mkabi

On 10/26/2021 at 2:09 PM, Django said:

120fps is in DX crop mode only at a reduced 11MP. So essentially 4.2K @ 120fps in APS-C.

Thats a bit deceiving. Oh well... 

On 10/11/2021 at 6:22 AM, IronFilm said:

That's a good analogy.

Is it though?
 

Okay fine... @IronFilm I value your input as you have invested way more than me in the audio industry... so... you can let me know if this is bad or good (meaning does the audio quality deteriorate or just as good):

On 10/24/2021 at 4:44 PM, ntblowz said:

8k60p! They definitely going all out!

8K60p is nothing.

Now 120FPS stills - thats ridiculous. For both photographers and videographers.

You do know that you can throw 120FPS stills in video - it would be exactly like 120fps video without sound with the highest resolution. Nobody really needs that but nobody really needs a 12K camera either....

The only questions I have are whats the megapixel count, whats the buffer size.... at this point... 🤯....the specs are a bit out of this world....

23 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Using wireless systems to knock XLR is silly/unfair. 

Its only "silly/unfair" if you don't understand the pretext of the argument... the argument is about "quality" vs. "convenience of size" obviously you believe that the "convenience of size" overrides "quality" in the context of lavaliers. My complaint is that if you can oversee it that once.... you should be able to oversee it every other time too.

Or - put in the same wireless technology that you have in lavaliers in regular mics.

By the way, I haven't said anything about USB. 

Sorry for my rudimentary diagram. Look... in all reality XLR isn't transforming sound into Is and Os AND from my understanding USB doesn't accept analog information to flow through it.... you need a digitizer for that... so the problem isn't with USB Audio.... but the digitizer (transforming the sound into Is or Os)... you can place the digitzer anywhere you want.... you can take Mic to digitzer via XLR then move from digitizer to computer via USB. Even on-camera audio.... you can move from Mic to input device via XLR (its digitized on the input device or in-camera)... its then recorded on a memory card and then card info is moved via USB port..... so... in theory....why not digitize on the microphone itself where it is the quality that you want?

Here is my take... I feel that XLRs are antiquated... in fact that whole mixing board environment in studios is antiquated. Its been carried forward from analog days... and I don't see the point since the advent of Avid Pro Tools (which has been around since the 90s; and as a studio if you weren't using it by the 2000s chances are..... you were out of business - this is high end audio studios).

Different story for live musical events (with instruments) - there hasn't been much innovation in this area - although wireless has become a thing.

But going back to studio set ups... if you are going from mic to mixing board to computer.... I don't know about you... but that middleware sounds problematic to me.... the only time that I see a problem without a mixing board is phantom power to condenser mics, but that should be a problem that Sennheiser, Audio-Technica, etc. should be solving.... shoot... if I plug in my iphone to my laptop... its charging and I can upload/download on it. 

If you think I'm spouting non-sense -> you don't connect your lavalier mics to XLR wiring (nowadays).... don't tell me its different... if you are going to tell me XLRs are the shit.... it has to be straight down the board.... every single audio situation.

On 8/21/2021 at 12:11 AM, herein2020 said:

Additionally, XLR was designed from the ground up to be low noise and high quality; I can't say the same for USB.

You forgot to add the fact that -> "XLR was designed from the ground up to be low noise and high quality" in the 1950s which was for Analog Audio (vinyl & tape era)... that doesn't apply to digital audio where it is transformed to Is and Os.

29 minutes ago, Matins 2 said:

Might as well read a book...

Done that too... in fact - most books (not all) translated to movies or tv series do pretty well...

Besides, it takes great talent to translate a book into a movie. 

Also, there is a reason why platforms like audible is working.... people just too lazy to read a book.

6 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Oh by the way - they went from that green look to a golden/brown look - that could be part of the storyline right??? What iteration of the Matrix is this??? 22 years from the last movie - how can the matrix remain the same? Its evolving to match how we see the world??? I'm not saying that they should look like every other movie - but from green to what other color would the world look more real? Red, pink, purple, blue? 

Definitely a "look" to fit how movies are made today.

Do I like it... not really - but I'm more interested in the storyline and the direction that (atleast) one of the original creators will take this movie. Its definitely hitting the right notes with regards to my nostalgic preferences.

But... its always been about the storylines for me. Get past the glitz and glamour, get past the CGI, get past the colouring, get past the editorial choices and cuts, get past the BGM or musical choices -> hit an original storyline and I'm in.... I don't want a regurgitated storyline just because its supposed to be nostalgic - I would rather watch the original series for that.

Speaking of Zombies... anybody else... well, here comes the disclaimer: I'm not crazy or anything 😄
And, it doesn't have to be Zombies, but anyone else had a conversation with anyone about possible end-of-world events that may happen in our lifetimes and is any of us preparing??? Like canned beans and a bunker?

I had this discussion with my wife after successfully growing kidney beans for my kid's Grade 1 project. I was like.... "hey if shit goes down... at least we got that and we can grow that...." and she was like "may be we should get more seeds [of other veggies] and canned foods".

Lets be honest, there are too many people in this world (Nearing 8 billion worldwide??)... and well... God is shooting all kinds of shit at us to get the population down. I don't know what the exact stats are now with Covid-19.... but before the pandemic it was like for every second - 4.3 babies are born; and for that same second 1.8 people die. At some point - there is going to be some sort of major correction and/or world event where for every 4.3 babies being born... 43 people will die (just shooting some random number out there).

Hey.... I'm just starting the conversation.... I don't have a bunker or getaway.... but every once in a while I look into getting a fully armored hummer to get the hell out of here. Anyone else? Or is it just paranoid old me???

Nikon should focus its attention on anamorphic. Affordable Anamorphic lenses and camera system and they can corner the market.

If you are looking at older cams and want a recommendation.

Check out the Digital Bolex D16 and/or Black Magic 2.5K. You really can't beat those guys when it comes to that special look.

As we all get older... the excitement of things - because we have experienced it already.... wears down and wears thin. So we seek for those original thoughts, pieces, discoveries, explorations to reignite that excitement. 

But, we also like to share that excitement, we show & share the same things that excites us with friends and family - we like to see that face and/or reaction on the uninitiated. Thereby reliving the moment that you first discovered it! I guess thats why those "reaction" videos do well on Youtube.  

I love those moments when I show stuff from my childhood back to my kids and/or wife.

Anyway, anyone try MUBI? It delivers curated films - carefully selected arthouse films... something like 20 movies a month. I'm paraphrasing.... I've never used it before thats why I'm asking.

@kye You have the GH5, right?

Have you tried the 6K Anamorphic (open gate) with (Cheap) Anamorphic lenses?

See if that helps you on your quest of moving from the video look to the cinematic look. 

38 minutes ago, Thpriest said:

So what's the general feeling? The 4 rec lights and grey body not worth it? Is it a pointless camera or is there something I've missed?

nothing different from a7s3 (I was expecting atleast DCI and Anamorphic, but none of that) and $400 more... I mean.... if you feel that the exterior fluff is important to warrant additional $400... get it!

1 hour ago, Chrille said:

Wow, active facecooling - GAMECHANGER!

It’s an untapped market. They figured that the problem existed from their previous cameras burning and blistering their customer’s faces... now Canon is getting into the game... it’s only natural... a true professional doesn’t have time to run to the fridge for an ice pack. This is perfect for run and gun facecooling!!!

This is how you introduce a problem that never existed in the first place... and solve it too... brilliant.

In my opinion, look at the other subject matter in this forum and other forums -> see where the industry is headed.

If I were you... I would go for the Panasonic S1H. 

I know the arguments about AF and lack of 4K/120fps.

But, if your impressed by Sony Venice and Red Cams <- remember they don't have proper AF either.

You can't argue with the higher Resolutions, Anamorphic Modes and its Netflix approved (this is actually the number 1 reason why I would recommend the S1H over the other cameras). Just so you know Netflix is planning on expanding on ABQ studios.... just saying... 

Meh.... not worth arguing over.

54 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

You're over simplifying.  I can happily watch many things without consulting my phone.  My wife though is another matter and will happily chat with friends, message, talk to me, insist I help her with dinner.... plus the odd occasion of someone at the door.  Not so frequent this year, but still... so even if you're well behaved, others in the household are not. 

There is still a place for cinema.  Of course its always competing against TV.  Hence one of the reasons why movies went wide-screen when TVs first entered peoples home; to open the cinema experience out.  Unfortunately its hard to find something unique to cinema that can't be easily replicated at home.  3D was one such method, no doubt why cinemas tried to push it over 2D releases, but its waned since the peak a decade ago.  

Obviously 2020 has been hard on cinemas, but prior to that, there was no evidence that cinemas were on their way out.  Box office numbers in 2019 were good.  I've seen a few larger cinema complexes built in the last decade.  I've been in quite a few packed out cinema screenings.  So I'd say its too early to predict the demise of cinema over streaming.  Both have their place in delivering movies to the audience.  

Whilst I've go fewer times now than I did 10 years ago, I still go half a dozen times a year and enjoy the experience.  Yes, the adverts are annoying, and you get the odd bad experience with other members of the audience, but I enjoy the larger screen and sound system.   Its nice to hear the movie loud without the neighbour bashing on your wall to turn it down, and my wife behaves much better too at the cinema...  😅😅😅

My wife behaves the same way... I feel like if its a nightly thing.... she does all that and more, but say I'm working and don't have time to watch TV.... a week or 2 passes by... and I have about a couple of hours to spare and watching a movie is the only option - my wife shuts up and watches a movie. Similarly a movie theatre does the same thing... its not like we are doing it everyday. Choose a movie night and lay down the rules.

On 12/11/2020 at 10:08 PM, KnightsFan said:

To bring it back to the topic, that's the exact argument against removing theaters. Theaters support filmmakers like Nolan and Tarantino, where fans pay extra to pick out a movie that they like and want to watch it in the "proper" setting, as opposed to streaming whatever is trending where generally the attitude is more often "well it's free* so I can't complain." Or People have it on in the background and tune out most of the content. Whether you like Nolan or not, you have to admit that he puts a lot more personal thought into his projects than the average Netflix production.

This is where our thought processes diverge... 

Theatres don't support filmmakers... studios support filmmakers... I know you are going to say that theatres support studios and so from super structure point of view that if theatres support studios then theatres support the creatives/artists... right? Perhaps, but that only gives half the story.

Here you go: https://money.cnn.com/2002/03/08/smbusiness/q_movies/

Most of that article is about movie snacks and that garbage, but the biggest takeaways for me is that:

"Most of the money from ticket sales goes back to the movie studio. A film booker leases a movie to a particular theater for a set period of weeks. The percentage of ticket sales that the studio takes decreases on each week that a movie is in the theater. If the screening was arranged by an independent middleman, he also takes a slice. So the movie has to pull in sizeable audiences for several weeks in order for theater owners to make any serious profits.

During the film's opening week, the studio might take 70 to 80 percent of gross box office sales. By the fifth or sixth week, the percentage the studio takes will likely shrink to about 35 percent, said Steven Krams, president of International Cinema Equipment Co."

I know we are getting into Economics here, but if we are talking about leasing structure... streaming services also "lease" from studios.... see here:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/office-why-nbcuniversal-is-paying-500m-pull-hit-netflix-1221020

Now, if you are going to talk about "proper" setting in your home versus a movie theatre.... yeah I agree.... but at the same time aren't you guys like Apple's 1984 commercial:

In my opinion, if you can't turn off your phones or be distracted without being in a movie theatre.... then the movie or show that you are watching at home isn't captivating enough. I wasn't born when "The Godfather" 1 & 2 came out, nor was I born when the "Star Wars: A New Hope" and I was just born when Empire Strikes back came out, and about 3 years old when Return of the Jedi came out (yeah, you can guess my age by all this), and what I'm getting at is that I wasn't around or old enough to watch those movies in theatres... where did I watch those??? Thats right, in my living room on VHS, DVDs and now streaming.

Sure.... there are plenty of stuff that is polluting the streaming service and I can't watch more than half the stuff on there.... but sometimes you have to look through the fluff and find that diamond in the rough. Stuff that captivated me made me watch it without being distracted: "Tiger King", "Last Dance", "Surviving R. Kelly", "Chernobyl" (still watching this by the way), "Itaewon Class", first few seasons of "Stranger Things", first season of "13 reasons why"... thats all I can think of at present.... but you get it.

21 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Like we agree, it happened or is happening in all industries and ultimately it's worse for a large number of people, and better for a small number of people. Technology has increased that trend. Here's an example:

Theaters employed thousands of low paid cashiers, janitors, middle class managers, owners. A streaming service might employ a few dozen highly paid software engineers instead. This is not the fault of the software engineers and ideally they should be rewarded for doing skilled labor and increasing efficiency. But if we don't figure out a way to deal with the large number of displaced workers, wealth disparity will grow. More people fighting over fewer low paying jobs means the wages of those jobs will go down. And of course it's simply impossible to expect everyone to work harder or become a software engineer, because A) there aren't as many jobs required B) we don't have the resources to educate everyone as software engineers and C) not everyone has the aptitiude.

I guess that's straying a bit off topic, but it is related.

It's not anymore.

I feel that all of it is going to implode on itself eventually. The billionaires are not going to get on their knees to clean every room in their 1000 room mansion... nor will they build their own homes by themselves. Even if there are layoffs in the middle class area where reasonable knowledge is required... what I often witness is that there is deep regret afterwards, because they have to waste money and time finding a reasonable substitute, or whoever takes on the duties is overwhelmed and overworked then the company pays in the long run from letting go not one but 2 (even if the guy goes on vacation is like all hell broke out). Even if we are talking about automating and Netflix... at the end of the day... there is always going to be something in this world that you can’t automate... such as creative endeavours, food prep (gourmet foods), etc.

And, if you are one of those people that lost their job for whatever reason... it’s time to learn new skills and find an opportunity that is irreplaceable... 

10 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

A couple examples of top earners getting massive deals is exactly what I'm saying is wrong. The industry as a whole is making plenty of money, but the middle class worker base is shrinking with a few rising to the very top and most losing jobs or getting lower pay. Same as every other industry, actually.

Exactly. It is as you stated like “every other industry”. But, I don’t have a problem with that...

Now, as an example... I don’t expect the person straight out of high school - getting his/her first job as a server at McDonald’s to be making the same amount as the CEO of McDonalds. Obviously, the current CEO had to earn their way to the top... they didn’t just magically get there.

Now, there are times where Nepotism, favouritism and/or connections comes into play... I hope that it is less in companies that are public over private companies, as board of directors vote for CEOS, and they have to have investor’s interest and confidence; yet I’m not naive enough to believe it doesn’t exist at all in public companies. Private companies on the other hand... well... it is what it is... but at the same time... come on... you build a company... you should decide who you want as your right hand man, who you want to promote, who you want to demote, who should replace you, or who you want to fire. How is it any different from building yourself a house??? Not everyone that you decide to live there at first... can and/or should live there forever - upon the owner’s judgment.

Look, now... Perhaps... you can’t see my point of view, but I am trying to build a few businesses myself and I don’t need people to come at me in 30 years, because they cannot see the blood sweat and tears that I put into the businesses over those 30 years.

sorry, I went a bit off track... but going back to artists... you can’t expect some fresh face from Juilliard’s drama program be paid the same as Daniel Day Lewis <- he earned his spot... period.

The other problem that exists is the fact that people don’t know anything about show business... show business is 10% show (talent) and 90% business. How often do you see an independent movie without a production house behind them, no promotions, no Oscar buzz... make it to millions of dollars? Forget billions...

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

It's worth pointing out that Netflix had a net free cash flow of -$3.3 billion last year. Which isn't to say it's losing money, almost no successful startups have positive balance sheets for their first few years or even decades, but it's not like Netflix is making gobs of net money.

I don’t want to jump to conclusions, so I have to ask... do you think Netflix is a startup???

3 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

But there are only a handfull watchable netflix original films. Only "the irishman" and "the devil all the time" come to mind. So if we become reliable to only netflix original content we might be in trouble. Hbo for instance isnt even available over here in Belgium. Most netflix content looks like easy consumable content for netflix and chill and you forget what you watched after a day.

I have to agree... As much money as they are blowing... nothing is memorable... in terms of movies. I didn’t even like The Irishman.

But, their shows on the other hand, I like... can’t complain.

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

...but if all of it goes to the AT&T and Netflix execs, the way it did for music, then I do think it warrants pessimism...

As opposed it going to the studios??? And, movie theatre chains???

Look... Scorsese’s Irishmen went straight to Netflix...

Dave Chappelle got a 60 million dollar - 3 special deal with Netflix...

Joe Rogen signed a $100 million dollar deal with Spotify.

Just saying... as much as you think that the artists are not getting their pay... just not completely correct.

Music industry went the way it went because people were pirating the music online anyway.

15 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can't see it myself. Those with an interest in cinema have already bought all of that stuff.

What changes?

Just because Matrix 4 comes to streaming first, and you can't go to the cinema - you are not, as an average mainstream ex-cinemagoer, going to spend $3000 on gear for that are you?

I disagree with that too I'm afraid. What is the point of a director at all if the customer makes all the decisions?

(Yes The choice of viewing device is a creative decision)

Sure, and they can already spend their money on Netflix, or whatever. I don't care.

But depriving cinemas of content at a time like this is a bad move for culture.

We need the rousing blockbuster social experience like never before. New Bond film at Christmas. That kind of thing.

Short sighted beancounters at the studios risk killing that future.

It's short term thinking.

The math and damn statistics are nothing to do with it. Emotionally I can tell the difference between a big cinema screen and a TV! It's a completely separate experience.

sounds quite charming to me 🙂

Music streaming has killed music.

They are not paying per film. It's a monthly sub, creative cloud style. Do you want to tie yourself into 10 of those all at once just to get the same selection of studio content you would at any one time in one cinema? Sounds fucking expensive to me!

I can just see it following the music industry to a tee.

Smaller artists lose out from Spotify in big fashion.

The pirated copies of HBO Max streams will be full HD, 1080p, probably identical quality to what you get from the paid service.

In my opinion, these will all be outdated ideals in the end.

im sure the drive-in theatres, beta-max, horse carriages all felt the same way. Poor horse carriages.

Time to pack up and move on.

15 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Any one ever saw a iPhone teardown?

It is a battery, a tiny mainboard, two or 3 camera modules, screen module and some connectors. The BOM cost for this in the iPhone 12 Pro is US$406 (https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_12_pro_bom_come_up_to_406-news-46442.php), probably much less, since Apple could get massive discounts buying it in bunch. Let's say it goes to US$300.

Almost no mechanical adjustments needed, the assembly might be very cheap. Easily the profit is around 300% per unit.

Now get a Nikon camera, see the immense complexity of it, the much higher price of a much bigger sensor (made in fractions of quantity of smaller smartphone chips), the amount of mechanical adjustments needed, which translates in much costly labor.

Probably the profit is MUCH lower, with more complexity, and in 2019 Nikon sold around 1.73 million units between DSLR and mirrorless. Apple sold around 37,7 million units of the iPhone 11 in the FIRST HALF of 2020.

My bets is that they don't give a damn to the traditional camera market.

Ever watch Shark Tank or Dragon's Den?

The point of the game, for any company selling any products -> 1 product (cost to make XX amount) but sell for 3 to 4 times XX amount. But, if you are selling it for 3 to 4 times XX amount, that amount has to make sense to the customer.

At the beginning the iphone was like $699 (top end model - and yeah times and part prices have changed too over the last decade or so) - nonetheless, its slowly climbed to $1199 and customers deem it worthy to pay that... 

So, if Nikon isn't selling it for 3 to 4 times the amount to create it... whose fault is that??? May be they feel that if they put in 6K @ 60p into their camera and charged $6K for it, nobody would buy it?