zaz Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 We all know the past was hdslr. And before that was 3ccd's and dvtape. And before that was, what, hi8? We know that $3000 US is the sweetspot for innovation. We know that a bit of catering, a bit of dedication, goes a long long way for us video fetishists. We know that we can get inside, tinker around, tune that shit and come out with unprecedented results. We know that, given those results, the big guys have been holding back. The gh2 looks like it was a bit of a fluke. The BMC, though marred with a very botched release, looks like the first truly innovative camera to come out since the 5d2. Sure red, arri, sony, canon, even panavision have innovated. And perhaps we are at a crossroads where that innovation is truly starting to trickle down to us common-folk. We haven't seen a truly open camera platform. We haven't seen a crowd sourced camera project headed by competent, sensitive engineers backed by ingenuitive and savvy entrepreneurs (the digital bolex looks like hipster runoff IMO). I think the market is still wide open for any scrappy little outfit to get that deep penetration, if they so choose. So, what are the possibilities? What are we forgetting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I think, there is a HUGE market, for crowd-funding, of new cameras. Especially, considering what the BlackMagic guys have come up with, against the veterans of the business. The first mover's advantage doesn't seem to exist, since the first movers don't really care, about innovation, and good pricing. Since all the big players (Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus etc), seem to be outsourcing their sensors to Sony (and maybe some other guys too), its a good idea, to be able to get good sensors, outsourced, at the exact specification, that you want. And, back-illuminated sensors,wired well, seems to the future of good photography (video and stills). I think, many of the issues regarding technology, revolves around the fact, that Technology Heads in Big Corporations, are still old school guys, well into their 50s and 60s, and would not really know, more than half the features, in their phones. Also, I am guessing, companies will spend a fortune on hardware, but, they aren't innovating, where software is concerned. There aren't enough apps, regarding syncing and controlling your DSLRs, to begin with. And, very few of them (like DSLR Controller), really offer worthwhile apps. Another thing i the whole 4-2-0, 4-2-2 and 4-4-4 debate, is heading nowhere. Companies don't mind adding a list of features, to sync your DSLR with your Tablet, Phablet or Phone (through wi-fi and Bluetooth) , but, they don't want to give you a better codec. I am guessing, that, there are many opportunities, for start-ups, on sites like Kickstarter, to create a camera, that will bring to the consumers, something, that they really want. Rather than force feeding them, on bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows: 'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside. Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.' galenb, Ernesto Mantaras and sanveer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 [quote name='Axel' timestamp='1352983677' post='21678'] I sometimes imagine a different press conference for the opening of the GH3. It could have run as follows: 'We appreciated that many of you out there were trying hard to make our GH2 into something more than a consumer photo-camera. We didn't expect, that it's final success would be owed to the dedication thousands of you invested into making this product comparable to professional movie cameras. The GH3, we decided, had to be a worthy successor. While we put in some interesting improvements for still photographers too, we now make an offer for all of you who demand more - and not [i]moire[/i], haha - of it's video features. The market changes fast. The hacks of our original firmware showed, that you care less for a good compression with small file sizes than for the tiniest bit of quality you can squeeze out of it. We added an All-I-video codec at 72 mbps. The optional large battery grip also includes a slot for an SSD on which you can record ProRes at 4:2:2 10-bit, in variable frame rates up to 120 fps. It has two XLR jacks, which can be leveled separately with control knobs and a small LCD right beside. Furthermore, we made a special software to fine-tune the color presets and to fully customize the camera to your needs. This is our offer to you. We invite you to take the advantage and make this thing the ultimate tool for all filmmakers on a budget.' [/quote] Wow. That would have been amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 [quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1352983149' post='21677'] I am guessing, that, there are many opportunities, for start-ups, on sites like Kickstarter, to create a camera, that will bring to the consumers, something, that they really want. Rather than force feeding them, on bullshit. [/quote] Is that what [i]consumers [/i]really want? We, a bunch of enthusiasts on a very specific video oriented forum, aren't very representative of the market. It's easier to market a list of new features (like wifi) to the big public than a better codec. A bunch of new features doesn't cannibalize your own products. An amazing video optimized canon dslr is kinda out of the question now with their cinema line. 'We' shouldn't expect much from such companies. The big ones play it safe, aim at the mass market, the big numbers, thats where the money is, not in the niche of us filmmakers. Nikon with their consumer oriented mirrorless system, small sensor so it doesn't cut into their dslr market too much. Canon goes kind of the same way, don't expect a high end mirrorless camera anytime soon from them. The only big company that doesn't care much about cannibalisation is Sony. And they are smart not to care, because if they don't cannibalize their own stuff, someone else will. But that might be mainly because Sony is relatively new in the dslr/photography market. People who've been with Canon or Nikon for many years are stubborn and not very likely to switch. [quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1352984452' post='21683'] Wow. That would have been amazing. [/quote] Yes. It would have been. And all the photographers who don't care about video would have been complaining about the premium price for all this video stuff they don't need. Even if the extra's come in a grip there would have been R&D costs, the processor has to be more powerfull etc... galenb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leang Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 the future is without a doubt new resolutions and image algorithms from the best pro cameras in the market. the small priced format BMCC or GH3 is nothing compared to the development of writing better cinema curves in the digital domain. we need to jump back into a culture of different film stocks. compression, shadows, artifacts, DSP processing, aliasing, moire seem to still be an obstacle in lower end pro cameras. true filmmakers with great writing and acting don't worry so much about that shit. use what you got. and unfortunately al this RAW marketing doesn't really mean much even after intense grading. realtime film stock emulations is what I would like to see. hacks for those things. not about shadow artifacts. as anyone knows you can shoot around those things quite easily. no every viewer cares much or notices real cinema forum talk. if it's good it's good. digital cinema is still at a very premature age right now still trying to look as good as original film. THEN NOW you have true 4K resolution captures ready for 4K home cinema. I'm telling you resolution hype is the future. S16mm feel like this BMCC or Digital Bolex will be boring to optimistic cinematographers that want to jump on 4K or 8K cams next. cloud 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 [quote name='Leang' timestamp='1352992403' post='21692']I'm telling you resolution hype is the future.[/quote] Resolution hype for video started in 2005, when the first consumer 'HD' camcorders appeared. That was the past. It didn't wear out, because it looked like a solid parameter to judge the capability of a camera. For the industry, this is an easy way to promote their stuff. I am sure you are right, it's like buying the car with the most HP, and as we all know, everything boils down to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuickHitRecord Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 The filmmaker arrives at the set with a large case. He opens it to reveal four or five camera pods that look something like this: [center][img]http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dacascas/dacascas1207/dacascas120700101/14636114-illustration-of-white-round-web-camera.jpg[/img][/center] Except there are three "balls" underneath allowing for autonomous, multi-axis movement. He sets these camera pods down on assorted flat surfaces: the kitchen table, the floor, a high stool, and the highest bookshelf. With a handheld device, he activates the pods, which quickly scan the surfaces they are sitting on and instantly create CAD models for reference -- the pods now "know" how far they can move without crashing to the floor. No lighting is necessary. Sixty stops of dynamic range make it a thing of the past. The filmmaker uses his handheld device to drag and drop his favorite classic DP, editor and colorist into the app, or perhaps just the titles of a few movies that he saw over the weekend into the interface. The device quickly scans each filmography or film and comes up with an algorithm of common camera settings and movements, framing choices, focusing styles, etc. As the scene begins, the operator hits a button and the pods will move about on their respective surfaces, executing these shooting styles and transmitting 80K video signals back to the handheld device where an algorithm makes real-time multicam edits and color grades for a 16K final video. After the shoot/edit/grading session, the operator is now able to scrub back through the video and make any changes to the sub-final timeline before slapping his name on it and then hitting a button and almost instantly having it posted to the web. galenb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galenb Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 [quote name='Julian' timestamp='1352986951' post='21686'] Is that what [i]consumers [/i]really want? We, a bunch of enthusiasts on a very specific video oriented forum, aren't very representative of the market. It's easier to market a list of new features (like wifi) to the big public than a better codec. A bunch of new features doesn't cannibalize your own products. An amazing video optimized canon dslr is kinda out of the question now with their cinema line. 'We' shouldn't expect much from such companies. The big ones play it safe, aim at the mass market, the big numbers, thats where the money is, not in the niche of us filmmakers. Nikon with their consumer oriented mirrorless system, small sensor so it doesn't cut into their dslr market too much. Canon goes kind of the same way, don't expect a high end mirrorless camera anytime soon from them. The only big company that doesn't care much about cannibalisation is Sony. And they are smart not to care, because if they don't cannibalize their own stuff, someone else will. But that might be mainly because Sony is relatively new in the dslr/photography market. People who've been with Canon or Nikon for many years are stubborn and not very likely to switch. Yes. It would have been. And all the photographers who don't care about video would have been complaining about the premium price for all this video stuff they don't need. Even if the extra's come in a grip there would have been R&D costs, the processor has to be more powerfull etc... [/quote] I totally agree. You know, I'll bet digital cinematographers only equate to something like %1-2 of the DSLR market. I'm sure Panasonic, Sony and Canon are aware of us but I'm also sure our needs barely even register on their scopes. I think it's more about hype and bragging rights then anything else. "Our cameras where used to shoot the hit TV show..." I bet that the GH1-GH2 being a more video centric camera has more to do with Panasonic's history with video cameras than them seeing some sort of untapped market. And if you think about it, the GH3 being more photography centric makes perfect sense. Panasonic, being a video company, had yet to prove themselves able to really compete in the DSLR market. They needed a camera like this to compete with Canon and Nikon. I just wish they had done it with the regular G series instead of the GH. I'm sure digital cinematography is growing and I'm sure we will see progress but I wouldn't expect it to be in leaps and bounds any time soon. If anything the progress of HDSLR's is probably just a way for them to try and get us interested in their higher end cinema products. If you think about it, it seem more logical that a large camera company would want us to start buying their more expensive products, not DSLRs. With cameras like the C300, because of its price, Canon only need to sell a few of these a month as opposed to the DSLR market where they need to sell thousands. If they can drive us up market, it means a lot more money then keeping is in the prosumer market. Money is always the motivator. People who are trying to save money, especially Budget filmmakers, aren't going to sustain a camera company like Canon or Panasonic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaz Posted November 15, 2012 Author Share Posted November 15, 2012 Re. Alternate gh3 press release: Yes that would have been amazing. Also the fact that the camera has a massively powerful processor makes me think that the sky is the limit in terms of hackability. It would have been earthshaking to see them announce open firmware - a camera designed to be hacked. Photo/video concessions: before the bmcc I don't remember the last time I got excited about a dedicated video camera. Everything out there has been shoehorned into a hybrid package, and had to make major consessions to get there. It still seems that other than the gh2, there hasn't been a "slr" that has even begun to tip its scales towards video over photo. I do think that crowd sourced cameras with open development are just around the corner. It's just a matter of time. Imagine a native aptina sensor, plugged into something like an arm processor, with interchangeable lens mounts... Wouldn't even need on board recording. Just buy something from bmd or atomos. Wouldn't need onboard power, monitoring, or sound for that matter. Interface could be purely Bluetooth and the capture feed could be chained off to any number of monitors. The amazing thing is that all this tech already fucking exists. The entire dev process would be pure application. QHR: u just went full retard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 I for one, love DSLRs, but precisely because they do limit you. The consequence of this is that you really have to think about how you want to shoot something & this gives you good experience in planning a shoot. In a way its like stepping back in time, where you have to learn your craft - make mistakes, fix mistakes etc... I personally like to get everything right in camera & never have to say "I'll fix it in post". To me that is just plain lazy & you'll never learn from the mistakes that you should be making if you take that attitude. RAW seems like a good idea (well its amazing really), but how many people will just use it to avoid learning to film a scene properly? With film you had to get it right - no excuses. Why should digital be any different. What makes a film look good is a DP creating a mood, seeing an angle etc... It doesn't really matter what its filmed on/with - if its a good film, its a good film. If you have a good idea, just shoot it on whatever you've got to hand. It doesn't matter, as no one is going to say "Its filmed on a DSLR, so its shit!" The highest grossing film of all time (based on how much was spent & the return it saw) is still The Blair Witch Project - made for the price of a used car, lots of ingenuity & some balls! Of course i want a better cheaper camera - i'd kill for one. The future could & most probably will be bright for low budget filmmakers, but first you need the idea & the know how. In the meantime there's no point getting hung up on codecs, formats, resolution etc... At the moment i'm as happy as larry & love my shitty 60D, with its moire, aliasing, softish picture & the rest of the crap that it throws in my face just to spite me. Axel, galenb and sanveer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanveer Posted November 15, 2012 Share Posted November 15, 2012 [quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1353005778' post='21705'] The highest grossing film of all time (based on how much was spent & the return it saw) is still The Blair Witch Project - made for the price of a used car, lots of ingenuity & some balls! [/quote] Actually, the Blair Witch Project has picked up that title (the largest cost to recovery). Read in the section '[b]Most Profitable Movies, Based on Return on Investment[/b]' http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php [quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1353005778' post='21705'] I for one, love DSLRs, but precisely because they do limit you. The consequence of this is that you really have to think about how you want to shoot something & this gives you good experience in planning a shoot. In a way its like stepping back in time, where you have to learn your craft - make mistakes, fix mistakes etc... I personally like to get everything right in camera & never have to say "I'll fix it in post". To me that is just plain lazy & you'll never learn from the mistakes that you should be making if you take that attitude. What makes a film look good is a DP creating a mood, seeing an angle etc... It doesn't really matter what its filmed on/with - if its a good film, its a good film. If you have a good idea, just shoot it on whatever you've got to hand. It doesn't matter, as no one is going to say "Its filmed on a DSLR, so its shit!" [/quote] I completely agree. A great film is not one which is shot on a 4k RAW, or 8k RAW. It could be shot on 640x480. As long as the story is told well, and you enjoy the narration, the color, look, detail, etc etc, have absolutely no relevance, to the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galenb Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 LOL! I think the next big advancement in in digital cinema is better acting! Seriously guys! I watch short films and low budget features all the time on the web and the biggest complaint I have about so many of them is bad, bad, bad acting! I can't tell you how many films I've started to watch and thought, 'Wow, this looks pretty good' but as soon as someone opens their mouth it's like... Ugh! Seriously? You expect me to sit through this? Actually, as far as my tastes go, give me good acting over some mind blowing amazing concept any day. And I'm not talking about amazing earth shattering acting that makes you cry either. Just enough to make me believe the characters are real and they are actually feeling what they are trying to get across. I guess this is kind of a sore subject for me since I've been trying in-vain to find good actors here. ;-) [EDIT] Now that I think about it, I think most people would rather watch good acting shot of DV then bad acting shot on an Alexa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuickHitRecord Posted November 16, 2012 Share Posted November 16, 2012 [quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353030220' post='21730'] Now that I think about it, I think most people would rather watch good acting shot of DV then bad acting shot on an Alexa. [/quote] Very, very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.