indianajones

Andrew,

The BBC is not impartial, and neither is Wikipedia, you're a naive fool if you think otherwise.

YouTube and Facebook are in much deeper trouble because they've anointed themselves the position of deciding if your video content is fit for their platform.  Anything they don't like, they reserve the right to take it down without a meaningful appeal process.  That's not a platform, that's a curator.  And as a curator, they become responsible for the content on their platform.  Much worse situation than Vimeo (and Vimeo lost!).  If anyone bothers to sue YouTube over this, it's the end of YouTube.  Possibly Facebook too.

Andrew, congratulations, you deserve the recognition.

UKIP is possibly racist?  You're a blind fool.

Regarding a possible reason why Canon may have split the files at 4GB...

I wrote one of the earliest MJPEG video recorder and player apps in the early '90s, and I always had to split my files at 1GB even though the file system could handle more - because other players couldn't handle the larger file sizes. It's possible Canon faced a similar threshold when they wrote their firmware. I don't work for Canon, but I'm just saying there are often other limiting factors besides the file system.

I screwed up.  Interview opened in 300 theaters and did $2.5M for the weekend.  If it's a normal Christmas release without the terrorism, then it opens in 10x more theaters and likely gets 10x more money - $25M.  I originally ran numbers on first day earnings not weekend earnings, so I came out incorrectly low at $10-$12M.  So yeah I'm actually at $25M for the weekend, pretty close to your estimate.

$30M is a killer Christmas weekend that was never in the cards for The Interview. More like $10-12M for this movie.

So actually $30M in 3 weeks online  is a pretty good haul.

Andrew, isn't this sensor too small to be considered for true cinema applications? 

What is the problem people have with speculation exactly?

 

You read EOSHD as much for my opinion I hope, as you do for raw specs, facts and figures.

Correct! I love hearing about both facts and opinions.  I'm just disagreeing with one of them.

A typical conversation between a Canon or Nikon rep and a consumer satisfied with their smartphone and existing DSLR would go a bit like this -

 

Consumer: why do I need this new model. It's expensive!

 

Rep: it will give you better image quality than your smartphone!

 

Consumer: but I have taken a lot of nice images with my smartphone (Editor's note: and so have I, because it is always there to capture a special moment, whilst a DSLR isn't)

 

Rep: [Spouts some technical jargon about sensor size]

 

Consumer: Hmm

 

Rep: You can pair it to your smartphone via WiFi for social networks

 

Consumer: I cannot be bothered. Carrying two devices is impractical on a daily basis. Through sheer laziness I only take photos using my smartphone. Sometimes even on special occasions. Pairing via a WiFi network is slow and complicated. May as well use a card reader. It is of no use to me.

 

Rep: Hmm

 

Consumer: I have a 5D Mark III by the way. What do you have to tempt me to upgrade that!?

 

Rep: Nothing!

Wait, *who* has a Canon 5d Mark III?  The average camera buyer?

You can't speculate with facts! The sales are down. Fact. Fact you have a 7D still after all these years, only reinforces my argument.

 

Please try better to argue the next time :)

Andrew,

I love your site, but I have to disagree.  You *are* speculating with the facts, we all are.  No one is arguing that sales are down, we're arguing about why sales are down.

On Oct 26, 2013, you wrote:

"Consumer digital camera sales are down 36% this year. Why? I think there are four reasons.

• Smartphones
• Satisfaction with current DSLRs
• Lack of innovate products
• Global economic downturn"

Today you wrote:

"Now in an era of falling shipments both companies have blamed smartphones and the world economy. This is completely unacceptable."

Just a year ago, you agreed in large portion with Nikon and Canon, but now you find those conclusions unacceptable.  Yet I contend that the points you now reject *are* the core reasons why the market has collapsed.  Nikon and Canon spent the last 10 years feeding the market with successively-lower cost product that improved substantially annually.  Unfortunately for them, technology and economics has caught up with them and now everyone has a smartphone that does probably 90% of everything the average buyer will ever do with a camera, and they likely aren't willing to pay $600 to get that extra 10%.  Do you disagree with last statement (of opinion)?

It's not too different from the computer market.  After years and years of increasingly powerful and more capable desktop computers with increasingly productive features, most people now have more computing power than they'll ever use, and they've stopped buying computers.  Instead, they're buying smaller and smaller devices, because even those devices are powerful enough to meet most of their computing needs.  The smartphone has done that to the digital camera business (and the computer business!).  What possible innovations could be performed on the desktop computer that would bring sales back to the good old days when most people are already happy with their tablet?  The same question could be asked of the digital camera market:

What innovations do you have in mind that *would* cause the average camera buyer to plunk down $1000 (or $700) on a new camera?  Do you really think that if Canon and Nikon both released killer mirrorless full-frame 4:2:2 4K 240fps@1080p 14-stop DR with ND for $999 that sales would suddenly go back up to the good old days of 2012?  Do you know how many people actually care about those specs?  Pretty much everyone who routinely goes to this awesome website of yours, and almost no one else.

Yes, there was a compliment buried in there, we all love your site and your opinions, even if we disagree.

I thought the speed booster was supposed to work with full frame EF lenses, but Andrew implies that actually APS-C lenses are the ones to use.  Or I misunderstood what he was saying.  So is it that both types will work but APS-C is the "better" choice?

Andrew, could you please share why you are recommending against Final Cut Pro X?  Is there something technical that it doesn't do well/correctly/at-all?

I understand the concern everyone has, considering Blackmagic's past issues, but has anyone on this board been a manufacturer of a high-tech product?  It's not easy to pull together the massive amount of engineering, manufacturing, supply, and cost issues that constantly pull against each other.  If Blackmagic is telling the truth, then I would consider "a few weeks late" on two simultaneous year-long projects to be a successful on-time shipment.

But hey, I'm not holding my breath either.  I live in their world, I know what it's like. Let's just wait and see what happens.