maxotics

Agree.  The million dollar question is whether removing net neutrality with make more competition or less.  I don't know.  I will argue the other case that if it wasn't for net neutrality we wouldn't be where we are now.  It allowed everyone to develop their services without spending a lot of time negotiating every connection.  Anyway, it's like all American politics these days.  There are no real issues discussed in the mainstream media.  Just good vs evil

I haven't read the details; however, in general I see "net neutrality" as another name for artificial pricing.  There are many problems with free markets, delivering better prices and services is generally not one of them (according to the economics I've read).   It seems most people want to keep net neutrality more from fear of the unknown and hatred of big cable companies.  I haven't seen any studies, from Wikipedia, that show clearly, with evidence, how it will hurt their service or my access to it.  Certainly, things will change, but it can be for the good.
For example, if providers can charge by bandwidth than it will be easier for competitors to build network out into rural areas without worrying that Netflix is going to swamp their lines.  They can charge one amount for those wanting to occasionally browse FB and those who want to watch Netflix.  Right now, it's very easy for Netflix to raise prices, which it is doing, but very difficult for the cable companies, devils that they may be.  Why should Netflix get a free ride on someone's difficult/expensive to build out network?
I have a hotspot which I use for business.  It's part of my cell plan and I pay $20 for the device.  It gives me unlimited data, but 15gig fast, then slows down to 600K?  Why, because most who use it will end up watching Netflix.  There is no way to separate users.  There is no 500gig plan or 600K plan because they need to match their pricing to net neutrality.  It's quite possible that once they do away with net neutrality, pricing will adjust to usage and for some it will go up, but others go down.  More importantly, there will be more levels of service based on bandwidth, not on the expectation that you can use as much as you want.   With net neutrality gone, Verizon would be free to make plans based on how much network they have and can sell in different areas.  
So I guess I'm one person against net neutrality because I'm against anything where there is artificial/forced pricing on services that have wide differences in cost to produce and end-users looking for different value propositions.
One last thing.  I live in Cambridge, home to Harvard and MIT.  We have internet speed issues from phone lines, telephone poles, etc.  The highly educated citizens can vote tomorrow for more taxes and the city to build its own network.  Do they?  No.  No one really wants to pay the real cost FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR   They're rather have some private company to do it and then they can BLAME THEM and I bitch about it ad nauseum.  This is nationwide is my guess.  Net neutrality exposes this expectation of getting something for nothing.
 
 

99% of photos and video will be shot on your personal life device (PLD), CANIKON CORP (they merge in 2021) has just gone bankrupt and the names Canon, Nikon and Canikon will be picked up for a song by the company holding the "Polaroid" name.
There will be much debate as to if the large M43 format is really THAT much better than the standard introduced by the 1mm Senors in most PLDs.        PLDs and old fashioned larger sensor ILCs mostly being made by the imaging and communication division of the Indo/Chinese company formed by the government owned company of the Peoples republic of the eastern hemisphere.
Then again, I could be wrong since my crystal balls sensor was made by Sony.

A lot of Sony "zombie skin" is from filmmakers using LOG and de-saturated profiles where they shouldn't.  I've tried to be the "LOG police" on the Internet but will give up.  The desire to believe you can get pro-equipment/lighting quality in mirrorless is stronger than the simple fact of the matter--"film quality" (what should we call it?) is now moving well past consumer equipment.  The trend will only continue into 2023.  In other words, many consumer equipment filmmakers will always believe in snake-oil  (LOG, 10bit, rec2020 as a shooting CODEC, etc.)  Of course, all those shooting wild-color music videos and zombie movies will be as proud as peacocks with their mirrorless kits
The epiphany came for me while watching Netflix's "Abstract" series--on a 720 TV.  I thought it was done on something like the Canon C300, or even C500.  Nope, RAW-shootin' Red Epic Dragons with $10,000+ glass.  When this site was in its formative years ER (I believe) shot a whole episode using a 5DII.  It was good, but not as good as the professional equipment of the time (too much aliasing from spread out pixels on that FF sensor).  I believe a 5D4 is no closer to today's professional video cameras--farther even.
Unless consumer cameras shoot essentially RAW quality (and it seems physical power limitations are preventing this because SD cards are now fast enough) then the cameras of 2023 will be as you describe.  Better than today's cameras.  Not as superior to the cameras of 2017 as today's cameras are from 2012.  
All that said, one can get in the game, even with a G6 (what was his name on this forum that championed that camera?) that was IMPOSSIBLE when I was young and even a few minutes of 16mm film was $100 back then (never mind the camera!).  
Some more proof that video has diverged is @Mattias Burling. He used to shoot RAW, now it's 8bit.  So I believe his YouTube quality has gone down, but seems I'm the only one (though it doesn't stop me from watching his videos)!  If mirrorless today is good enough then it should be good enough in 2023.  
Other questions, are, will consumer available video editing/processing software and lighting get powerful enough to do David Fincher type work?  I'm certainly interested in your thoughts there Oliver!   I know this seems left field, but I've heard the iPhone X is selling mostly because of the real-time video emojis it can create using its face recognition post processing software/chips, etc.  That's what I mean about post technology.  Maybe computer visual processing will be more important than whether or not it's 8bit or RAW sourced.

A lot of Sony "zombie skin" is from filmmakers using LOG and de-saturated profiles where they shouldn't.  I've tried to be the "LOG police" on the Internet but will give up.  The desire to believe you can get pro-equipment/lighting quality in mirrorless is stronger than the simple fact of the matter--"film quality" (what should we call it?) is now moving well past consumer equipment.  The trend will only continue into 2023.  In other words, many consumer equipment filmmakers will always believe in snake-oil  (LOG, 10bit, rec2020 as a shooting CODEC, etc.)  Of course, all those shooting wild-color music videos and zombie movies will be as proud as peacocks with their mirrorless kits
The epiphany came for me while watching Netflix's "Abstract" series--on a 720 TV.  I thought it was done on something like the Canon C300, or even C500.  Nope, RAW-shootin' Red Epic Dragons with $10,000+ glass.  When this site was in its formative years ER (I believe) shot a whole episode using a 5DII.  It was good, but not as good as the professional equipment of the time (too much aliasing from spread out pixels on that FF sensor).  I believe a 5D4 is no closer to today's professional video cameras--farther even.
Unless consumer cameras shoot essentially RAW quality (and it seems physical power limitations are preventing this because SD cards are now fast enough) then the cameras of 2023 will be as you describe.  Better than today's cameras.  Not as superior to the cameras of 2017 as today's cameras are from 2012.  
All that said, one can get in the game, even with a G6 (what was his name on this forum that championed that camera?) that was IMPOSSIBLE when I was young and even a few minutes of 16mm film was $100 back then (never mind the camera!).  
Some more proof that video has diverged is @Mattias Burling. He used to shoot RAW, now it's 8bit.  So I believe his YouTube quality has gone down, but seems I'm the only one (though it doesn't stop me from watching his videos)!  If mirrorless today is good enough then it should be good enough in 2023.  
Other questions, are, will consumer available video editing/processing software and lighting get powerful enough to do David Fincher type work?  I'm certainly interested in your thoughts there Oliver!   I know this seems left field, but I've heard the iPhone X is selling mostly because of the real-time video emojis it can create using its face recognition post processing software/chips, etc.  That's what I mean about post technology.  Maybe computer visual processing will be more important than whether or not it's 8bit or RAW sourced.

I predict the downfall of at least one of the bigger players. Probably two. 
Other than that it will be the same story. Just like today cameras will have every single thing we asked for a few years earlier. But we're still not happy.

Chinese and Korean lens manufacturers increase their total market share to 20% worldwide auto focus,DSLR and mirrorless
lens sales.They shewdly employed some of the best computer programers so that their lens autofocus
could match or exceed native lenses.Face detection now gives a facial "freckle count".

Oliver don't make things even harder. 
I can't buy a GH5 cause GH5s is coming. 
I can't buy an E-M1mkii either cause the new E-M5mkiii is coming. 
A7rmkiii? No, because the A7smkiii is coming. 
An X-T2? How can I when the X-H1 is coming?
Of course I can't buy Canon or Nikon cause their kickass FF mirrorless is about to unveil for few years now. 
Terrible christmas I am telling you. Now I will have to use all these lousy cameras that already have everything that I have ever wished for. 

As an a6500 / a6300 / a600 user, a few things to think about:
If you get an a6500 / a6300, then I would suggest that you strongly think about getting an a6000 as well as a B camera / 1080p camera. The 1080p out of the a6000 is better than that of the 1080p our of the a6300 / a6500 (I am working on a comparison video on this).
Unfortunately the a6000 only does 1080p at 60fps, so in case you need 120fps, you would have to use the 1080p of the a6300 / a6500 (or a different camera).
The 4K of the a6300 / a6500 is really gorgeous.  the problems are the screen dims so you have to be good at shooting blind, it tends to overheat (a6500 is better at refraining from overheating), and the rolling shutter.
I prefer the colors of EOSHD Pro Color profile (I just have the original version... was there a version 2? I know I don't have version 3).
But I actually might like Dom Blond's profiles as well (uses Cine 1 and Cine 4 Gammas). I encourage you to look them up on youtube.
The AF of the a6300 / a6500 is much better than that of the a6000, espescially with adapted lenses. The Sigma 19, 30, and 60 f/2.8 primes are sharp but they don't take advantage of the full autofocus functions of the a6300 / a6500.
I think there is a subtle improvement in stabilization when using my a6500 with IBIS on the crane compared to using the a6300 (or a6000) with no IBIS (only lens-based OSS) on the crane when walking. If I am using my crane and PANNING, I prefer to turn stabilization off... at least, that is how I feel about it today. Tomorrow I might find that having stabilization on when panning using the crane is better. We shall see.
And if you think that you are going to be using some cheap manual focus primes than the a6500 is the way to go because of the IBIS. The other route might be an MC-11 adapter and a couple of Canon EF lenses or Sigma for canon lenses (people love the 18-35 f/1.8 on an a6500). 
The a6300 and a6500 are really excellent stills cameras, by the way. The a6000 is no slouch at stills, either, to be honest. I prefer the a6500 the most but, of course, it is the most expensive. The IBIS is not bad (for stills). I was able to shoot some clean stills with my 85mm lens on my a6500 around 1/20th of a second (holding my breath, very GENTLY pressing the shutter button, while leaning against a wall for stability). Since 85mm on crop sensor is around 130 on full frame, that is around three stops of IBIS functionality for stills in the real world (if you are very careful).
I have a D750 and since I NEVER used the viewfinder (neither on my Nikon bodies nor on my Sony bodies), the LiveView AF of the D750 can't keep up with that of the a6500 / a6300 (or even a6000).
Having said all that, the a6500 is not for everyone. Be sure to re-read the negatives I listed above.
As Max Yurev said in one of his videos, for MOST people the Panasonic G85 is going to be a better camera than the a6500. 
Hope this helps.

I am using https://mpc-hc.org/ which is an open source media player, which I found excellent. I haven't used any VLC since going to Windows 10.
How's the Aero by the way? I am reading excellent reviews, but I just bought (in the summer, actually) an Asus GL502, as the Aero series wasn't even available in my country.

Been talking to Salim a bit on PM about the Atomos I have.  The more I think about it, the more I believe he has adequate equipment for his shoot.  An external monitor may help with getting shallow focus, but it will  will create a host of other problems.  
First, shallow focus: I'm sure others have more experience than me here.  I find it difficult enough in photography.  In video?  Unless the person is very still, shallow focus is almost impossible to track.   When I see it attempted on TV there's always a second or two when the subject gets out of focus (and that's after they've picked the best clip from a bunch of footage).  What I find difficult about shallow focus in a moving object is determining the direction of someone moving from a 2-dimensional screen.  Having stereoscopic vision allows us to make the determination, somewhat. A monitor is like looking at the scene with one eye. So, though I can see when the focus pixels fire on the screen, getting them back once the subject moves, that's a challenge unless I know the marks they subject is going for.  Generally I don't.  So I can't quickly figure out which direction the subject is moving. Camera autofocus doesn't have some magic in this AFAIK.  That's why Canon came out with new STM lenses for the dual pixel (which have special, quiet, focusing micro motors).  I believe the camera essentially focus hunts back and forth, but so quickly that you don't notice it.   This is the same reason Nikon struggles in video focus.  The autofocus system is designed to find focus as quickly as possible, for the photo, not keep in focus once it's there.
So the question, often posed here on EOSHD, is, can you manually focus as well with a Nikon say, as Canon's computer can with its DPAF, or even the new Sony cameras?  My 2-cents is, not any more.  I either use DPAF or I zone focus.  
All that means an external monitor, to me, has marginal benefits over either the focus peaking on the camera, a magnifier on the back LCD.  Salim might be better putting in time practicing with what he has with talent that is given marks to hit.  The A6000 has very good autofocus with the 35/1.8.  
The reason I stopped using the Atomos is mounting it puts you between a rock and a hard place.  You with use a small swivel, which due to the leverage of the screen, always threatens to come lose and the monitor crashing down onto the camera, or you use a cage where now you have a big rig that will CERTAINLY draw attention in the tube, or any place where cameras are not welcome.  The cable to the camera adds huge mental stress to me, at any rate.  Then there are the batteries.   Like light rays, every additional wire or battery you add to your rig exponentially raises the risk of some failure if not your anxiety.  That why such setups need a crew.  You need to delegate those worries.
Some proof to what I'm saying is I never see youTube videos with a single shooter using an external monitor.  It's always a crew of some sort.  Once you get into that, then you really have to balance your investment in the monitor with everything else.  And if you have a crew, my guess is the talent will want to put time into learning their marks so as not to get cold looks at the evening post party
 
 
 
 

I'm still in audio purgatory.  My experience so far.  Spending TIME experimenting/configuring a $25 Takstar mini-boom and $25 wired lav is better than MONEY spent on an expensive Rode NTG1.  Environmental considerations FAR OUTWEIGH mic quality.  For example, I set up my NTG1 in my office and was getting super audio.  I then went to a friend's, similar sized room, but the audio came out horribly because my friend's room echoed a lot. (Yes, I listened on headphones but didn't hear it).    I didn't have the experience/expertise to either get the mic closer or ditch it for a $25 lav.
Therefore, I'm going to make a counter-intuitive suggestion.  DO NOT GET a good mic first.  Get a Takstar and Lav (or similar) and experiment trying to get good audio with each, writing down your findings, etc.    Learning environment and levels has done the best for me.  AND AND AND, working with post audio processing.  Premiere has some amazing tools now "Essential Audio" that gives one a good idea of what's possible.  
Once you get all that sorted out, then shop for an expensive mic based on what you COULDN'T do with your cheap mics.  That's what I'm doing now.  The problem with an expensive mic is that unless you have all variations (boom, super cardoid, lav, wireless, etc.) you end up forcing whatever good mic you have into situations a cheaper solution would be better for.  Again, I should have ditched the NTG1 for a cheap wired lav at my friend's place.
BTW, the difference between my Takstar and Rode is VERY slight.  I can only hear it because I'm listening for it.  NO NORMAL person would notice a difference if I switched mics during the video.  The bigger difference is the unbalanced mic could be wired up longer and has less risk of interference.  
Well, that's where I'm at!

Boy, kick a guy when he's dumb...ur...down   OH WAIT, a pun!  I'm not shure actually.  But what do you expect.  I Rhode into town on the wrong horse!

Boy, kick a guy when he's dumb...ur...down   OH WAIT, a pun!  I'm not shure actually.  But what do you expect.  I Rhode into town on the wrong horse!

Haha! All good.
I'm just a weirdo nerd with a head full of tech specs and acronyms.

In the metro you can get away with a grainy look from any camera.  Even professional TV/film seems to let its hair down in the subway   Think you're set with those kind of shots.  I have something similar, Nebula 3000 (?).  The thing about the C100 is it's sensor is MADE for video.  It's an A7S long before Sony made one.    If you're doing the story at some point you need to focus on directing and get a cinematographer.  They'll have the "good stuff"   Ironically, a better camera may hurt you because you'll get into the camera settings.  That's certainly how I screw myself over and over and over again!  The D810 and A6000 are great video cameras in 8bit.  IMHO, you need to spend $5,000 to really make that next leap.  All the stuff in between is a compromise.  Even if you had a RED and every piece of equipment you want, working alone, a crew of 4 with Canon T3I, audio person, lighting person and assistant will end up with better footage.  So put your money where the difference will make it to the end!  Sounds like you're already doing it the right way.  So rock on!

Much better low light. I m not going to sell my GH5 and loose money to buy a more expensive version for just 1 stop of usable ISO gain.
DR is already quite good on the GH5 for a M43 sensor. Of course if Pana comes with 12 bits, HDR and/or clean high frame rate that would be something to consider too but it's not the main factor for me. Finally, the price we'll be important too. Personally I don't believe in ground breaking AF feature.
But no matter what, if this rumor is true and Pana releases a new ground breaking version of the GH5 I'll would be very pissed. That would be such a dick move less than a year after the GH5 hit the store shelves. A camera like that doesn't show up in 6 months, manufacturers have long term road-map. Wait and see...
 

Yes looks like Casey has one...
Well well well.... Better get my "old" GH5 on eBay quick!

"Dynamic Range" is such a misused phrase.  It's the MacGuffin of filmmaker dreams and fantasy.  When someone writes the camera could have 15+ stops of DR my head explodes.  Measured how?  I'll try another way to explain how I see it.  In an 8-bit DATA space (which Panasonic is probably shotgun married to in its electronics), you only have 16 million color values.  If you shoot in 6 stops, you have 16/6=2.6 million colors.  If you shoot in 15 stops you have 1 million colors.  The data "word"/bit size is what sets the maximum colors you can capture.  So after the camera comes out various camera experts will show on YouTube/Vimeo how you can see 15 white/gray bars, each exposed 1 stop away from the other.  So yes, if you're shooting white bars you have 15 stops of dynamic range.  However, change each bar to an individual color chart and you will see banding because you can't spread color out in 15 stops in 8 bit without seeing it in many situations.  Again, you want 2.6 million colors at each stop, or 1 million?  10bit full color compressed video is not the same as 10bit single-channel RAW, not even close.  Arggggghhh!
What's so mystifying to me--the million dollar question--is why Panasonic can't offer RAW.  A GH5 with RAW output would be a game changer.  I'd buy one immediately! Anyone?  As for the focus stuff.  I agree with the above.  Sony and Canon invested in low-level tech that can't be done without changing manufacturing.  No one wants to hear this, but Panasonic is married to the wrong sensor size.  Might have been one of the points @Don Kotlos was trying to make.  Yes, there are many tricks that can be done to improve the image.  But GROSS Dynamic Range?  As they say in cars, "there's no replacement for displacement"   If Canon can get 4K on its consumer cameras Panasonic will be in very serious trouble.  That's my thoughts on their desire to keep announcing.

Had to check hours.  It has 191 hours.  Would include 2 Belkin 64GB SD cards, 2 batteries, box, charger, etc.  Thinking $1650 including postage.  Optional add Atomos Ninja Blade with 128GB SSD for $250, 18-135mm STM for $150, Rhode NT2 (I think, not sure $). 
@salim  I have both the A6000 and A6300. Where do you want to go?  Do you want to be a cinematographer, director, producer?  That will help me answer your question.
  
 
 

As much as I love my C100 (with DPAF) I don't use it enough to justify keeping it.  I hate stuff just lying around.  So will probably sell it, so keep that in mind if you decide you really want one and I'll give you another option.  Some more thoughts, for a few minutes of video here and there, the A6300 works perfectly for me.  What I love about the C100 is it just works well in almost any light and the battery lasts, it doesn't get hot, has XLRs, etc.  It isn't 4K, but as perfect and nice looking 1080 as I've ever seen (it downscales to 1080 from 4K internally).   If I ever want to do long-form video again I'd buy another in a heartbeat.  I'm in the U.S. though, Boston area.

As much as I love my C100 (with DPAF) I don't use it enough to justify keeping it.  I hate stuff just lying around.  So will probably sell it, so keep that in mind if you decide you really want one and I'll give you another option.  Some more thoughts, for a few minutes of video here and there, the A6300 works perfectly for me.  What I love about the C100 is it just works well in almost any light and the battery lasts, it doesn't get hot, has XLRs, etc.  It isn't 4K, but as perfect and nice looking 1080 as I've ever seen (it downscales to 1080 from 4K internally).   If I ever want to do long-form video again I'd buy another in a heartbeat.  I'm in the U.S. though, Boston area.

Hi Jonesy, I was just taking a shower thinking I should do a video on this subject.  I'm still not clear on it all, but this is my current understanding from my experiments with the Sony X70 that has both 8 and 10bit.  
Theoretically, what you say is correct IF the 10bit value ends up in a 10bit space.  So when I shot 10bit on the Sony X70 I expected to see a big increase in DR.  I detected none.  Why?  I haven't seen any big real DR improvement of 10bit anywhere on the Internet.  Just a lot of marketing "you'll see" type of stuff. 
Excuse me if this is confusing.  I'm still trying to figure it out in my head.
When you use RAW values you'd have 1024 per channel, as you say, so there's a big difference between 256 at the stop of 8bit, and 1024, right?  That's the way I see it too.  So let's say we have 3 RGB values of 100, 256 and 1024 so multiplied we have 26,214,400.  Can we fit this in a 10bit space?  Absolutely, IF we're saving CHANNEL data as 10bits.  And when I've shot some limited Magic Lantern at 12bit I DO SEE a marked improvement over 8bit H.264.
So when I looked at the 8bit vs 10bit files from the X70 they were roughly the same file size, but I did see a difference in banding (but I had to super pixel peep).   So how could it really be 10bit?  And if it isn't really 10bit, what is it?
My guess is that it is really 8bit with an extra couple of bits added to the full color data.  So it really isn't 10bit, it's more like 26bit full color (24bit plus 2 bits).  That would explain why the colors would band less on close inspection.  There is more precision between shades.  
Time will tell if I'm wrong, but so far I believe everyone has fallen for a lot of marketing hype, nonsense.  Not surprising to me, if you read my other posts few understand DR properly   Panasonic loves to muddy the water with all manner of CODECs and bit-rate-mumbo-jumbo.  So that's my take so far.  It's not 10bit acquisition.  It's more like 8.1 bit display  

"Dynamic Range" is such a misused phrase.  It's the MacGuffin of filmmaker dreams and fantasy.  When someone writes the camera could have 15+ stops of DR my head explodes.  Measured how?  I'll try another way to explain how I see it.  In an 8-bit DATA space (which Panasonic is probably shotgun married to in its electronics), you only have 16 million color values.  If you shoot in 6 stops, you have 16/6=2.6 million colors.  If you shoot in 15 stops you have 1 million colors.  The data "word"/bit size is what sets the maximum colors you can capture.  So after the camera comes out various camera experts will show on YouTube/Vimeo how you can see 15 white/gray bars, each exposed 1 stop away from the other.  So yes, if you're shooting white bars you have 15 stops of dynamic range.  However, change each bar to an individual color chart and you will see banding because you can't spread color out in 15 stops in 8 bit without seeing it in many situations.  Again, you want 2.6 million colors at each stop, or 1 million?  10bit full color compressed video is not the same as 10bit single-channel RAW, not even close.  Arggggghhh!
What's so mystifying to me--the million dollar question--is why Panasonic can't offer RAW.  A GH5 with RAW output would be a game changer.  I'd buy one immediately! Anyone?  As for the focus stuff.  I agree with the above.  Sony and Canon invested in low-level tech that can't be done without changing manufacturing.  No one wants to hear this, but Panasonic is married to the wrong sensor size.  Might have been one of the points @Don Kotlos was trying to make.  Yes, there are many tricks that can be done to improve the image.  But GROSS Dynamic Range?  As they say in cars, "there's no replacement for displacement"   If Canon can get 4K on its consumer cameras Panasonic will be in very serious trouble.  That's my thoughts on their desire to keep announcing.

The theory that's always made the most sense to me about Panasonic's lack of phase-detect is that Sony, their sensor supplier, has them contractually excluded from it, in order to protect the competing Sony cameras. Olympus is allowed to buy sensors that are nearly identical, but with phase detect enabled, because their cams traditionally don't have much of a video focus, and thus aren't seen as real competitors to the Sonys on the video front (implying the video aspects are indeed a major factor in sales).
Panasonic's statements about DFD being technically superior are just marketing bluster- of course they're not going to admit a weakness in their product, nor are they going to admit that Sony has them by the balls on this. They said similar things about OIS being superior to IBIS, right up until they started including IBIS in their cameras. If your competitors come out with a superior tech, you bluster about your existing tech being better, being proven, being reliable.... until your engineers are able to play catch-up, and then you introduce it with your next line. Marketing 101.
I guarantee once they're able to source sensors elsewhere (TowerJazz?), we'll see phase-detect introduced.
Not sure how realistic it is to wish for Dual-Pixel AF though, as that's Canon's proprietary/patented technology. I doubt they're interested in licensing it to a competitor, at least in cameras. They've licensed it for cellphone cameras because they're never going to compete in that space directly, and the phone market is so massive that even that simple licensing fee is big bucks.