolby compliant mix stage for your sound mix, record ADR, record Foley, design the sound, mix the sound, then complete rudimentary VFX, grade the film, produce a cinema compliant DCP, purchase an Arrilaser and master to 35mm for those countries/cinemas that still exhibit in 35mm. It's impossible - yes many lo/no budget filmmakers attempt to do this all by themselves, but there's no possible way to be able to do it all to the same level as a normal feature film, even if you spent the 10 years learning and then easily 3-10 years actually making the film. That's not to mention everything else involved in a film - from gettiing permits to picking up cast at the start of the day and dropping them off at the end of the day. It's impossible. If you want to make something just to make something, then sure it's potentially achievable, but it will be unlikely to ever be at any kidn of level where it could compete with real feature films. So I guess it depends if you want to make films that are commercially viable, and in a position to be picked up at Sundance, or if you want to make films to show your friends and family. ​To be honest, that sounds like what you meant - 'why is there an expectation of me to produce films that are of the same level as everyone else, despite the fact that I don't have the same amount of money'. That expectations is put on you by yourself. There is no expectation, unless you want to compete in the same level. If you were a hobby car builder, you could pull scrap parts from everywhere and fashion it into some kind of car-like contraption. But if you want to compete in the F1, you have to build a car to a certain standard - including safety features for the driver, and the ability to be able to go. You're going to need people who have more knowledge about cars than you advise you in making choices, decisions etc. about your car. It's fine if you don't want to compete in the F1 - but if you do, even if not today, then one day down the track - would you rather try and network with people who can help you get there? Perhaps focus on one aspect of car-making to enable you to be able to team up with other people who are good at other aspects of car-making to be able to make the best car possible to be able to compete in the F1? Or would you prefer continuing to attempt to make that car by yourself, hoping one day that a major car manufacturer will see your car at a local car show one day, or your car's pictures on the internet, and take a gamble on letting you oversee the production of their newest F1 car? It's up to you - you've made the choice to be a one man band, rather than honing a specific area of the craft, or teaming up with others. If that's what you want to do, then that's totally fine. But in the same way that a car competing in the race is expected to be able to start - if you want to compete in the race, you're going to have to build a car that can actually start. If you don't want to compete in the race, then continue on.

What kind of work is he doing? What kind of budgets is he working with? My suggestion is lenses, lighting and grip equipment - for two reasons: 1) because they don't depreciate anywhere near as quickly as camera bodys do 2) Because if you light something properly and use great lenses, then almost any camera body can give you great results. From the sound of it, your friend is hiring cameras based on the jobs that come his way - that's good. What happens if he invests all his money in an FS7 kit and then a job comes his way that really needs to be shot on an Amira? Or Alexa? Or RED? Or Film? IMO, big camera bodies are pretty bad investments unless you're a rental house, or simply have money to blow and don't care about your ROI. I'm even friends with a DP who spent quite a lot of money on vintage Anamorphics, but has only used them himself once or twice as each project he's been on since has had different needs. If you're going to invest in one big expensive item (whether that's a camera kit or lens set etc) you need to either be happy using that item in everything you do in order to justify your purchase - or be able to rent it out when you're not using it.

No, you will never perfect every discipline required to make a film. That's why there' same giant crew list at the end of every film. That's why people specialise. Do you do the best with what you have or do you look to employ other people as the creative HODs to work with you in order to deliver your vision on screen..?

​If you want to make a commercially viable film - of course you have to be held up to the same standards. Have you ever been to a movie and though 'well that looked and sounded like utter sh*t, but hey - they didn't have the same budget, so I guess it's great that they tried'? Those who spend years honing their craft are able to make professional quality projects on much smaller budgets than you would think. You've chosen to be a jack of all trades, rather than hone in on one specific skillset - you could do so and be able to compete with the 'big boys' or even develop a network of people who you can call upon to help you with your no/lo budget projects. Your argument strikes me as being this: I'm a DIY builder. I love to build stuff in my spare time. I particularly like to build chairs that hopefully people will be able to sit on. Here's the thing though - there's builders out there who have done apprenticeships and been working for a very long time and they make these amazing chairs that everyone loves and are perfectly sturdy enough to sit on. Why am I expected to be able to make chairs that are good enough, and sturdy enough, for people to be able to sit on, when I haven't spent years working to be a builder?? ​Why would a sound engineer want the ability to change the colour of the film in their software? I'm sure as a Director, the last thing you would want is the dialogue mixer accidentally screwing with the colour of your film, or your colourist accidentally changing the sound mix.. Imagine all the potential issues if everyone had to work from one project file on one piece of software... ​I don't understand - are you saying that software companies should make one 'post software to rule them all' in addition to all their other seperate, job-specific, stand-alone software..? ​Of course it does - the only thing it doesn't necessarily need to be able to do is apply 'funky' looks via some sort of 'filter bank' a la Instagram. AVID actually has quite powerful Colour Correction tools. In terms of being 'lied to' - the problem lies in the fact that companies like Apple, Adobe, Blackmagic - in general they're targetting the consumers who have throwaway cash to spend on what can often be boiled down to essentially a hobby - and so of course they're going to try and wring out as much cash as possible. It's like the gimmicks they use to sell TVs et al. Professionals see right through that because they have a much deeper knowledge and understanding, whereas the consumers who have this as a hobby are continually looking for that something 'better' that's going to make their footage and films look and sound as good as someone who's spent 25 years honing their skills, as quickly and easily as the push of a button.

​Yep http://www.slashfilm.com/sean-bakers-tangerine-shot-on-iphone-5s/ A film is being released into theatres that was shot on three iPhones. Will the IQ be as good as, say, a C300? No. Probably not even as good as if it were shot on a Canon DSLR. But does it matter? Obviously not. It's getting a cinema release. I've seen stuff shot on iPhone that looks miles better than stuff shot on DSLR. I've seen stuff shot on RED Epic that looks almost as bad as a bad iPhone video. It proves that the most important part of any film is the story. Having a camera with higher/better IQ is more fun - and prettier. But the film that's going to get picked up at Sundance is the one with the better story, not necessarily the one with the prettier pictures. Having great IQ and a great story is certainly the aim - but does that mean we should not shoot anything until the ultimate camera is released? Does having an extra stop of dynamic range, for example, make one iota of difference to whether the story's any good? If you can make an iPhone look good, you can easily make an A7s or an Alexa look good. You can still light scenes and compose great frames, and tell good stories using an iPhone. Having a higher IQ camera isn't going to suddenly make you better at composing shots. Are there those here that shoot things other than narrative films? Of course. Does everyone have specific needs and wants out of a camera? Certainly. But if you read the comments here, you would think that there's not a camera on the market that's 'good enough' to shoot on - indeed when a camera comes out that gives images that are able to intercut with cameras 3x their price (in the A7s) everyone complains that the record button is slightly awkward to push, or that the one feature they want to map to a custom button isn't available, despite there being 50 other options, or that the camera can't shoot in 4k without slightly more weight, price and size - how desperately do you need 4k that you can't shoot unless the camera has it internally...? Are you a shooter that specialises in shooting commercials for cinema? Yes - everyone has their own wants and neesd. But why can't we celebrate what's good about cameras, look at the plusses and minuses, and work to better ourselves as shooters, rather than continually talking about how terrible a camera and how out of touch camera manufacturers are because they don't release cameras that look like an Alexa, shoots in 6k, goes up to 2 million ISO, and automatically grades footage for you, all for <$3k. ​4k is an expected feature in a DSLR despite the two biggest DSLR manufacturers (Nikon and Canon) not having a DSLR on the market <$10k (new) that can shoot in 4k? 4k is available internally in really 2 DSLRs - both of which are manufactured by companies that aren't traditionally camera makers, and both of which are bigger than the A7s, whilst also having smaller sensors. You say that adding a recorder adds size and weight, and yet want internal 4k without a bigger body to allow for the heat to dissipate. I imagine if/when the A7s gets 4k internally, there'll be complaints here about how it's not good enough because it's not raw, or people still don't udnerstand how to grade it, or because it's 50Mbps rather than 100Mbps or its too big, or too small, or something else that doesn't really matter at all.

Seems a lot of people here are continually trying to better the camera they buy - for some reason thinking that the better the camera they have, the better the footage will be. You should work on bettering yourself - your operating, your lighting skills, your framing, your creative eye. Work on telling better stories through the lens, and then it won't matter what camera you shoot it on

​I think around January, they boosted the price of the body, plus also the native lenses - the RRP of the body rose from $2799 to $3299 (most places have raised their prices from ~$2500 to $2900-$3000), meanwhile the 24-70 F4 that I purchased for $1200 is now a $1500-$1600 lens. The 70-200 rose from ~$1600 to $1999. The 16-35 rose about $300, whilst the 28-135 f4 which was initially on the market at ~$2500 is now $3399. Makes me glad I purchased when I did - but kinda raises the barrier for entry for a lot of people, and also makes me less inclined to spend my money on Sony lenses, considering if I want to buy one, I now have to pay more for the same lens. At least if they came out at that price they would simply be 'quite expensive' lenses, whereas now they're 'overpriced lenses that I have to pay more than I really should be'.

For me - I would simply be happy if my A7s had IBIS and real weather sealing. Internal 4k is neither here nor there - the fact that it can do 4k is good enough (and I think people make a much bigger deal about internal 4k than it really is - yes, I know it's handy to have and all the rest of it, but a camera that does great 1080p and is also able to do 4k is really enough for most occasions, especially with 4k recorders coming down in price). I'd rather 10-bit HD than 4k internal - if they brought out an A7s with IBIS, weather sealing and 10-bit 1080p in XAVC, then I would upgrade (assuming it was a similar price to when it was initially released) Sony just upped the RRP on the A7s not long ago as well (at least in Australia) - which would seem pretty strange if you had a successor coming soon.

A LUT, by definition, is a 'look up table' that simply maps a certain set of values to another set of values. Therefore, you should correct your Slog footage to get it within the parameters the LUT is looking for, before applying your LUT. If you put overexposed, or underexposed footage through a LUT - it's not going to give you the results you desire because all a LUT does is map one value to another. That's why you can put the same LUT on two different sets of footage and they can look wildly different - and why some people can get amazing looks from certain LUTs and others can't I keep saying it, but colouring and grading is not really something you can learn in 5 minutes. Doing the tutorials and reading the blogs can help - but you can't really blame the camera for something you don't understand. It's possible to get great looking footage with even the most rudimentary knowledge of colour - but you do need to have knowledge and practise. The A7s still gives pretty damn stellar results, even with Picture Profile off - so my suggestion is learn the camera and find the settings that work best for you (i.e. do your best with what you can do and what you do know - even if that's PP off or REC709), and continually challenge yourself to get better at it - or work with a professional colourist to find the best Slog settings they can work with to give you a proper grade.

Set your white balance properly. And - seriously don't shoot Slog if you can't grade it. You're not forced to shoot it - you don't have to shoot it, it's a neat little extra feature the camera has. So don't shoot it if you can't grade it. I just got back from a shoot which was quick turnaround (so no time to grade) - and I shot with Picture Profile off. The footage looks great - the colours are nice, skin tones are fine. Experiment with what works for you and your project(s). When the Alexa came out, people either got their footage graded, or they shot REC709. There were plenty of TV shows at the start shooting REC709 in order for an easier and quicker post/grade process when they first switched to the Alexa.

​I think it's handy - not 'huge'. I've shot a lot of night stuff on Alexa, even while owning an A7s. It's super handy to have a little camera that has superb ISO performance and allows you to steal shots or whatever. Yes, it's freedom etc etc. But I've never lit a night shoot, then had my crew mount a lens on an Alexa and looked at it and thought 'man, I wish I was shooting this on my A7s' nor have I ever thought 'I reckon if I didn't light this and just used my A7s at 12500 ISO, it would look equally as good'. I love my A7s. But if someone said to me 'would you rather shoot A7s and never be allowed to use lights, or shoot with something else and use as many lights as you want' I am going to pick lights, every time. Put your time and effort (and money) into lighting your scenes - or pushing your Producers to get you some lights. It will make a much bigger difference to the way your images look.

Superseding your cameras on a 12-month cycle is a pretty awful way to build brand loyalty. IMO, Blackmagic suffers from the fact that they do this - there are some happy early adopters, but the trend is that each NAB they'll bring out something cheaper and better - so why invest now unless you urgently need to? And what about those who eagerly invested in the Cinema or Production cams, which are both now superseded by a product that costs the same or less... As far as I'm aware, the A7s was designed to be a top-notch 1080p camera, that also happens to be able to output 4k via HDMI. Sony also happen to sell 4K TV sets, and so at the Sony event where I bought my A7s, they had one plugged into a huge 4K TV set. But the rep I spoke to at Sony basically said getting 4k internally into the A7 body is damn hard. He said we wanted to give you a future proof camera that shoots great 1080p internally. The A7s has been shipping for about 9 months - I wouldn't be expecting a successor soon.

I'd love to see the numbers. Show me the sales graphs that show that at the time that GH4 and A7s sales were showing inclines, that 5D and C100 sales were showing rapid declines... And then the numbers that show the declining 5D and C100 sales having any effect on Canon's overall bottom line. The video enthusiast market is certainly very vocal on the internet - but those who nitpick between the differences between GH4, A7s and 5Ds are few in comparison to the masses who buy on brand. Companies who want to get into video go out and buy Canons because of their brand. Of course you can't ride on branding forever - and eventually, if they fail to compete, others will overtake. But others haven't overtaken for the masses yet - only for the few who are very vocal on the internet, but who don't necessarily translate into large sales numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong - I'll happily eat my words if you can show me the graphs. I don't really care - I don't shoot Canon and was never happy with the video out of my Canon SLR even for the short time I had it; even though there was nothing better around at the time. They have their market and they play to it. And they play to it well. That's fine - I've got my A7s. But so many talk about Canon as if it's Canon's duty to provide them with the camera they want, regardless of Canon's position in the market, or their other product offerings. Canon has no debt to you, and no reason to cannibalise entire product lines and large profits for some sort of d**k measuring competition, or to ensure they continue to be thought of as 'the best' in a comparatively small number of people's minds. And that's fine - there are plenty of other options - for both hybrids, straight SLRs and dedicated video cameras. But I just don't understand why everyone gets so upset when Canon releases a new camera and it isn't 8k ProRes444 (but the option of 422) internal in a DSLR form, with an optional handle, and XLR-ins with decent pre-amps, and peaking and zebras, and an EVF and 75MP pictures, and 4million ISO for <$3k. It's not going to happen anytime soon no matter how many people chime in with 'don't worry, Canon are the best - their next camera will definitely be the beast we all want'.

​IMO, this just proves that the segment of the market that Blackmagic sell into care more about specs on paper, than about how the camera actually works - or looks (the image)... ​Not sure what you mean by the 'village idiot' version of Office - Microsoft had a dedicated team for porting their software to Mac. The Mac versions of Office were pretty full featured - and were released about every 4 years or so... Unless you're talking way back before 2004... In fact - Office '08 to Office '11 was only three years; and it only really took them ~3 years from that to the current ubiquitous cloud computing - same version available for all version that they're currently on. Also in terms of the iPad - I only ever recall people questioning what the point of the iPad was. I don't recall too many people assuming this was the cannibalisation of Apple's other computing products.. The problem is - Canon is a camera business. It's not a software and hardware business that makes cameras on the side - like Blackmagic. For Blackmagic, making low cost cameras is, in a way, a way to push sales of their other hardware and their software. Blackmagic are not making low cost cameras as a crusade for those who can't afford better... With the C(x)00 series - they're popular cameras. A lot of people have invested a lot of money into those systems. And the reality is - they're still selling, and selling for their RRP. Those who use the 5D for video are a comparatively small sectino of the market compared to those who use the 5D for stills, or use a C(x)00 camera for video. When they can charge $15,000 for a cinema camera, why would they build similar features into a camera that costs 1/5th the price? If people are paying for it, why would you give them a reason to stop? And what incentive do they have to be 'the best' in an enthusiast video market that typically don't have a lot of cash to begin with? Is the incentive to win a d**k measuring competition with Panasonic and Sony? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but I find it difficult to believe that the advent of the GH4 and A7s have hurt Canons sales for their 5D's or C(x)00 cameras much at all.. ​I don't understand - why should Canon care about a tiny segment of the market that want the same features as their pro cameras but can't afford them..? Because some of them are talented...? Invest in something you know you're going to be able to pay off over the next 12 months. If you can't get at least enough work to pay it off on top of your other living expenses, then buying a serious camera is not worth it these days. It used to be you'd buy a camera you could pay off within 18 months, and it would be superseded. These days, at the lower end of the market (i.e. the <$12,000) it's more like cameras are being superseded with new and better models from all manufacturers (including he same manufacturer) every 6 months or so.. 9 months ago I was at Cinegear and everyone was talking about the URSA which was about to ship in a month or two... 6ish months after it starts shipping, BMD bring out a better camera in a better body for cheaper...

Do they? I've rarely seen Log-C footage that I would say looks 'amazing' straight out of camera. After being graded - yes. With a REC709 or other LUT - yes. I have no problem with the skin tone on my A7s. Do others? Obviously. Not really sure why, but they do. But I'm also not a huge fan of the often super orange skin tones that come out of Canon DSLRs whilst others here seem to hold it up as the 'holy grail' of skin tones...

Impossible to know without using it. Build quality is impossible to tell from a picture. Standard amount of play also impossible to tell. I've used $800 follow focusses that exhibit way too much play. The O'Connor O-Focus Is $2300 and barely worth even touching. EVen the CFF1 ($4500) is not too great. Depends, I guess - are you going to have your ACs pulling on this FF?

I find it strange to denigrate a product because you don't know how to use it properly... I have no problem with the skin tones on my A7s and my friends and colleagues who are shooting with it also have no problem - or if they do, they deal with it. Funny that I have friends using A7s' as B or C cams and crash cams on TVCs, as well as A-cams and B-cams on docos and wildlife shows et al. and none of them have said to me how 'terrible' it is and how 'awful' the skin tones are and how 'useless' the camera is... Seriously, I've not heard one person even mention the position of the record button being an issue, but if you looked online, you would think that one 'issue' is apparently so bad it's hardly worth buying the camera...

A number of colleague/friend DPs have bought up A7s' recently - one is currently in Sri Lanka shooting on anamorphics and the images they're getting are absolutely stunning (and oddly enough, don't exhibit the colour issues that many here complain about.....)

​Good to know. I kinda gave up with them for accurate colour rendition after the AC7 just didn't cut it. I've used TVLogic a bit, and they're quite colour accurate. I'll have to look more into the O7Q+

​Gotta agree. They're a nice focus/AC monitor and that's about it. I would never use one to judge colours, resolution and certainly would never let a Director see one. I've ACd for DPs and had to remind them that the image they see on the screen is not what's being recorded when they make a face at the monitor ('don't stress, your eyepiece is much more accurate'). Unfortunately for me, the O7/O7q is exactly what I want, except that it cannot record the 4k output of an A7s. The Shogun can, but doesn't seem to be anywhere near as fully featured as the O7/O7q... Dilemma..

The reason we (and by 'we' I mean a collective we) do camera tests is to discover the latitude of our stock (or in the case of digital - the latitude/dynamic range of the sensor). That way, we can make informed decisions about how to light our scenes. Of course - having more dynamic range gives you a lot more flexibility with your lighting choices, but lighting your scene makes much more of a difference to the look of your footage than any small tweaks of settings in-camera or in post.

Light your scene effectively and you won't have to worry about settings or post. Lighting, lenses and art department (including HMU - seriously, put make up on your talent and tell me you're still having trouble with skin tones) have the biggest effect on the final image.

As DigitalEd suggests - watch your broadcast safe. Personally, I hate this trend towards milky images coming from log-originating footage. Too many editors edit simply in log and get used to the look of it. Contrast is not bad. Personally, I prefer your first picture but the reality is it depends on the look you're going for. I think the big problem is that people spend a lot money either buying or renting cameras to shoot in log, and then once they get into the online and colour grade process, they can't understand why they would spend so much money on a camera with a huge logarthimic gamma curve to preserve colour, and then mush it back to somewhere perhaps closer to a REC709 look. The point is, you can get it back to something resembling REC709, and that's not bad. But you also have the option to lift other areas, and draw attention to areas. It's all dependent on the look. I don't like going as far as crushing things as if it were the old days of video, but I hate the milky look (especially milky blacks) that's so 'trendy' (read: cheap, easy) at the moment. ​I personally think the smooth motion thing was yet another marketing gimmick from television makers. Sony do make some nice TV sets, but the industry as a whole aren't making TVs for production use, they're making TVs to a price point that needs to simply satisfy the average home viewer. A good colourist will be able to ensure that your work looks great even on the crappiest of home TVs. To my point though, we had Standard Def, then HD, then Smooth Motion HD, then 3D, now 4k in television sets. Unless you can come up with a gimmick like smooth motion, or 3D etc. then how else are you going to convince an average punter that they need to spend more money a newer or better TV?