Is anyone seriously using their smartphone for video?

[kye]

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The first thing these robots need to do is to build a robot that can walk properly.

Otherwise, in the upcoming war against the rise of the cyborgs, we'll prevail just by virtue of knowing that we have to shoot the ones that look like they've shit their pants

Actually, there are lots of excellent robotic solutions to the problem of mobility.

This from 2006 (or earlier):

Which evolved into a prototype that could wrap around things and then climb vertically, and then also evolved to have multiple legs etc.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/06/how-carnegie-mellons-snake-robot-became-the-multi-legged-snake-monster/

this from 2010 - a robot that balances on a ball:

and other approaches too:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/new-space-robot-would-hop-not-drive-across-other-worlds

but this is the problem - we don't want robots to solve our problems, we want them to be like us, to be familiar.

Which is why it's difficult to program them to do human things, like simulate a larger aperture in recorded video from multiple cameras, which is optimising an aesthetic experience that they never have and won't ever have unless we program them to have it.

[IronFilm]

 

3 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

we'll prevail just by virtue of knowing that we have to shoot the ones that look like they've shit their pants

Shit your pants you say? Humans do that too. 
 

 

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Actually, there are lots of excellent robotic solutions to the problem of mobility.

This from 2006 (or earlier):

Which evolved into a prototype that could wrap around things and then climb vertically, and then also evolved to have multiple legs etc.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/06/how-carnegie-mellons-snake-robot-became-the-multi-legged-snake-monster/

this from 2010 - a robot that balances on a ball:

and other approaches too:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/new-space-robot-would-hop-not-drive-across-other-worlds

 

I wasn't being entirely serious, of course.

But yes, I have seen various ones that can move without looking like they've had an accident.

2 hours ago, kye said:

but this is the problem - we don't want robots to solve our problems, we want them to be like us, to be familiar.

Surely our problems would be solved by them being exactly like us but without our problems.

Which is exactly what my wife says about me by the way

2 hours ago, kye said:

Which is why it's difficult to program them to do human things, like simulate a larger aperture in recorded video from multiple cameras, which is optimising an aesthetic experience that they never have and won't ever have unless we program them to have it.

They can analyse data that builds a model of what it is we like about something though, which is all that pleasure from a certain aesthetic translates to.

Give anyone/anything enough data and enough time and they could transform what we'd currently call "je ne s'ais quoi" into "Not only do I know exactly what that certain what is Monsieur but here its is as a preset for your Panasonic BrainInterface20000 camera".

Its no different to current practices of EXIF mining and cross checking it with Likes/Retweets on social media to find out what sort of image capture components drive the most interest and affection. It may be cruder now but its the same principle that given enough processing power and time can be extrapolated out to a more granular level that will provide a fair idea of what sort of images ping the pleasure sensors of most people.

The Lytro got a lot of hate - much of it justified - but if you ever played with one for a little while then the glimpse was there of where we'll end up going. Take that concept on two or three generations (which may or may not happen now Google own it) and with enough data mined about what works then I can easily envisage a camera system that slaps an instant and satisfying enough auto-aestethetic on it complete with not only colour and dynamic range adjustments but focus point, depth of field and re-composition as well.

And then they'll cripple it by putting a slow lens on it and no microphone input obviously.

[BasiliskFilm]

20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

The Lytro got a lot of hate - much of it justified - but if you ever played with one for a little while then the glimpse was there of where we'll end up going. Take that concept on two or three generations (which may or may not happen now Google own it) and with enough data mined about what works then I can easily envisage a camera system that slaps an instant and satisfying enough auto-aestethetic on it complete with not only colour and dynamic range adjustments but focus point, depth of field and re-composition as well.

And then they'll cripple it by putting a slow lens on it and no microphone input obviously.

The Light L16 is probably the Apple Newton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Newton) of photography. Too many cameras/lenses and not enough processing. But it is probably showing the way ahead, when good small sensors cost a tiny fraction of the price of good large sensors.

[BTM_Pix]

I had an Apple Newton and I'm not sure what was the bigger death knell for it fashion wise - me buying it or Steven Segal using it as a recipe book in Under Siege 2.

My patronage also saw off Windows CE, the PalmPilot and the Compaq Ipaq so Light will be encouraged by the fact that I haven't bought an L16 

 

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Windows CE

I used one of those for a while! Back in the Early-Mid 2000's. Cutting edge for its time. 
Crazy how even late 2000's I was still thinking how "big" a 3ish inch screen was!! ha, but today's standards that is unacceptably small. 

[PannySVHS]

super 16 size sensor like in the lumix phone cm1, so it has been done before.  that combined with with 1.8 lens, and here you go. the lx15, the one inch compact from pana, has a 1.4 to 2.8 lens and is pretty small, like the rx100 series too.

so a super16 video smartphone might be possible, just like the cm1 has given us a first idea about.

[webrunner5]

22 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I used one of those for a while! Back in the Early-Mid 2000's. Cutting edge for its time. 
Crazy how even late 2000's I was still thinking how "big" a 3ish inch screen was!! ha, but today's standards that is unacceptably small. 

New Window phone rumor.

 

[Cinegain]

I used to have a PoS Samsung Omnia SGH-i900. ?

Now I have this thing:

 

[kye]

This link (https://petapixel.com/2016/10/22/iphone-7s-camera-parts-cost-26-9-5-phone/) says that the iPhone 7 camera cost about 10% of the cost of the phone, and this teardown of the iPhone X (http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-x-teardown/) says that the camera / image parts are about 11% of the cost of the phone.

I'm not sure what that means considering that the iPhone 7 has two cameras and the iPhone X has three plus some other bits and pieces like the DOT projector but the iPhone X isn't that much more in terms of a percentage, but if we pessimistically assume that things will scale, it wouldn't be a far stretch to put a fourth camera with a longer lens in one, giving ~25mm, ~50mm, and maybe 100mm (or 150mm) equivalents.

The one common application that's missing is the 'take pictures at my kids sports game', so although as film-makers we're picky about often obscure things, having a third longer lens is something that would be very useful on a weekly basis to most people on the planet.  

It would probably mean they'd have to turn the camera sideways and put a 45 degree mirror in there to get the length of the lens in, and it might require a bigger assembly to incorporate the IS requirements of a longer lens in there too, but longer focal lengths are typically used in better lighting conditions, meaning that the lens could be slower and the sensor smaller, so there's some ability to compromise there I think.

[BasiliskFilm]

On 6/17/2018 at 3:38 AM, kye said:

This link (https://petapixel.com/2016/10/22/iphone-7s-camera-parts-cost-26-9-5-phone/) says that the iPhone 7 camera cost about 10% of the cost of the phone, and this teardown of the iPhone X (http://www.techinsights.com/about-techinsights/overview/blog/apple-iphone-x-teardown/) says that the camera / image parts are about 11% of the cost of the phone.

I'm not sure what that means considering that the iPhone 7 has two cameras and the iPhone X has three plus some other bits and pieces like the DOT projector but the iPhone X isn't that much more in terms of a percentage, but if we pessimistically assume that things will scale, it wouldn't be a far stretch to put a fourth camera with a longer lens in one, giving ~25mm, ~50mm, and maybe 100mm (or 150mm) equivalents.

The one common application that's missing is the 'take pictures at my kids sports game', so although as film-makers we're picky about often obscure things, having a third longer lens is something that would be very useful on a weekly basis to most people on the planet.  

It would probably mean they'd have to turn the camera sideways and put a 45 degree mirror in there to get the length of the lens in, and it might require a bigger assembly to incorporate the IS requirements of a longer lens in there too, but longer focal lengths are typically used in better lighting conditions, meaning that the lens could be slower and the sensor smaller, so there's some ability to compromise there I think.

You could make a smaller sensor with an effectively longer lens (in equivalence terms). Or you could just make the sensor denser, for improved digital zoom; certainly for 1080p shooting. This certainly won't help with low light shooting, but maybe multiple cameras can work together to improve noise reduction. At the longer end parallax differences are less significant.

[webrunner5]

Folded optics cellphone. Pretty much what the Light L16 is also.

https://***URL removed***/news/6628566824/oppo-announces-5x-optical-zoom-technology-for-smartphone-cameras

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-356042-1.html

 

[BasiliskFilm]

20 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Folded optics cellphone. Pretty much what the Light L16 is also.

https://***URL removed***/news/6628566824/oppo-announces-5x-optical-zoom-technology-for-smartphone-cameras

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-356042-1.html

 

So we unfold the optics with mirrorless cameras, and end up folding them in smartphones. I can't keep up

 

[kye]

31 minutes ago, BasiliskFilm said:

So we unfold the optics with mirrorless cameras, and end up folding them in smartphones. I can't keep up

It's the Law of Conservation of Energy Mirrors.  They move out of DSLRs and into phones

[MacMurphy]

Recently discovered the Sony XZ2 (there are 3 versions) films HDR 4K video. Lacks full manual controls, maybe an app can get around that. I think the screen is HDR too. I have seen some good and some really bad looking footage on YouTube from it, although I haven't viewed on a HDR screen. Not good enough to consider buying from what I saw, but it is a sign of things to come. Surely Samsung won't want to be left lacking features and then Apple will implement it in a couple of years, as they like to hold new features back.

I am keeping an eye on the space as I am run and gun and need UHD HDR soon and not sure wether the BMPCC will definitely be suitable yet. The GH5 is already a bit too big, so waiting to see the BM, but now might even consider a phone. Maybe the forthcoming  RED Hydrogen phone will be the perfect compromise. Although it sounds like it may be more about the screen technology? 

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, MacMurphy said:

Maybe the forthcoming  RED Hydrogen phone will be the perfect compromise. Although it sounds like it may be more about the screen technology? 

I really doubt any attachment that Red has to make that phone really worth shooting over a Say Apple iPhone X, is going to cost a fortune. We are talking Red here. And it will be big naturally. I have no real desire to pay a ton of money to see 3D stuff or what the hell ever it is. It to me is more of a gimmick than anything I Really need. Red doesn't make Anything cheap.

[webrunner5]

This might be interesting on Samsung's part if true.

https://***URL removed***/news/9669810984/rumor-samsung-galaxy-s10-to-feature-triple-camera

[kye]

If they do go triple-camera, let's hope it's not just 1x, 2x and 3x like those articles say.  28 and 56mm is a reasonable range, but adding an 84 when you already have a 56 doesn't really add as much as a 100+ would.  I guess the problem is having stabilisation worthy of such a long focal length on a very small device prone to handshake.

As I've said in previous posts, 28mm is general wide, 56-80mm is portrait territory and 100 and up are sports.  Having two lenses for portraits and none for sports isn't a good 'set'.

[webrunner5]

14 minutes ago, kye said:

If they do go triple-camera, let's hope it's not just 1x, 2x and 3x like those articles say.  28 and 56mm is a reasonable range, but adding an 84 when you already have a 56 doesn't really add as much as a 100+ would.  I guess the problem is having stabilisation worthy of such a long focal length on a very small device prone to handshake.

As I've said in previous posts, 28mm is general wide, 56-80mm is portrait territory and 100 and up are sports.  Having two lenses for portraits and none for sports isn't a good 'set'.

Funny you say that. I When  had my Hasselblad film cameras Everyone, and I mean everyone Only carried 3 lenses.  All I ever used for weddings.And they ended up being close to the same mm in FF as you listed. And there has to be millions of shots taken professionally with them, Now we have to have zoom lenses that go to 2000mm LoL. I would imagine Ansel Adams even used on his 8x10 view camera the same 3 lenses mm wise to FF.

How times change. But yeah a  95mm, or 105mm would be nice. I always liked 105 in 35mm FF film days. Great Portrait length. With 135mm yo had to be too far away from the model, student. To get good results you have to sort of become one with the subject both physical and mental. Probably can't touch anyone anymore like you did then to get the pose you really wanted.

[nigelbb]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Funny you say that. I When  had my Hasselblad film cameras Everyone, and I mean everyone Only carried 3 lenses.  All I ever used for weddings.And they ended up being close to the same mm in FF as you listed. And there has to be millions of shots taken professionally with them, Now we have to have zoom lenses that go to 2000mm LoL. I would imagine Ansel Adams even used on his 8x10 view camera the same 3 lenses mm wise to FF.

How times change. But yeah a  95mm, or 105mm would be nice. I always liked 105 in 35mm FF film days. Great Portrait length. With 135mm yo had to be too far away from the model, student. To get good results you have to sort of become one with the subject both physical and mental. Probably can't touch anyone anymore like you did then to get the pose you really wanted.

The Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L zoom lens has a great reputation which I think is mainly due to the beauty of a full frame image at F/2.8 between 100mm & 200mm.