JulioD

I've also decided to opt out. The problem with these engineering technical I read it on the internet types and have an opinion clowns is that they are demonstrably wrong. Even when you point it out to them they seem to ignore that and move onto their next tightly held narrow idea. They post opinions as fact and only demonstrate what they do not know or understand. I've stopped bothering to point out their misinformation. I think the rest of the posters here understand where they are off on their own. Even in the last two pages they've made some really stupid claims without understanding filmmaking fundamentals. They won't even know what I'm alluding to, but it shows that they have only a little understanding of the technology. Just like one thought Titanic was shot HFR. Why bother if they don't want to truly learn or understand.

Some tough love. They will always suck. There is no such thing as a good one. The way they work is by degrading your image. The sooner you accept it the better. I long ago went to straight or internal ND. Do I occasionally use VND? Yeah. But I can count on one hand the number of times in a year. I suspect you need to hear this because you wrote a post about it. Not everyone will agree but throw away the crutch and never look back

You made snide comments saying Jackson Pollock was using the same techniques as children. Your comment says the value of art from an recognised established visual artist is the same as the output of children. Your test is that they would be the same, a variation of the Turing test. That says to me you can’t see the difference in Pollocks work vs a child. Here’s some science. Children CAN tell the difference. Why would I argue with someone who doesn’t see the difference and nuance when 4 year olds can. The problem is you. “Three unexpected findings emerged. First, even 4-7-year-olds can distinguish works by artists from superficially similar works by children and animals when there are no labels to guide them. Second, children’s aesthetic responses are not aligned with those of adults: children often chose works labeled child or animal whether or not this label was correct, and sometimes justified their choices by crediting the effort the child or animal had made (e.g., “it’s really good for an elephant”). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15248372.2015.1014488?journalCode=hjcd20

I think it’s pointless arguing about something that you don’t seem to grasp while ignoring other rebuttals.

Copying. Emulation. It’s reproducing a well known and celebrated source. It won’t be the next Jackson Pollock though. It can only fake something that already exists.

I think you missed the point.

And forgot to add this link ”Indeed, the value of data collected about genuine human interactions with systems will be increasingly valuable in the presence of content generated by LLMs in data crawled from the Internet.” https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17493.pdf Genuine human interactions are what will be “valuable”

Humour. AI can tell a joke but it doesn’t get a joke. innuendo. It can’t tell if what’s made is “ good” either. There’s no self criticism. Just patterns and predictions based on data. Humans are storytellers. It’s not just the story telling, it’s the way we tell the story that’s just as important. Performance. Religion. Science. Art. It’s all storytelling and making sense of the world. These giant models of data are t without issues being so inward looking leading to more and more generic results. It’s called model collapse. “This means that the models begin to lose information about the less common -- but still important -- aspects of the data. As generations of AI models progress, models start producing increasingly similar and less diverse outputs.“ “Model collapse is based on the principle that generative models are replicating patterns that they have already seen, and there is only so much information that can be pulled from those patterns.” This type of AI is never better than it’s data. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Model-collapse-explained-How-synthetic-training-data-breaks-AI I have no doubt AI will become an important tool. Buts a tool driven by human data and prompts.

Last time I checked there is no ability to innovate. To leap forward. To get a joke. To understand innuendo. AI or computers can only be as good as their programming. They can write a Haiku because it has rules and logic. But they can’t invent “The Haiku”. They are only as good as the person prompting them based on what’s already been invented.

Of course no art is created in isolation. It’s always affected by what came before and what others are doing. AI though is inherently introverted. It can ONLY be based on what’s gone before. It inherently can only copy or emulate as mashup. And even then it can only do so through the right prompting. In traditional painting apprenticeships the students would copy the works of masters. Then they make new works. AI can’t do that. It can only copy paste and mash up.

Like this https://www.instagram.com/p/CjX5DSJrViW/?igshid=MzY1NDJmNzMyNQ== https://www.instagram.com/p/BwnFjGkF77B/?igshid=MzY1NDJmNzMyNQ== https://www.instagram.com/p/6ooQjXmSHT/?igshid=MzY1NDJmNzMyNQ==

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.

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

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….

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

I think it is similar to what happened with the digital revolution. Filmmaking used to be expensive. It acted as a kind of gate keeper to the unwashed masses who wanted t make movies and was a kind of filtering of the kinds of films that could get made. Digital technologies dramatically lowered the cost of entry. Now anyone can make a movie. Not only that but anyone can DISTRIBUTE that movie too, you’re not relying on old school distribution any more. All that happened over the last 20 years and what has it added up to? I’d say a lot more garbage / noise films that no one watches on YouTube. The digital revolution means anyone can now make a movie. It doens’t mean “anyone” can actually make a movie worth watching. AI will be the same. Just because you CAN make a film with AI doesn’t mean you SHOULD make a film.

I thought we talking Titanic. FYI Hobbit was shot 48fps but with a 270deg shutter.

And as I’m sure you know, Projecting material at 48fps that was acquired at 24FPS doesn’t realllllly make it HFR either even if this is the case.

Yeah this argument keeps coming back but there is never any evidence to support it. With technology as time progresses most things do improve. Bit depth. Resolution. There’s an assumption that faster must be better. But audiences continue to prefer 24

Exactly. The video split alone appeals to the renter customer who are the ones who NEED to shoot 1200 rolls and then move to the next job (as described above) Those aren’t owner operators.

You don’t get it. Here i thought you were industry.

Gaming has been here for decades. Younger audiences are used to and have seen a lot of HFR. Several very top shelf filmmakers have TRIED. Digital means there’s no cost difference to shoot HFR. It failed every time. It’s not just legacy.

Just because you don’t think it makes sense doens’t mean there aren’t already people now shooting super 8. https://www.oldfastglass.com/super-8mm https://www.pro8mm.com/collections/super-8-camera-rentals https://kitsplit.com/rent/canon-1014-xl-s-super8-camera-with-zoom-6-5-65mm-f1-4-brooklyn-ny https://www.sydneysuper8.com.au Away from the major markets people are more likely to use KitSplit or similar. The last link is a company in Sydney processing super 8 and doing a thriving business. They can’t keep up.

Exactly.

Pre sound there was no standard. 18FPS was kind-of the default. Most hand cranked cameras did 9 frames per crank, so two cranks per second becomes the defectors about standard. 16FPS is about the lower threshold where you start to not perceive continuous motion. 24 FPS only became the default with the introduction of sync sound in the late 30’s that required a slightly higher / faster playback. The first thirty years of cinema HAD NO STANDARD frame rate. They could have, and DID shoot a huge number of variations of frame rates. Just like we do today (for slow mo or under cranking) It’s got to be more than just legacy, because there have been decades of options available and audiences continue to preference 24FPS in drama.