majoraxis

Microsoft has the argument, that the open web is fair use and can be fed page by page into the machine.
In same way Google indexes the WWW.
If they decide against AI and the derivative works are not allowed to be neural network influenced by other works, it might have some unintended consequences - such as preventing human artists from using their influences.
After all, ai and us are working in pretty similar ways.
Maybe the difference here is that the data of the literal original is crunched. It is dissolved up into numbers and understood in terms of patterns and styles by the machine. So those original 1s and 0s are stored on OpenAI's server, in totality and their entirety.
Whereas a human artist, never has a precise copy of the exact original digital work in our head... only the abstract version in working memory.

Its funny that rage against the AI killed them, not the AI itself. 

It is fun fun fun times, both my main career (filmmaking) and my backup / previous career (i.e. the CS/IT world) are going through very rough patches right now. 
Want to go back to how it was a couple of years ago when I could be working 100hr weeks if I wished (& I did!). 

When I saw yesterday that you will now be able do do 4k120p ProRes on a phone, I imagined the shame being felt by any number of camera companies who claim they can't do it on their dedicated cameras.  Not sure yet how long the iPhone can roll 4k120 without overheating, but Canon should be making a face like the meme awkward puppet monkey right about now...
It's increasingly obvious that camera vendors should stop trying to build their own special magic chips (Bionz! Digic!  X-Processor Pro!) and figure out how to adopt current-generation smartphone processors.  Why build a dedicated chip on a 14nm process when you could build your system on a much more powerful chip that was built with 2nm that uses less power and runs so much cooler?
A lot of vendors should feel relief that the companies who have (so far) tried to blend phone and camera have done such a tremendously terrible job of integration.  Eventually somebody's gonna get it right.

I would like to discover some new sites and YouTubers.
I am going to delete DPReview and all the reviews sites from my bookmarks and RSS. Had enough of em.
I miss Philip Bloom and his cats. I never thought I'd say that  
His blog was a brilliantly entertaining read but he doesn't do it any more really.
I've found some great YouTubers and people on this forum who I follow the blogs and channels of.
Now I'd like to know more.
Who regularly updates on new camera news, gives intelligent opinions, actually uses the stuff, actually makes original content? Also is Reddit a good place for camera reviews?
And even... Are there any Vimeors? People with regular and good camera tests, on their Vimeo account?

Some worrying thoughts are occupying my mind at the moment so it might do me some good to let them out for a run... Here goes.
In the 1990s I grew up with the early internet, it wasn't very media rich due to the bandwidth constraints and it only worked well on a big screen with a keyboard at a desk, so it suited web pages and forums. Written stuff, basically. Come the y2k and we began to see the early social media sites like Myspace and then Facebook but you still had to use these at a desk. Which lends itself to being able to type long sentences and create art.
Come smartphones, they couldn't offer the full world wide web experience, on a pokey slow browser, but this changed with apps. So fast forward a bit to the 2010s... There has been a proliferation of apps into our lives, but it wasn't really until Youtube and Facebook Groups got some serious traction that things started to change. I used to be pretty confident in the EOSHD blogging days that if I sat down to write a review, or opinion, or do some proper journalism or get a scoop and break the camera news first it would get some attention and traction, now I am not so sure it will as it is a separate indie .com website outside of social media, and this is very bad news for the internet because we cannot let Meta and Google and a handful of other corporations OWN the entire web.
So to the making a living bit...
For creatives like photographers and filmmakers the internet was a real blessing, it allows you to setup stall with a website and get your work out there. You get noticed and then you get hired, that's how it used to work. There has to be a strong demand from industry for those positions as well, no matter how good you are it doesn't matter if the cinema industry is in a downward spiral.
Cinema and photography have to compete with other forms of content too.
Again it comes back to smartphones. Neither cinema and photography are well suited to a small screen and even smaller attention spans, they are supposed to be viewed on a large canvas and in a socially interactive way like in a gallery or theatre. Now with stuff like streaming, this works fine when everyone has a subscription to one or two of the same platforms like Netflix and are stuck at home with nothing better to do like during covid, but after a while there is a total oversupply of stuff to watch, and a total ADHD mess of an audience who is getting constantly distracted by social media content in direct competition to the long form stuff.
So we have a meltdown at the moment in the filmmaking industry, and even in the commercial videography industry where it is now so easy to shoot something, companies may as well hire an intern to do it or have some staff do it themselves, because the bar is set by social media and that as I said works best with very short authentic bursts of home made content, where production quality or even the camera doesn't really matter.
With photography, if you're an artist trying to compete for attention with all of that stuff you are going to be in trouble if you don't do double-duties as a social media influencer, which of course means making YOURSELF the story and front and centre. Not a lot of artists are all that comfortable with that. I'm not. So the business model now is that your content has to be free, and you merchandise it or earn from advertising and sponsorship due to your social media reach as an artist. And I REALLY hate that because it cheapens what it means to be a photographer or filmmaker.
At the end of the day, the photos and films should be what matter and they should be paid for.
PS
Have you noticed by the way - that the AI bubble has completely lost people's interest, the content is all so un-compelling? Why do you think this is... It's because there is so much of it... And it is disassociated with the artist's own hand... And that is exactly what all this tech has done to use filmmakers and photographers... The accessibility of tech means that there's now too much content, and not enough demand for the next piece.
A big economic correction is on the way.

It is crazy that they'd use a DOF adapter on a high-end production like this.
The ground glass doesn't work very well and introduces all sorts of softness and corner blur.
If that is the look they are going for, why the fuck are they using 50k ARRI primes?
I can only assume it might be a specially modified iPhone from Apple with an interchangeable PL mount for modern Super 16mm lenses.

I would go for a second hand E-M1 II over either of those. They are very cheap now and in some ways even better than the OM-1. The sensor readout is more detailed in 4K.
The E-M10 III shoots 4K whereas E-M5 II shoots absolute mud. It was dodgy in video mode even for 2014 standards!
If you absolutely can't justify an E-M1 II for 100 bucks more, the E-M10 III is the one to get.
Canon Rp is a disaster, stay away from that for video. It feels awful to use and crops like hell.

Sure, $30k seems a lot for a camera, but if I don't spend that, where am I going to get content for my 17K TV?  🙄

I think the problem with some of these discussions is the fact that we argue about gear like we are using it for the same purposes. We are discussing the merits of specific trucks, only some of us are using the trucks for a country drive to church, and some of us are hauling loads cross country. This makes the conversations very frustrating. 
 
You can take a drive with an 8 stop DR GH1 and get some pretty shots of the trees at sunset and feel the wind in your hair. But have you ever tried to shoot a commercial project or a modern documentary with 8 stops of DR and be competitive in today's market? 

"let’s have a look at the waveform shooting our standard XYLA21 chart with the GH1 – 8 usable stops are visible: 
  Waveform plot of the 2009 original LUMIX GH1 shooting the XYLA 21 chart – 8 stops are usable. Image credit: CineD
8 stops!? How was I ever able to shoot anything on the GH1 with that seemingly poor dynamic range? Well – interestingly enough, when I now look at some of my early GH1 films on Vimeo they look totally fine to me… it is glaringly obvious that camera technology hasn’t been limiting us anymore for a very very long time. "
 
Panasonic LUMIX GH6 Lab Test - Rolling Shutter, Dynamic Range, and Latitude | CineD
https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-gh6-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

I did the same, but in the opposite. I took a GH6 on holiday. Why? I care about the actual files I create. I don't want to look back on them and say "I wish I had taken my camera". I don't see that feeling going away anytime soon either. Sure, phones are getting better and in a pinch, why not? But when I can, I'll take the camera for its quality, better shooting experience and its authenticity (no AI crap going on that I have NO control over), not to mention I think I look like a douchebag when I use my phone.

I went on vacation and didn’t bring my GH6.  I used my iPhone 15 for photos and video instead.  Even if I would have brought the GH6 I would not have been prepared to shoot my friend’s kit boarding lessons from a lawn chair under a palm tree on the beach with a 15x zoom that I didn’t think to bring.
Could I have maybe captured it better with the right lens on the GH6 - sure!  Did he care - nope he like it so much he asked me to airdrop the videos to his iPhone as we were driving to the airport.
For me getting the shot is as important as getting the perfect shot. And in the near future just getting the shot will lead good enough results with the help of AI.
With less demand it is inevitable the lenses prices will fall until of course when there is a time when no one makes lenses anymore and ten years go by and the prices of lenses will start to go up and up…

I had an URSA Mini Pro 4.6k that shot Cinema DNG and BRAW (a firmware upgrade discontinued Cinema DNG). The BRAW was slightly less resolved with a slight color shift compare to the Cinema DNG.  Once color corrected I did not notice which shots were which on YouTube.  From the online comparison between BRAW and Pro Res RAW it seems that Pro Res RAW has a finer noise structure, which makes the Pro Res RAW slightly better looking IMHO.  BRAW at higher resolutions like with the URSA 12k shooting 8k resolution, I have no complaints unless I don't provide enough light, then I see the slight limitations of BRAW as compared to Pro Res RAW.

I went on vacation and didn’t bring my GH6.  I used my iPhone 15 for photos and video instead.  Even if I would have brought the GH6 I would not have been prepared to shoot my friend’s kit boarding lessons from a lawn chair under a palm tree on the beach with a 15x zoom that I didn’t think to bring.
Could I have maybe captured it better with the right lens on the GH6 - sure!  Did he care - nope he like it so much he asked me to airdrop the videos to his iPhone as we were driving to the airport.
For me getting the shot is as important as getting the perfect shot. And in the near future just getting the shot will lead good enough results with the help of AI.
With less demand it is inevitable the lenses prices will fall until of course when there is a time when no one makes lenses anymore and ten years go by and the prices of lenses will start to go up and up…

I had an URSA Mini Pro 4.6k that shot Cinema DNG and BRAW (a firmware upgrade discontinued Cinema DNG). The BRAW was slightly less resolved with a slight color shift compare to the Cinema DNG.  Once color corrected I did not notice which shots were which on YouTube.  From the online comparison between BRAW and Pro Res RAW it seems that Pro Res RAW has a finer noise structure, which makes the Pro Res RAW slightly better looking IMHO.  BRAW at higher resolutions like with the URSA 12k shooting 8k resolution, I have no complaints unless I don't provide enough light, then I see the slight limitations of BRAW as compared to Pro Res RAW.

I didn’t dismiss it because it wasn’t even in the conversation.
It would be like, “OK, you were shopping around for a hot hatchback circa €15k on the used market, why didn’t you consider a lightly used €75k Porsche Cayenne?”
Pair of bare bones S5ii and a single under 1kg with lens S9 vs 3x rigged out Red Komodo?
No offense, but it would be an utter fucking nightmare! 😂

As a 12 year professional editor and content creator who's used all FCPX, Davinci, and Premiere extensively, I would highly recommend putting in the time to learn Davinci Resolve. The only reason to lean the direction of Final Cut would be if you only plan on a simple editing workflow and will be limited on computing power. 

I think he's referring to the s16 sensor 4K camera being developed by Octopus Camera and CinePi. There isn't much info they've put out besides some test footage, specs, and a rendering of the camera body.

I think they did. As a semi-disruptive startup company, RED didn't manage to dominate their market so instead they've sold out while there's still some value in the company.

A FF box-cam would make a lot of sense as a crash-cam, for drones, or for mounting in odd locations etc.
It would have FF, good DR, good low-light, thermal management fans, and potentially the ARRI LogC curve / Prores RAW in it.  L-mount primes can be quite compact, and the camera body itself would probably be smaller than the GH7 as well!

this is the most difficult scene, because dr is so drastic. yet gh7 is ok, not as good as Alexa but not bad neither. 
in real world project, it is easy to adjust the light intensity and direction and distance to reduce the dr. 
gh7 in real world shooting in one of the previous pool scenes is very close to Alexa. 

Look no further than the music industry. Songs can now be made up on the fly in the style of X musician/group and according to some, they sound good enough. The same is done for stock photography and video. The real question is: will the masses pay for such material in the long term; or, will it be viewed as "it should be free because they stole it anyway"?
If the past few years is an indicator, many people are looking for more authentic means to interpret reality: film cameras, adapted lenses, point and shoot digital cameras of old, camcorders from the early 2000s, etc. Also, people are still looking for ways of remembering family events. Sure, a photo can do the job, but I cannot imagine it'll ever really compare to the "authentic" photo or video (even if it's digital), never mind the experience of shooting a photo on a phone versus a real camera.
My bet is: if there's not enough buyers for mirrorless and some companies close up shop, the prices for current digital and old stuff will skyrocket, not the opposite. Why? People don't want to interpret reality through AI; they want something more authentic. Stock up while you can!
 

And honestly f2.8 is about the shallowest depth of field you could want for most standard work

As 2/3" sensors cameras like the F23 were mentioned. It is possible to optically adapted B4 lens with a B4 to PL mount adapter like the Abakus 321 adapter to cover the super 16 sensor crop 4k mode of GH5, GH6, GH7 (you would use a PL to m4/3 to mount it on the GH). You could also shoot on a number of Blackmagic cameras with a Blackmagic B4 Optical Adapter... there was a company who was using the optics of the Blackmagic B4 mount as the optics of their B4 to m4/3 adapter. Or you could make one of your own out of the Blackmagic B4 mount a m4/3 adapter and spacers and step rings and drill press and screws, nut and washers are required.
The thing about 2/3 zoom lenses is because of the typical 10x to 12x zoom range you can have a dramatic depth of field decrease when zooming in with a constant aperture B4 lens.  The following video has a mix of a Broadcast zoom lens, Sony full frame and Canon aps-c shots. All of the slow motion and zooming is via a B4 broadcast zoom lens (I don't think I had the 2x internal extender engaged on the B4 lens on the USRA 12k in Super 16 crop mode.)  Sometimes you can see the vignetting, which I chose over less light as the 240fps really cuts the available light... and the 2x extender would have cut it in half again.
Thanks!
Mark