Emanuel

On 12/12/2023 at 7:40 AM, JulioD said:

Religion.  Science. Art. It’s all storytelling and making sense of the world.

...which seems more connected between each other ; ) than people tend to think only 'cause some see the world from their own room/planet/universe, whatever they want (without thinking we see them or any -- not English basics LOL : P as lower level!)

Just the experiences of ones don't match everyone's ;- )

17 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

This thread is bloated like a thread about the perfect camera. It is one with some of the most narcistic tone i have ever read, from all sides.

Well, not all! : P

On 12/12/2023 at 3:39 PM, KnightsFan said:

Defining art as being made by a living person does, by definition, make it so that machines cannot produce art. It's not a useful definition though, because

1. It's very easy to make something where it is impossible to tell how it was made, and so then we don't know whether it's art.

2. We now need a new word for things that we would consider art if produced by humans, but was in fact produced by a machine

Perhaps a more useful thing in that case would be for you to explain why art requires a living person, especially taking into account the two points above?

Not risking to be confounded with narcissistic ones... LOL ; )  Seems pretty clear to me : D some other people have already mentioned it: original source, (real) innovation, expression of something from someone to reach a receiver...

On 12/12/2023 at 6:23 PM, Jedi Master said:

Of these three, only science has consistently and correctly made sense of the world.

WOW What a bold statement! And are the other ones those to adopt nonsense?! Really?? haha : )

Don't ignore the experience of the other people only 'cause you haven't had it ; ) BTW sometimes something you call or infer not to be a science becomes one when a certain experience of yours certifies it yeah even with and following a scientific method too hard to enumerate on pages like this one... Happened to me today yup t-o-d-a-y, go figure, and no, no alien spaceship abducted me! LMAO :- )

11 hours ago, Grimor said:

A little BTS of the short film:

 

What exactly easyrig-like you had it there?

Long story short: art is expression. Requires a living being and someone who may be able to. In legal language ; ) someone with legal personality... : P Since when machines have or will have it? : D

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

Saying it doesn't make it true. Why do you believe that to be the case?

Who? Me? No. Correct.

The point is that's not a matter to believe or not believe ; )

You guys still think art is subjective and technology is the one to provide the objective answers, isn't it?

What else? Let's start to discuss science versus faith? ; ) Ah OK, first one: theology is not a science! LOL Philosophy (and psychology BTW) neither, so aesthetics is anything but something boring to death : X And those who understand the code behind the bits & bytes (or analog world applies the same but techie anyway : D) the most prones to be able to know what cinematic is! LMAO

The same way you in general (not you in particular) need to go to learn the basics on anything techie-related, the same applies to what art is. Before you, me, whoever is, can come here or anywhere else to discuss things you surely show how far apart are people's eyes on the need of being versed in art things and educated about ; )

In a line: takes time, effort, vocation, devotion and will ;- )

- EAG :- )

1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:

Technical issues, like how an operating system reacts to low disk space, are objective issues that don't depend on personal opinions. Art, on the other hand, is completely subjective. What is art to you may be garbage to me, and what is art to me may be garbage to you. Because my definition of and appreciation of art may be different than yours doesn't mean that I don't understand art, and that shouldn't mean that my views on art (both the artistic aspects and the technical aspects) in any way denigrate your own. As I said in another thread, this isn't a zero sum game.

I have a hard time understanding some of what you say. I assume that's because English isn't your first language. Try posting in your native language (at least in your replies to me)--that might be more understandable to me.

No, first off, it's not because technical issues are objective issues that art is subjective on its turn.

That's a big mistake people make thinking art is (merely) subjective. (Not even 'merely', similar or close!... you've used outrageously the word "completely"... WOW : )

A lot of people misplace taste for aesthetics.

The art I like is not necessarily good nor the one I dislike is bad.

Aesthetics is an important field of knowledge as much as technology (distributed by different fields) is, beyond and despite their dissimilarities.

The fact English is not my native language is not the issue about the hard time you say you spend to understand of what I say, as you wrote. That's not about the idiom also because language is much more than mere idioms.

The art language is prone to be as much complex as any technical one.

The problem here is that people tend to see a technical language as something objective and art as a matter of personal opinion. The latter is not. Taste, yes. Art as subject of aesthetics is not. This a most common error techie individuals have for the subject matter. Unfortunately. Really. Not show off from my own. Trust me : )

Better to focus on the stuff we're able to discuss on this topic instead, once this comes from the other thread indeed.

The new chips by Apple. Isn't that a field of your specialty? CPUs design?

The same way I respect the knowledge of engineers and chip designers as I read you've presented yourself, please save you and anyone else in order to avoid reading misplaced stuff about things aesthetes are used to study for a lifetime ; )

Filmmaking is NOT only technology but has a lot to do with aesthetics no less or maybe even more.

A frequent misjudgement.

And not, that's not subjective at all!

EAG :- )

6 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Most operating systems don’t handle their main drive filling up very well. I’ve found the best way to deal with this is to have separate drives for the OS and everything else. That way, if downloads or data files fill up a non-OS drive, the system doesn’t go haywire.

Indeed, I've arrived to the same conclusion without the level of expertise you look like to have on topic. Glad to read you to concur or realize we cannot be wrong when people like you confirm our humble impressions on it and act accordingly : )

Pity this is not reciprocal about some other topics... ; ) You know one of the sad misleading things I see for a certain other type of discussion we're used to follow on boards like this one?

It is when we see people thinking why have knowledge about some field they're entitled to express any opinion they figure it as accurate ; ) This affects in particular people with a fair considerable level of knowledge on techie stuff... Only God knows why! LOL : ) Everyone acts like a psychologist 'cause has one mind, can be a bench coach 'cause love football/soccer and any people are able to talk about art when appreciate art. As simple as that. Unfortunately, it is not like that ;- )

*understood

(the only silly part from my side is taking this discussion for serious and trying to make myself understood when there are here much distinct levels of understanding of the complex fields we're discussing here ; ) being art one of them... democracy doesn't work for the subject matter LOL : P)

1 minute ago, Jedi Master said:

This has to be one of the silliest comments I've seen in this thread.

Let me pose this question to you: If I showed you two pieces of "art", one created by a human and the other by a machine, and you couldn't tell which was created by the human and which was created by the machine, would you still insist on not calling the work created by the machine "art"?

Silliest because I left a laugh on your last post? ; ) You have no idea what art is and I am the one to produce silly stuff over and along this thread?! LOL : D Machines don't produce art. What part haven't you understand? :- )

2 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Exactly and exactly - it's why people simply are not grasping how disruptive AI will likely be to the art and entertainment economy. They keep thinking about it in outdated terms and not something that simply needs a critical mass of data to master a thing and not require more human input.

To be clear, AI will likely be disruptive to all human driven economies but A&E is the obvious place human creativity has traditionally intersected with commerce.

Aside economics, art made by machines is not art. Period. Call it something else. Who doesn't understand that has no clue about what art is.

:- )

7 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Never say never. People who do usually end up eating their words eventually.

What is a “soul” anyway?

Yes, consciousness will be a tough nut to crack, especially since we don’t even know yet what causes it in animals. 

Look how far we’ve come in just a few decades. In the mid-1970s a CPU had a few thousand transistors. Today they have tens of billions. In the 1960s we had ELIZA. Today we have ChatGPT.

What is a soul? Good question...

It doesn't surprise me anything what we have today. Really : ) It's a natural technology evolution. So what?

You mean consciousness will be hard work... Right : ) I meant unconscious and subconscious mind territories. Not tangible reading by physical means which includes machines is possible there at all.

As said, I think ignoring human science lenses such as psychology or philosophy, among others, doesn't help... ; )

Let's see when we'll end up eating our words eventually or if ever ;- )

*Yes, the plural of species is species. We however are able to use it both with an "are" for plural as well "is" if used in the singular form. If we place an "a" before, it is not possible to use it as plural anymore ; )

The idea art can be not singular anymore is actually a contradiction of what the concept of art is.

Is AI the killing procedure of art itself?

Should we see AI as a threat to art then?

I solidly don't think so. A mere tool. Just another one. No reinvention of the wheel : P

Seems to me more a geeks meeting all this talk than anything else TBH. Looks like they've all been alerted about this thread LOL : D or then, filmmaking today is invaded by preachers of machines rather than those who realize what movies are really made of. Much distinct to write "made from" (I am on my English basics LMAO ; ) Not (only) technology per se, count on it! :- )

Sigh : )

2 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

And I have no doubt that it will eventually be possible. The human brain is just a very sophisticated, massively parallel chemical computer, but there's nothing about it that couldn't be implemented given sufficiently advanced technology. We're not there yet, but progress is being made.

To  mimic human unconscious/subconscious?? Each man is unique. A machine is soulless. No binary digital language/system/world looks like to be able to match uniqueness.

The same an animal species are able to be another one. Science estimates a range from 3 million to 100 million. Up, up. Only about 1.7 million species identified since last time the calculation has been shown/announced...

Demographics say 109 billion people have lived in the course of 192,000 years. Has anyone ever succeeded to not distinguish one from another? Will it ever be possible?

Singularity is part of the universe and this equation as much as art is impossible to impersonate as original when fake. Becomes a formula, no art anymore.

I just guess you're watching so many Hollywood movies... : D

- EAG :- )

*bother

(but can be to worry me up once 'you' will spend a whole shooting day to hold 'the thing' in your hands)

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

The add on grip is an option…for some users I guess.

Personally I think it’s hideous and I would never use it.

I did use an add on grip to my S1H to balance the Leica 24-90 as that lens is a beast and still do actually for the 70-200 f4.

So necessity rather than ‘choice’ but I much prefer an integrated grip.

Personally (professionally) I have no need to ever add on or take away a grip so it’s a case of I need one 100% of the time, or 100% not at all.

I don’t like even changing lenses, so the thought of changing the handling characteristics of any set up so significantly, fills me with loathing.

 

So, I think you're giving solid grounds to your well balanced decision then : ) to fit your needs, taste and shooting style, you can only end fine : )

Hold one in hands in any case before to pull the trigger 'cause practice is a much different challenging reality as we all know :- )

More than size is the body weight to bothers me perhaps, I guess.

2 hours ago, Django said:

Maybe if you bought a Z9 before a Z8 you may wanna trade it for the lighter cheaper model but if you buy a Z9 today it is because the extra features and ergonomics of the Z9 appeal to you. Wether it’s for battery life, better heat management, weather sealing, the built in vertical grip, or better balance for long lenses, there are bunch of reasons why a pro would still pick a Z9 and keep it for many years to come. I know if I go Nikon I would be tempted by it over the Z8. Z8+grip I heard is a really clunky solution, the grip really sucks I guess plus it becomes bulkier and heavier than the Z9.

23 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

(...)

The above is a pretty easy decision to now make, but if that Z6iii does show signs of appearing within my timescale, the Z8 comes back into play as a possibility as it would not be having to do quite the heavy lifting that the Z9 would.

But having said that, still probably Z9 for all the previously mentioned reasons; platform, portrait orientation, battery life, cards, yada yada. Actually, no yada yada, those are the reasons!

The portrait orientation is a good excuse/reason : ) Better heat management to my needs makes a perfect sense despite that replacement time frame already mentioned.

The Z8 with the grip add-on is a 2-in-1 solution though... I think it depends how much you estimate you'll use the grip ;- )

51 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

It’s not really an Achilles Heel though but rather a better (the Z9) platform for the larger zoom lenses it is designed for as this is their ‘Pro Sports’ camera.

No one has to buy this (or any other) camera but for those that do and then later say, “it’s too large, it’s too heavy”, perhaps should not have purchased it on the first place.

But for it’s target market, you want/need that lens platform and that is what this type of body is.

Would I rather have the same FF sensor capability in a M4/3 chassis and lens sizes? Sure, so would anybody in their right mind, but it does not exist.

It comes down to compromise as most things do ie, where do you make your compromise?

The principle one for me would be weighing up ergos including size and weight vs performance/capability/need sensor-wise.

With that choice to make, I personally will compromise on the physical side of this equation.

Personally though, I have taken a middle route and that has been lens based within the FF sensor capability and building a system around just 2 lenses that cover all my needs; 20-40mm and 70-180mm.

The latter choice is the key one for me in that it gives me all the real world range I need for my job, but on the smallest and lightest FF option currently in existence, the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8

The body, well still to decide on that but probably the Z9, sacrificing some weight and size benefits over the Z8, for all the other stuff it brings to the table for me.

Personal choices based on my specific needs.

Of course, no objection : ) All you said stands.

The Achilles heel to those who feel more comfortable with and don't feel a smaller and lighter camera unit an inferior form factor, but on the contrary.

R5C is the one to tell us they're coming, I guess.

Hence I believe Z8 is yet more prone to be less outdated than its heavier counterpart anyway. For some reason they've launched it.

My only beef has a name Z9 doesn't probably share. The concern on overheating issues. Reason why the case here at my own for an eventual adoption is on standby. Not ruled out yet.

Also, sorry me again (better to let it written here before any hater will come to ask me to learn the basics of psychology other than only the English idiom LMAO : D) but those Wikipedia entries are too much poor, so once I guess in a filmmaking forum, psychology makes all the sense not only technology, here is a better one:

https://diversity.social/unconscious-vs-subconscious/

I actually incline to see how this whole talk about AI lacks of some other fields of science like we only have exact sciences... and this is a big fail IMO :- )

* subliminal (sorry for the use of a non-English word up there!)

It's all about nuances. A bit like language and the way electronic translators work or on decoding thinkers speech. Put ChatGPT to try to do it... It's not chess! ;- )

11 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

This couldn't be further from the truth. As someone who designs CPUs for a living, probably know a little more about this than most. Yes, all computers perform binary logical and arithmetic operations, but they are far more sophisticated that a pocket calculator, and it's not just speed.

It doesn't take much to implement a pocket calculator. One of the first, the HP-35, used a 1-bit CPU with a serial ALU. More recent calculators tend to use more general-purpose CPUs, but the sophistication needed is not that great. By contrast, modern desktop and laptop CPUs have 64-bit data paths, can address gigabytes of memory, run at multi-gigahertz speeds, are superscalar (can execute more than one instruction per clock cycle), implement sophisticated branch prediction and speculative execution of instructions. They implement virtual memory, hyperthreading, virtualization, support for multiple SMID instruction set extensions, floating-point coprocessors, support for PCI Express, DDR4 and DDR5 memory interfaces, and have megabytes of on-chip cache. Some even have hardware support for encoding and decoding H.264/H.265, ProRes, and VP9. Yes, modern desktop and laptop CPUs have multiple cores, but not billions of them (four to 24 cores is typical). What they have billions of is transistors.

Comparing a modern CPU with a pocket calculator is like comparing a Ford Model T with a Lamborghini. 

Supercomputers used to be very fast single core machines (like the Cray-1), but modern ones use thousands of the same CPUs and GPUs used in desktop PCs. These computers are increasing in power and sophistication every year, and combined with the advancements in AI, will soon be able to do the things no one dreamed of ten years ago.

The human brain, by contrast, isn't as fast as a modern computer, but is massively parallel in a way that's as yet unmatched by even the most powerful supercomputers. We can still do things computers can't, but the gap is closing.

Interesting stuff, no doubts : ) But I think there's something you've missed from kye's entry. The figurative speech : ) And no, I'm not thinking you're a machine :- ) On the contrary, I praise your human input. People comment people. Not so sure the will stands with AI : D

; )

Which applies for the world of affections and between the lines where art as for instance pops up -- humans are able to.

Will machines be able to compete at the same level? I have my doubts.

There's a subliminar world I still think is science fiction yet to see computers understand and incorporate it.

Psychology (people who did the film school I attended had it) tell us there's the unconscious and subconscious components of human mind.

Soul... : X Even atheism has no name for... LOL ; )

Will they be able to match it?

I have my sincere doubts this will ever be possible.

(yeah, the territory where the philosophical problem of faith flows too and philosophy is not an empty science neither psychology ;- )

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Why would anyone replace a Z9 earlier than a Z8?

I would rather have a smaller & lighter camera if it was possible, but it’s a case of weighing up the pros & cons, ie, ‘The Compromises’. The Z9 edges it for my needs though I could make the Z8 work.

It depends on your use case/needs/preferences and for some, the Z8 will fit better and for others the Z9, but I’m not sure why you think anyone who makes the Z9 choice would replace it sooner than a Z8 if they made the right choice in the first place?

I agree with all the points made. Same wondering here. Z8 or Z9? Z9 has that advantage on better cooling for sure. The disadvantage is the Achilles heel though. The form factor, the size and weight. With smaller and lighter intros each year more often (R5C is the proof they get it), you'll tend to see the need for the replacement of a Z9 than the Z8.

That's the estimation made as conclusion to my view. I don't actually think may end unfair to infer such assessment : ) Really.

Other than overheating ; ) I just think who will buy a Z9 rather than a Z8 will replace it much earlier very likely...

19 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong.  

(...)

Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe.  Maybe. 

Will never be replaced. The same way painting didn't when the camera was invented.

7 hours ago, MrSMW said:

(...)

Decisions, decisions, decisions…

Footage-wise though, liking what I am seeing from all the Zeds.

I love them! Which means that magenta too LOL : D Didn't pull the trigger yet though... That Z8 overheating alert freakes me out a bit...

My birthday: October 17... Yours?

:- )