Ilkka Nissila

I don't quite understand what the problem is. Metadata giving instructions for interpreting the exposure (such as a "soft" ISO setting which does not actually affect the stored image data) can work for proprietary formats such as raw video but is there a similar option for non-raw video formats in any camera? If the video is to be used "as is", with minimal editing, all the major editing and playback software would need to know what to do with the data and the instructions that come in the metadata. If the file is meant to be always edited (as in log video) then it may make some sense to offer this as an option but the user always has the option of using just one of the base ISOs in the camera if they so wish, so I'm not sure what added value there is from having a separate brightness adjustment; just to see the image better? The problem is that by doing that you likely become disconnected from how much exposure latitude you have in either direction as the brightness of the image shown is just an adjusted brightness for viewing pleasure and does not reflect the actual exposure or values stored in the file. To compensate for this loss of visual connection between what is shown on the screen and the actual position of the values stored then would require additional exposure monitoring tools, such as colors indicating how many stops you are from saturation at each point of the image, and this then can lead to screen clutter in a small camera with a small screen. The Nikon ZR, as far as I've understood, does offer such an option by choosing R3D recording: the camera lets you choose one of two base ISOs and then adjust the brightness using the ISO sensitivity adjustment which does not affect the stored data. I already see people asking Nikon to add "traffic lights" for monitoring to help deal with the disconnect. Does the ZR waveform display reflect only the actual stored values or is the brightness adjustment or ISO sensitivity also affect the waveform?

There is a 100% tariff on electric vehicles from China, so BYD is not sold in the US. EVs from Europe have a 25% tariff (based on what I could find out). Tesla is being given relatively free reign. I don't think this will actually help Tesla in the long run as it allows them to operate (in the US market) without really being competitive (on the world market). Tariffs can be useful to help some industries grow but Tesla kind of started the EV boom and they should have had enough time to develop their production so that they can compete on the world market without subsidies or tariffs.

I don't understand how the US expects to solve potential security problems caused by these products if they allow them to be operated as before. My guess is that there is a longer-yerm perspective and they want to hinder DJI and other manufacturers' sales in order to allow American companies to take the market and a soft transition would mean the customers can fly their drones until they crash them or wear them out, and then replace with new US products. My guess though is that the US companies will never make competitive products for the consumer market and the government policy can change as soon as they realize that. It should be simple enough to verify that the code on the device does not transmit data to China without the user's permission and DJI could easily host any flight log analysis within the US rather than send it overseas. This is about something other than security IMO.

Very witty. If WW III starts, photographers with drones can then make films about it, so drones may be very useful. I would imagine the operation of unapproved drones can be shut down in the US territory based on GPS data, so IMO it would be pretty risky to invest in equipment that is not approved.

How about using Dolby Vision? On supported devices, streaming services, and suitably prepared videos it adjusts the image based on the device's capabilities automatically, and can do this even on a scene-by-scene basis. I have not tried to export my own videos for Dolby Vision yet, but it seems work very nicely on my Sony xr48a90k TV. The TV adjusts itself based on ambient light and the Dolby Vision adjusts the video content to the capabilities of the device. It seems to be supported also on my Lenovo X1 Carbon G13 laptop. High dynamic range scenes are quite common, if one for example has the sun in the frame, or at night after the sky has gone completely dark, and if one does not want blown lamps or very noisy shadows in dark places. In landscape photography, people can sometimes bracket up to 11 stops to avoid blowing out the sun and this requires quite a bit of artistry to get it mapped in a beautiful way onto SDR displays or paper. This kind of bracketing is unrealistic for video so the native dynamic range of the camera becomes important. For me it is usually more important to have reasonably good SNR in the main subject in low-light conditions than dynamic range, as in video, it's not possible to use very slow shutter speeds or flash. From this point of view I can understand why Canon went for three native ISOs in their latest C80/C400 instead of the dynamic range optimized DGO technology in the C70/C300III. For documentary videos with limited lighting options (one-person shoots) the high ISO image quality is probably a higher priority than the dynamic range at the lowest base ISO, given how good it already is on many cameras. However, I'd take more dynamic range any day if offered without making the camera larger or much more expensive. Not because I want to produce HDR content but because the scenes are what they are, and usually for what I do the use of lighting is not possible.

Voters need to see more damage before they will admit fault in their own thinking and having been conned big time.

Okay, so there are two separate issues: foreign made drones, and DJI products with wireless capabilities. But that doesn't make much sense; how would a DJI gimbal affect US national security? It would seem that they approached the banning on two avenues: DJI products speicifically, and foreign-made drones. Maybe they can realize a double ban is not needed and DJI camera and stabilizer products that are not drones could be allowed. Though it is possible they just want to support US businesses while pretending it is about national security. Since RED is now owned by Nikon, are there any competing products that are owned by Americans and produced in the US? What is likely to happen is that movie and TV products that would benefit from a Ronin 4D will simply be done in other countries with no such limitations, and Hollywood gets smaller. Is that what the US government wants?

Notice that the ban is not on DJI but on future non-approved models of non-US made drones. You can still get stabilizers, action cameras, microphones from DJI (and existing drones).

Nonetheless he said the videos were shot with a Ronin 4D which does not support "open gate" video recording; ergo, illustrating that it was not necessary and other camera characteristics were more important to the project than open gate. Nothing comes free; open gate at full resolution without line skipping would mean the sensor read time increases and so there would be more rolling shutter and possibly it might need more processing power to handle that data (or at least it would generate more heat). These may be appropriate compromises for some users. However, seriously one can ask whether all cameras need to have open gate or if it is sufficient that a few do, enough to satisfy this market. Short form videos are considered to be tiring to the brain are reduce the viewer's ability to concentrate and control themselves. I believe most of not all of the vertical videos belong to this class. For long form content video, I believe the horizontal format is much more suitable. Times square, huh? I recently checked hotel prices in NYC and they were in the $500+. I wonder where the tourists are coming from given these prices. I have stayed in Manhattan many times before but the prices were 1/4th of today's prices.

I don't quite see it that way; if social medial platforms are viewed on a computer, the browser takes up all the display area available and fits the content using the whole window, this can be vertical or horizontal or square for that matter. Basically only when the social media is viewed on a mobile device do some apps and websites default to vertical viewing, but that's a limitation of the device basically, and the typical way people default to using it. Originally instagram photos were square, not vertical or horizontal. Some social media platforms assume that a video is shot vertically on a mobile phone, and for a time it wasn't even possible to shoot in horizontal oritentation and have the social media site or app display it correctly; it would always force it to the vertical format. This, however, is incompatible with the way most news media sites present videos, which are horizontal only, mimicking TV. When these news media sites then displayed social media videos or cell phone videos, they would not be able to technically display the video as a vertical, instead they generated blurred sides to the video to turn the vertical video into horizontal. This is all a bunch of nonsense really. Vertical videos make it difficult to show the context and environment in which something is happening. This is why cinema and TV are in landscape orientation: it's better for displaying the content. Photos have been always shot both vertically and horizontally (probably most still horizontally, for the same reason as video), as the continuity can be broken in stills and one can simply flip the camera quickly to vertical and shoot some (portrait) shots that way and return to the landscape orientation to show context; in video, one can not do such flipping without causing problems to the viewer. Books and magazines naturally lend to images in portrait orientation or in some cases, square; for displaying a landscape image in large size one would need to use a double page spread, which of course is commonly done, but it does create some issues if an important part of the image is in the mid section. What's more the verticals in (still) photography were traditionally not anything remotely like 9:16 but 4:5, 3:4, and 2:3. I think seriously social media apps and sites should consider making the vertical format something like 4:5 rather than 9:16 as the latter is just not very good. It's too narrow. Device fitting inside a pocket in an extreme limitation. Clearly, if the main reason vertical videos are requested by advertising clients is people looking at their mobile phones in tube or bus, or wherever, the quality loss from cropping from 16:9 is hardly going to be visible on those tiny displays. Sure, the angle of view is narrrower but it's always going to look awkward having such an extreme aspect ratio in a vertical image. Interesting to hear that there are now high-resolution displays which show video content in public. I can't remember for sure seeing such things myself, though it's possible that I have seen it but didn't pay attention to it. I would be very surprised if those displays are as elongated as 9:16 though. It just doesn't make any visual sense to use such an extreme aspect ratio for vertical content when there is a choice to stick to 4:5 or 2:3. And when those much more suitable aspect ratios are used for the vertical content, the cropping from landscape 16:9 is less extreme and easier to manage.

Sounds like random people making stuff up; the ZR has a fast read time in video mode (for a relatively low-cost mirrorless camera); it doesn't make any sense to make a video-first camera based on a sensor that is more than 10 years old and has a very slow read time. I couldn't find any reports of it on NR.

AI is not a person or a human being and it doesn't share evolutionary history or biological safeguards with us. It's therefore more unpredictable what it might do. I share a lot of the concerns you express in your article. It's worth following what Bernie Sanders has been saying about AI and the impact on the workforce and that the benefits of AI should be shared among all of humanity and not concentrated in the hands of a few ultra-rich people. Although Musk has been claiming that work becomes optional in the future and there can be universal income that allows us to do anything we want but everything that the big seven companies and their billionaire owners have been doing suggests that they only care about power and getting even more rich and are not at all likely to share the riches with the people. What in their past and current behavior would make anyone believe this would ever change, without society and its political leaders forcing a change? Musk seems to think he is player 1 in a computer simulation (the world) and so everything that happens is part of a game and an adventure to him. World destroyed? No matter. Restart simulation. As long as he gets to try to get to make it to the next level (Mars) in the game, that's all that matters. We are all just extras in the game. What concerns me the most is that in the race for Mars and superpowerful AI, the Earth's environment, the climate, and its people are sacrificed and yet Mars is and will likely always remain hostile and unsuitable for human life, so all that we have could be sacrified on a useless and pointless goal by a person who doesn't have all the birds at home. The situation is a clear demonstration of why individual wealth must be limited and redistributed when it gets out of hand.

The only principle that they follow is defined by their self-interest. If a law or moral principle exists which they think would help them gain more power or wealth, they use it argument why others should follow it. But they never feel the need to obey laws or ethical principles if it would be disadvantageous to their attempts to increase their power or wealth. Similar to the Russia which cries wolf when Western countries freeze their foreign assets, but do not see any problem in the looting & killing of Ukrainians. These are examples of people who are guided by only their self-interest and will do anything to gain more and more power and wealth. What is amazing is how the common people actually voted those people into positions of power.

The high dynamic range (using DGO technology) in the Sony A7 V is for low to middle ISO stills when using the mechanical shutter; DGO is not used for video, and certainly there won't be any 16-stop dynamic range at ISO 3200 or 8000. The claimed 16 stops is likely achieved on a signficantly downsampled ISO 100 still image and criteria based on engineering dynamic range (SNR = 1). Do the EOSHD website and browsers used by visitors support high dynamic range photos on Super Retina XDR and other HDR screens? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the OP is looking to see. Having lower noise can't harm the image and it's up to the user to make use of the higher fidelity, or not make use of it.

I believe it's just mainstream social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter/X, LinkedIn etc., that they care about, not small niche forums on very specific topics not related to politics. I think it's safe to visit the US unless you have a written record of publicly speaking against Trump or his policies, in which case it might not currently be safe.