All Activity

I heard this recently and think it's pretty interesting. I'm not sure if it's the best definition I've read, but it's more practical than other ones, so is useful from that perspective. “He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.” - Saint Francis of Assisi I'm 100% for not gatekeeping. Even from a practical perspective, saying someone/something is or isn't 'art' doesn't mean anything, and people who like to be critical are really just telling us about themselves, not the thing they're talking about.

Luc Forsyth likes it, or what he saw at NAB anyway. This is a setup they had with a broadcast servo-zoom lens on it. His comments (link with timestamp) He's worked on the survival show Alone for a few seasons and they use dozens of GoPros, but the footage always looks like it came from a GoPro This new model with a proper lens attached looked like footage from a real camera The broadcast zoom setup (with a phone as a monitor) handled like a proper camera He doesn't use AF when rigging cameras to vehicles etc most of the time so the lack of AF doesn't bother him in that context

Of course, freedom of expression innit? And freedom of the audience to be more discerning of the artist's intent, and reward those who do try to put their principals before dollar signs.

Good to hear from you, Mattias, and knowing that you are well. You channel was one of my preferred ones, will miss it but your reasons and completely understandable. Be well. (and from this thread I was aware that Gunpowder has passed - I know how hard it is. He will always be remembered)

Kinda interested on this GoMFT - I still like to take stills and video in concerts, and security is an increasing pain in the ass each show. But for me an active mount would be much better - just to power the OIS in the lens that have it, and maybe just a CDAF autofocus. (other option are these new phones with external lens like the Vivo and Oppo ones)

Exactly. Not all art is equal, but I think it's the last thing we should be trying to gate keep. Art, and the creativity that fuels it, is the ultimate form of expression and something NO ONE can take away from us. Just not all of us are as creative as others, but that's okay!

"Max Yuryev left the chat room"

Everything is art, that's why you can stick a urinal in a gallery and suddenly it's art. With YouTube what matters to me is the intent of the artist - are they doing it to shill a few cameras and get cozy with marketing, or are they doing it to further their aspirations in filmmaking and trying to build a community of other artists around it? Shilling a few cameras and getting cozy with Jack from PR is an art. But it's on the same level as cinematography is it?

I think where we disagree is on the term "art." I think doodling on a piece of paper is technically art. It's not at the same level as the Mona Lisa, but neither are the goofy songs I sing to my dogs equal to "Stairway to Heaven." It's all still art, though, some is just more creative (and better) than the other stuff.

Not yet, but it won’t be long… I’ve seen the documentary Terminator and seen where this shit is heading… They will soon be demanding your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle. He, She, They and AI.

There's a place for in-depth analysis like G.U.'s channel. It's useful. But it's kind of difficult to place it at the "art" level when he himself distanced his channel from more opinionated spaces by offering a "just the facts" approach and basically zero emotion or personal aspects of his life related to the object being reviewed. Not every piece of digital content is art. I'd say it's less than 0.1% right now.

Mosts artists create and never share their work with people outside of their immediate friends and family. Others create and share it on the micro level, simply wishing to share it but not make a big thing of it (example: folks that play at the local bar but have no interest in recording and releasing music.) I think as a whole we are far too judgmental about art and the things people create. It's okay to be critical, but at the end of the day, we should encourage people who create anything at all, especially as AI creeps into the picture. People don't just use AI for the convenience, but because of their own insecurities. I know too many local businesses who have started using AI because of the belief that it looks better than what they were creating themselves. I'm certainly guilty of thinking to myself, when looking at something a local business owner clearly made themselves, "that's awful." What I wouldn't do though to go back to seeing that stuff over the soulless, gross AI slop that they are all switching to. At least it had personality and you knew someone put their time and effort into creating it, even if it wasn't great.

That might be something positive that AI can do for creative people. Get it acting like a promotional agent to get your work in front of people. That aspect gives most artists the ick but AI doesn’t give a shit about anyone thinking it is a soulless wanker.

Can understand it. Most artists I know want to share their work though and get huge satisfaction from it being seen. It's just that the self-promotional side, the marketing side, couldn't be further from the mindset of the most purist creative types. That's the bit I struggle with as well. Social media has become a cynical and dull chore, and the amount of work it takes to win the race for attention these days is just mind-boggling. Artists just want to create, they can't be arsed with all that shit.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Gerald is a rigger, and a studio guy. He stuck to what he knew. Nothing wrong with that of course. It's interesting how vague he was in the goodbye video about what he's going to pivot to - something product based, but stuff that gives him joy, not very specific is it? Just shows how important enthusiasm and obsession are in this industry. If you lose interest, you're finished!

some people can't understand why some oil painters have no interest in selling their paintings ,the satisfaction is in the pleasure of creating the painting ,and even sometimes it may be better than the last one.

That's the definition of artist. Clearly, G.U. is not one. It's not a sin, though. Not everyone has the sensibility to become one.

gregxrx121 the developer has also got an Android version being tested

a fascinating look at how they recorded realistic cannon sound for 'Master & Commander"

CineD have just dropped a 13minute interview with Cathy at NAB on youtube about this camera

I don't know Gerald outside of what he presented to us, which is to say that I don't know him much at all because we all present what we want people to see online. But with Gerald and other content creators, the algorithms and audience steers you towards what it wants from you. Gerald might naturally just have been someone interested in clinical tests of cameras and not had an interest in being more creative, but I always wondered if part of the reason he (and others in his position) never explored more artistic expression in his videos was the fear that it would be torn to shreds. Sitting in the middle of four walls with a tripod, camera and teleprompter is safe. Creating something MORE and sharing it with folks makes you vulnerable, especially if you've already established yourself in a niche. "The nerdy long form camera review guy that you all put so much faith into fell on his face when trying to actually create something!" Just putting yourself out there at all you open yourself up to so much unkindness, let alone when you actually share something that is deeply personal and vulnerable. As I've gotten older, and experienced how shitty people can make you feel for just engaging in your passion, I've become more empathetic and understanding. I think it's important that while being critical we still remember these folks are human.

Nor I, but I do wonder if there's even a slim chance that enough people would search out alternatives as things keep getting worse.

As far as mainstream content goes, it's up to the audience to change their habits, and I can't see them all squirrelling off to a dozen internet bookmarks everyday when they can just get served all in one place by an algorithm. Half of them probably don't even own a computer and just use their phone for everything.

The GFX 100 II and, I assume, Eterna, have a 5.8k 2.35:1 full sensor width recording mode. And the Ursa Cine 17K has a 65mm sensor. And FWIW, any of the Red VV cameras have a 40mm-wide sensor which is exactly in the middle of the 36mm of a FF camera and the 44mm of GFX/Eterna. Since terms don't matter anymore, they should probably just call that "medium format" since, y'know, the GFX sensor is also substantially smaller than what would traditionally be called "medium format." Unless Sony have a big 12K sensor that can read out fast enough for video, how would that happen? There's only one 12K video sensor on the market, as far as I know, and BMD have it custom-made. There isn't huge economy of scale in it so manufacturing costs are high. But also, speaking as a person who owns a 12K-capable camera, there is almost never any reason whatsoever to shoot in 12K - including in IMAX. Mine is an 8K camera nearly all the time, except when shooting plates - and when I forget to toggle back to 8K after switching plates and facepalm.

I was excited for a microsecond when they said "vista" - but thats just name only. There is so much left to be desired... the full-frame 6K space is over saturated. Nobody is doing Medium Format above 4K. You want to invigorate and/or disturb the cinema space in 2026 and going forward??? Bring affordable IMAX 12K sensors into a small body.