eatstoomuchjam

I hope the author receives just compensation for their idea!

Right. That's what I'm saying - the plot is nearly the same as your friend's. "Chichi (Sienna Stevens) writes a letter to Santa Claus for Christmas but accidentally misspells Santa's name. This leads to the letter finding its way to Satan (Paolo Contis), who answers to the girl's wishes. Satan attempts to tempt Chichi to evil, but the girl's virtues resists the demon's plans and changes him instead." Yes, and a number of those evil assholes own the companies that make large language models.

Right, but I was asking if he was associated with this one that hasn't been released yet, also made in 2024, but Filipino and with the same plot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dear_Satan

Are you saying that you trained an LLM entirely on things where you owned the copyright and all other appropriate rights? If so, that's cool and ethical. On the other hand, if you're saying that you used one of the existing LLM's that were made by OpenAI/Google/HuggingFace/etc, then you're not using your own stuff. You're using a tool that could not exist without massive copyright theft on a previously unprecedented scale. The part that's black and white to me is silicon valley buttholes who have admitted that their business model cannot possibly function without stealing content. I've heard that some people (Getty images, maybe?) are allowing people to opt in to AI training for some compensation. I think those people will be short sighted and a bit foolish, but the resulting AI would be, in my opinion, fully ethical. Maybe I'll go ask AI how to make my dick bigger than everyone's. That is also very bad. But "Hollywood also steals things" is a kind of a terrible justification for "AI companies steal things." Was your friend's script the one that was used for the Filipino film that google tells me also exists with that name that was made by Mavx productions? If not, it seems like the Phillipines also stole from your friend (and that's also bad). But also, knowing that the other exists makes me want to intentionally not see the Hollywood release and go see the other one, at least partly because I don't like supporting that kind of theft. The phrase doesn't make a lot of sense in English so I don't think you'll have to worry too much about it being stolen. Did you mean something like "Where people present things with good will, a thief finds victims?"

I'm not aware of any existing generative AI model that could be even remotely considered to be ethical in its construction and any of use of the generated results should be considered generally unethical. Any use of Generative AI is using an unprecedented amount of stolen material. The AI companies even admit as much, saying that being obliged to require permission from the rights holders to use their existing content would be fatal to their business model. It's like a thief saying that the invention of locked doors presented an existential threat to their business model. And keep in mind that the end game for most/all of these AI companies is not to make your life better unless you are one of the huge businesses that are financing their development or a totalitarian government.

I think you might need to seek professional help before you go shoot up a pizza restaurant (which doesn't even have a basement). The AltCine people took their camera out and saw a neat-looking building and filmed it. To demonstrate detail, they zoomed in on a thing that has diagonal and curved lines that show aliasing. Please don't turn a camera discussion site into some bullshit about freemason conspiracy theories.

New details dropping today: https://petapixel.com/2025/06/04/gfx-eterna-sensor-formats-film-simulations-and-more-revealed/ - Will include OLPF - Adds readout modes including 3840x2880 full sensor open gate (up to48fps), additional anamorphic ff modes, and super35 modes up to 6k. PP also lists the 5.8k 2.39:1 full sensor width mode as new, but that exists on the GFX 100 II already. - Codecs seem to match GFX 100 II - Supports 3D LUT - Film simulations which seem mostly to match GFX 100 II - Custom frame guides - Remote control of multiple cameras - Bluetooth LE support for some accessories - Monitor will be a 5 inch 16:9 panel with 6.22 million dots and a max brightness of 2000 nits, onboard display is a 3 inch 3:2 panel with 1.04 million dots and 700 nit max brightness For me, it's not differentiating very strongly from the GFX 100 II yet. Maybe the next tranche of information will distinguish it more. Otherwise, it's hard to see why I wouldn't just put a cage on my GFX 100 II, put in a dummy battery, and get 90% of the same camera - and a super portable stills camera otherwise. OLPF could be nice for video, sure, but almost definitely not nice enough to make up the difference in cost. I can say with some certainty that Super 35 modes are not the thing that would sell a GF Eterna cinema camera to me. 🤣

Joking about ponies aside, the line can be a bit fuzzy sometimes. Does the Osmo Pocket 3 count as an action camera? There's some crossover in that use and using it for filmmaking. The RX0 uses the same sensor as the RX100 V and a 24mm equivalent rectilinear lens. The Insta360 One R 1" edition has a sensor of the same size and also has a 24mm rectlinear lens. Obviously we're not dumb and can easily tell an action camera from a non-action camera so I'm not trying to make that case - just making the point that as the years go on, they're increasingly capable filmmaking tools and increasingly useful to have on set.

I think this YouTuber already covered Pony usage very well. 😉

You mean the movies and not RLM, right? Because RLM are both wonderful and sort of neighbors (I'm in Minneapolis, they're just a few hours away in Milwaukee and we Midwesterners need to stick together). Anyway, I wish it were just a US problem - but the non-US market also hasn't been too kind to a lot of non-blockbuster/Marvel movies.

You're right, and there is one called "I'm back" or something like that. It sells a bunch of units every time it goes viral again, for some reason. It has a film canister form factor and a 21 megapixel micro 4/3 sensor and costs about $500. There's also one that replaces the entire camera back and has a 1/2.3 inch 16 megapixel sensor and costs $600. If I remember right, both need a winder thingie to be attached to the bottom of the camera and they don't really have any good way of knowing when you push down the button. There's also a medium format back which costs about $550 and also uses a 1/2.3 inch 16 megapixel sensor. So you can turn your big medium format which used to make a big film negative into a big medium format camera which uses an action camera sensor. 🤣 Anyway. For people who really want to use their old Nikon F3, but... worse and digital, those guys kind of have the market locked down. And if you really want your digital G2, I bet the film canister thingie would work! 😅

In fact, the actual reason for his death was severe dehydration after an epic self-shitting when he unboxed the FX2 that Sony sent for the camera review YouTube channel he intended to start. As a counterpoint, if there's any artist absurd enough that someone might buy and build a shrine to their ironing board... Plus there was this! And there's some more near the end of the full episode, starting at 17:00 or so. ``` https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7ww2rd

I'm gonna swap the M43 mount on my Z Cam E2-S6G for the Z Cam EF mount and put in the electronic ND filter. I'll also hook up the Video Assist 12G so that the recording choices can be h.265, ProRes, and braw. Get those pants ready! 😉 Or if the ND doesn't have to be electronic, I'd like to introduce you to the Komodo and the Canon EF-RF ND filter adapter. 😅 I'd post a picture of both things side-by-side, but I don't wanna be on the hook for everybody's dry cleaning bills. Pooter McCubbins - NEW FX1 MADE ME CRAP IN THE LEATHER UNDERWEAR I MADE MYSELF (AVAILABLE AT MY STORE) Maati Haapoja - FX1 MADE ME POOP IN THE PANTS POOTER HANDED DOWN TO ME iPhoneyDo - FX1 MADE ME CHANGE MY NAME TO IPANTSDOODOO Mac Mackey - FX1 INSPIRED A NEW SET OF UNDERWEAR POOP LUTS AVAILABLE NOW IN MY STORE MarcusPix - HERE IS THE MOST PORTABLE LIGHT STAND THAT I USED TO FILM MY FX1 PANTS POOPS ArtOfPhotography - I USED TO TALK ABOUT PHOTO HISTORY BUT NOW I JUST WANT SOME CLEAN SHORTS THANKS FX1 Slanted Lens - WHICH FX SERIES CAMERAS MAKE YOU CRAP YOUR PANTS THE MOST? HERE IS A COMPARISON THAT IS BOTH DULL AND NOT TOO ACCURATE Snapchick - HERE'S A TUTORIAL FOR SELF-BOUDOIR PHOTOGRAPHY AFTER THE FX1 MAKES YOU POOP IN YOUR LINGERIE

Is there even an underwear changer? What would that look like. There are already cameras on the market that shoot in resolutions that surpass human perception at a reasonable viewing distance/screen size combination (anything 8K+). There are already cameras that shoot those resolutions at silly frame rates (UC12K does 8K at like 160fps). Dynamic range on current mirrorless cameras is already within spitting image of Arri and arguably better than most film stocks that were ever produced (give or take pleasant highlight rolloff). Sensitivity? For years, the A7 III has been able to shoot with a pretty fast lens by moonlight. How much darker do we need? So really, with that in mind, it's a bit hard for me to think of the specs on a camera that would make me go out and buy some underwear, put them on, and then crap them... especially since at least some of them come with compromises - like the UC12K has photosites so small that, while I haven't done the math, I suspect would suffer from diffraction before f/8. So does the camera need to have even more resolution that I don't need? Or even higher framerates that I will use on about 1 out of every 5 shoots? Computational photography more similar to what a phone could do? That could be interesting, but I'm still not sure that's "holy crap" level.

As expected, Camera Conspiracies isn't a fan, comes complete with the expected boardroom sketch with a blonde wig.

Yes, but negativity also likely cuts off the supply of pre-release review cameras from Sony (and possibly others who are afraid of a similar negative review). Sony doesn't need Cam, but Cam needs Sony and other vendors to send him free cameras to review so he can get in on the launch day view spikes instead of publishing a review a few months later with the rest of the schlubs who have to buy their gear.

Wow. You know a release is really ho-hum when one of the YouTube camera reviewers doesn't like it - especially one who never met a camera that he didn't like enough to film a video that looks... basically like all of his other videos. Sony really missed the mark when they didn't send it to him with a bespoke leather case with a bird on it.

Are you talking about internet reviewers? Because here, it seems like the reception has been pretty similar to those other cameras - extremely lukewarm feelings for an extremely lukewarm product. (And RS is really a spectrum - 32ms RS is pretty bad and you will see it in a lot of footage, RS under 20ms is fine unless you're whipping the camera around, 20-32ms depends more on what you're doing - 27-28ms for this camera is definitely more on the "you will notice it" side) The R5 and R5c are great values. Other than someone having a pile of Sony lenses and a big investment in that ecosystem, I don't personally see any real reason that somebody would choose an FX2 over a used R5c or Z8. Even less in the latter case since I'm told the Nikon Z to Sony FE adapter is quite good. Really, I'm not even totally certain why somebody would buy the FX2 over a Z6 III, unless "has a flippy EVF" is their main criteria for buying a camera. 😉

That doesn't match the usual style (FX3 is more expensive than A7S III, FX30 is more expensive than A6700) - and if $2,500 is MSRP for A7 IV, selling the cine version for around $200 more is right in line with those other models. If I were choosing between A7 IV and FX2, FX2 would win hands-down. I'd definitely spend $200 for the flippy EVF. But then I might have my head checked because the Z6 III + Sony FE adapter would still cost less, use any Sony lenses, and record 6K full sensor width video internally with decent RS (and with a raw option!) - and going from 24 to 33 megapixels for still photos is... 🤷‍♂️ (Looking for a B Cam to FX6 that can also take some nice still photos, it's totally fine and people aren't crazy for buying it - but it's just not the choice that I would make right now) ----- The other thing that seems interesting with this release is that it seems to suggest that Sony don't have a lot of other new bodies in the pipeline. If they do, this release would seem to be an attempt to grab cash from people who are still willing to buy the older sensor and will be annoyed when cameras with the new sensor are released. Otherwise, if Sony have a bunch of shiny new mirrorless cameras coming soon and supporting better-than-4k recording, etc, why release this one now? The competition is releasing cool mirrorless bodies with superior capabilities and Sony is re-releasing a camera from 2022, but stuffed into a different body. If they keep sitting on these models for another year, we might see the production pendulum swing back to Canon (or Nikon, if they write "RED" on some upcoming mirrorless model and make no other changes from one of their existing cameras).

I was wrong about this. I guess it's $2,700 in the US or $3,100 with the XLR handle. That's a lot better. Question withdrawn! (Though I'd still be far more apt to get the R5C or Z8 than the FX2, but at least now it's not more expensive than they are)

Jumping the gun makes a lot more sense than Chris/Jordan being actually critical of Sony. 😅

Uh oh. Did someone at Petapixel say something to make the bosses at Sony mad? Maybe they had to go back and edit out any minor criticism they might have had. 😅

@Andrew Reid At least here in the US, the FX2 is $3,500 and the A7 IV is selling for about $2,500. Is it different there? At least here, I'd say the FX2 costs a lot more than the A7 IV - like, enough to just buy a pretty nice cage and a lens or two more. It'll certainly sell/move some units, but even though the rotating EVF is nice and the body has the pleasant boxy look that goes with Sony's cinema line, I don't think this would be the hybrid that I would buy at that price. A used R5C is about $3,000 and a used Z8 is about $3,200. I just don't see how this camera competes with either of them in any meaningful way... unless you have a bunch of Sony glass and want better stills than the FX3 (available used for only a little more, about $3,700 here).

"Finally, the A7IV, but in a more differenter body."

Nice! Looking forward to seeing what you shoot with it!