Emanuel

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. 
 

 

It seems that all the original files for the videos magically appeared on Lok's hard drive...
 

Saw this:
 

From what I’ve seen I think the Z8 and Z9 have the best image and colour separation of all the mirrorlerss cameras, there is something special going on there, the R5c just looks like all the other Canon mirrorless, nice image but lacking a bit in DR and slightly noisier. The sensor tech just seems a bit less cutting edge. Canon have always struggled transferring the DR from still into video on their mirrorless cameras. A real shame as it is there in the rest of the Cinema line from the C70 upwards
For me with the IBIS too the Nikon’s are the clear winner. Their lenses also look like they are better suited to video especially if you use AF being almost silent. I always had trouble finding fast affordable  Canon lenses that weren’t noisy  

Agreed. Not to mention OP couldn't probably tell a difference between 24/48 (Titanic being 48p turned out to be factually wrong).
I also find it funny when people think 50/60p is anything close to real life, as 50p is technologically still heavily compromised. For human eye it is certainly much smoother than 24p, but it's also it has this weird motion that sits in somewhere between 100 and 24, where the footage somehow ends up looking actually less real and seems hollow compared to the cinema standard. If you want your production to have videogamey/behind the scenes/soapy/whatever look, then go ahead. But no, it doesn't look real.
When we talk about realism that can fool the eye, it starts from 100 fps minimum. Yet I think none of the cinema projectors currently in use are technically able to show 100 fps material, most TV's in use also don't have the ability. YouTube is capped at 60, not to mention streaming services. There is a long way to go.
But once we are there, even then 24p will have it's place, as it has been said multiple times in this thread, that people experiencing movies crave to escape from the reality and 24p is perfect for that.
But don't tell me 50p = realism.
 

I absolutely agree with @Ty Harper that with enough data it will be able to differentiate the movies that got nominated for an academy award from those that didn't, those that did well in the box office from those that didn't, etc.
What it won't be able to do, or at least not by analysing only the finished film, is know that the difference between one movies success and the next one is that the director of one was connected in the industry and the second movie lacked that level of influence.  But, if we give it access to enough data, it will know that too, and will tell a very uncomfortable story about how nepotism ranks highly in predicting individual successes...
I also agree with @JulioD that the wisdom will be backwards-looking, but let's face it, how many of the Hollywood blockbusters are innovative?  Sure, there is the odd tweak here or there that is enabled by modern production techniques, and the technology of the day changes the environment that stories are set in, but a good boy-meets-girl rom-com won't have changed much in its fundamentals because humans haven't changed in our fundamentals.
Perhaps the only thing not mentioned is that while AI will be backwards looking, and only able to imitate / remix past creativity, humans inevitably use all the tools at their disposal, and like other tools before it, I think that AI will be used by a minority of people to provide inspiration for the creation of new things and new ideas, and also, it will give the creative amongst us the increased ability to realise our dreams.
Take feature films for example.  Lots of people set out to make their first feature film but the success rate is stunningly low for which ones get finished.  Making a feature is incredibly difficult.  Then how many that do get made are ever seen by anyone consequential?  Likely only a small fraction too.
Potentially these ideas might have been great, but those involved just couldn't get them finished, or get them seen.  AI could give everyone access to this.  It will give everyone else the ability to spew out mediocre dross, but that's the current state of the industry anyway isn't it?  YT is full of absolute rubbish, so it's not like this will be a new challenge...

What it will be able to do is combine visions or auteurs... what if Kubrick made John Wick or what if Spielberg made ...
What would naturally take a person with his/her own vision and craft will soon be realized by a soulless machine.
Sad.

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….
 

I don't understand why this is so hard for some to understand. Just watch the footage. The more frame per second, the more it looks like a Broadway show in a theater, not a movie like the ones most of us grew up with. Are there technical advantages to "seeing more data"? Yes, absolutely. Is that "better"? No, not always.
Here's the rub: if a film takes you out of the story, it's bad. That's exactly what happens when I watch high frame rate stories. Is the inverse true? When watching 24p, does it take you out of the story? I'm rather certain it almost never does.

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.

Man I wish I was confused with a lot of money...

If you give GFX 100 II's for Christmas presents to your spouse, I think a number of members of this forum are going to try to woo you away from your wife!

Hey guys, I don't really shoot any video, or stills, but I am really into barbecue... can you recommend a cinema/stills camera for me so I can convince my wife that spending $2500 on a barbecue grill is a good deal. 

Great rundown Kye, and to add, @Jedi Masterstated in an earlier reply that he watches movies for escapism, yet he wants them to look as real as possible?
I also question the motives, or rationale, of people who consistently argue in favor of HFR filmmaking/exhibition because they base their opinions on practically no films that exist since 99.9% of all films have been shot at 24fps. So maybe they just don't like movies.

No, it's not an echo chamber, and people are free to have whatever perspectives they want.
But take this thread as an example.  It started off by saying that 24p was only chosen as a technical compromise, and that more is better.  
Here we are, 9 pages later, and what have we learned?
The OP has argued that 60p is better because it's better.  What does better even mean?  What goal are they trying to achieve?  They haven't specified.  They've shown no signs of knowing what the purpose of cinema really is. You prefer 60p.  But you also think that cinema should be as realistic as possible, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  You are also not interested in making things intentionally un-realistic. Everyone else understands that 24p is better because they understand the goal is for creative expression, not realism. If we talk about literally any other aspect of film-making, are we going to get the same argument again, where you think something is crap because you have a completely different set of goals to the rest of us?
Also, the entire tone from the OP was one of confrontation and arguing for its own sake.  Do you think there was any learning here?
I am under no illusions.  I didn't post because I thought you or the OP had an information deficit, but were keen to learn and evolve your opinion.  I posted because the internet is full of people who think technical specifications are the only things that matter and don't think about cameras in the context of the end result, they think of them as some sort of theoretical engineering challenge with no practical purpose.
A frequently quoted parallel is that no-one cared about what paint brushes Michelangelo used to paint the Sistine Chapel except 1) painters at a similar level who are trying to take every advantage to achieve perfection, and 2) people that don't know anything about painting and think the tools make the artist.
I like the tech just as much as the next person, but at the end of the day "better" has to be defined against some sort of goal, and your goal is diametrically opposed to the goal of the entire industry that creates cinema and TV.  Further to that, the entire method of thinking is different too - yours is a goal to push to one extreme (the most realistic) and the goal of cinema and TV is to find the optimum point (the right balance between things looking real and un-real).

Sure, but how does this relate to what I posted about?

Try this site:
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
Every time you refresh it it creates a photo of a person who doesn’t exist using AI. Looks pretty realistic to me. 
 
The big tech companies are pouring billions into AI research right now and progress is rapid. Imagine where it’ll be in a decade. 

Of course, 24p doesn't make the magic of cinema!
But, the counterpoint is pretty strong - for many/most (as evidenced by this thread) the absence of 24p sure destroys it.
I think that perhaps one of the most overriding (and infuriating) principles at work here is that to make something truly cinematic requires that everything be at a high standard - there's very little room to move on the knife edge.
Of course, how much you can deviate from perfect and not ruin the whole thing is different for each element - the quality of acting or production design or sound design or writing might be more or less important than other elements, and are also going to depend on the viewer as well - one person is tolerant of mediocre acting and the next person will walk out of the cinema because of it.
For whatever reason, these forums tend to focus the discussion on the image.  At our best we talk about it with a certain emphasis over other aspects, and in our worst moments we talk about it like no other aspect of film-making exists.  For better or worse this often attracts people to drop into the forums who have no concept that the other aspects even exist, then the resulting discussions are just separated from the reality that almost everyone else lives in. 
I think AI will replace the farcical comic-book blockbusters that the Hollywood sausage-factory is currently configured to create, but to confuse the seemingly infinite stream of Insect-man and the Saviours of the Metaverse sequels for the entirety of "movies" is a mistake.
Cinematic "realism" is a much more nuanced concept than you might think, because I want movies to be intellectually "realistic" and/or emotionally "realistic".
People don't react well to serious movies with shallow and contrived plot lines, nor do they react well to bad acting, these are both forms of the movie not being realistic in other ways that do matter.
I've been contemplating this concept of "realism" and to be perfectly honest, the more I think about it the more I realise the entire concept is completely non-sensical.  If we take "realism" to its logical conclusion then:
Gone With The Wind, a movie that takes place over the course of the US Civil War and its aftermath, would have been over 5 years long - jumping forwards in time to just look at the "important" bits isn't even remotely realistic.
During screenings the audience will be made to partly starve due to the war-torn conditions.
  John Wick would be awful.  Making it realistic would result in something like this:
You get told to go kill John, you are nervous on your way there, you see him and run at him yelling, he almost immediately shoots you in the head, the movie is over in 17m42s.  The theatre has specially designed seats that break your legs at the 17m12s mark.
or,
You are John Wick, to be realistic from the perspective of almost every audience member worldwide, the 78 people in the first scene who are sent to kill you succeed.  You die in 3m27s.  The seats stab you from 5 different directions to simulate being shot. etc.
If you think these are completely preposterous, which they absolutely are, then you need to accept that some aspects of film-making are not best when made more "realistic".  From there it is possible to start to have a sensible discussion.
Human beings are exceptionally finely tuned animals when it comes to certain things like facial expressions and how things move in 3d environments etc, so I suspect that the uncanny valley will take a while to cross, probably a lot longer than most would imagine.
However, I think it will be crossed eventually because people are also great at personification and interpretation, as things like the Kuleshov effect show, especially if we are invested in the subject matter.
With enough data, AI will get there.
I find that people mis-interpret AI.  Here's how I suggest that you think about it.
The CPU of a computer has about as much sophistication as a pocket calculator.  I'm not kidding, they can literally only do binary logic operations.  Modern computers are billions of tiny little pocket calculators built to go screamingly fast.
AI is us programming them to analyse a bunch of input data and then make output data that fits the pattern.  ChatGPT is literally trillions of screamingly fast tiny calculators playing a game of "what comes next?" with a gargantuan database.
If the tiny calculators can learn to write a doctoral thesis, in English, or learn to make a photorealistic image of a monkey climbing a tree, then there is no logic in saying that it can analyse and mimic those things but not a nice edit.  
In my mind it's like saying that someone has walked 10,000 miles and has made it to the outskirts of the city, but that there's no way it could ever make it to the central train station.

Not sure how AI could do editing better than talented people, but, sure, you're right, it'll probably prove me wrong.  
I concede that AI right now can do automatic editing better than some people in general, but these are typically the content creators that just want to slap some shit together.  The standards are lower.
But, seriously, how could AI ever surpass some gal or guy that has earned wisdom (plus the context of it) and knows how to use that experience artistically?
I mean, I'm in edits all the time where I'm debating the need to drop or add a single frame --or knowing when to use a flawed shot because it has more "heart" than a previous take where the camera didn't loose focus.  
Now, what happens when you're the creative and you're doing the artistic 'algebra' where you have to consider how various takes combine over multiple edits to create a scene...
Yeah, I just wonder if it can replace that sort of vibe.  Maybe. 

Filmmaking will remain an art for more careful consideration.  AI will be for bland content.
AI will (and does) significantly help with the technical aspects of craft, but actual art is an intangible.  Even if AI eventually learns how to manipulate the various elements of filmmaking into emotional "beats" --I still think it'll feel fake.
That'll be good enough for non-discriminating people, but it'll remain in an emotional uncanny valley for others.

You'd be amazed at the number of folks that drop into the forums, ask a question, and then:
never answer follow-up questions and are never seen again argue with all the people trying to help them supply critical information many many pages later, despite having been asked directly along the way participate in the discussion nicely, then go out and buy the a wrong camera that was eliminated in the discussion, then complain about it because it has all these issues that everyone warned them about Hardly anyone even says 'thank you' either.
This is why experts burn-out from posting on forums - the trail of people who ask for help and then fight every inch of the process to try and provide the help they asked for.

Just when you thought the Z mount could not get any more adaptable, along comes an adapter to let you mount Fuji X lenses on your Z mount camera with full AF, aperture and OIS functionality.

Price is around $299 and available on back order / pre-order from Amazon.
APS-C only of course.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/BORYOZA-Adapter-Fujifilm-Micro-Z-Mount/dp/B0CPBRTMTX

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

It sounds like you missed the point.
I didn't post the video saying that it was an example of great image quality, I posted it to make the point that a lot of the techniques being used in cinema are also being used for creative YouTube videos.
This entire discussion has been about if film-making should be more or less realistic, and the point that many of us have been making is that almost all of the tools and techniques used in cinema deliberately make things less realistic.
The video I posted was an example of many techniques that improve the creative aspects, but make the end result less realistic, including:
cutting up clips into sequences that aren't 'continuity editing' but are more emotive combining multiple images at a time (e.g. the top-down shot in the bedroom) splicing in audio clips that were recorded at a different time than the visual being shown overlapping audio clips and other foley and SFX to create a creative rather than realistic sound design non-realistic colour grading filming insert shots (like the hanging of the clothes in the closet) for the purpose of association rather than limiting the edit to 'real' events production design techniques like use of lighting and light modifiers, smoke machines, etc in-camera visual effects like the top-down shot of the medium format camera etc.  there are likely lots more, these are just the things I could name off the top of my head From this perspective, such a video is an example of a great many techniques that are employed by film-makers to make the finished product more appealing, but do so specifically by making the end result less realistic.
You didn't like it, and that's fine, but my point was that there are deliberately non-realistic techniques being used on YT and the example shows a variety of them in use.  It didn't share it because I thought everyone would like it, it was an example to discuss the techniques.

If anyone is interested how Nikon ZF compares to Z8 in UHD