Matins 2

The whole web experience seems to have gotten worse compared to 15 years ago in terms of bloatedness, genuine content, censorship, tracking and search results.

$2,999.99
https://store.asus.com/us/item/202101AM120000009/ROG-Flow-X13-Ultra-Slim-2-in-1-Gaming-Laptop-Bundle%3A-ROG-XG-Mobile%2BRTX-3080-included

Such a great image.

Definitely not optimistic about 2021.

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

Nice thumbnail.:) @Matins 2 Daguerreotype, right.

The oldest preserved photograph (adjusted), by Nicéphore Niépce. Taken around 1826 using a box with a hole in it, a lens and a pewter plate coated with natural asphalt. 🙂

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras
https://photo-museum.org/niepce-invention-photography/

The question was raised to discuss and share information about the technical side of digital cameras, specifically their sensor technologies compared to film. Questions that come to mind are: which sensors come closest and why, in what way could they be improved, and what makes them better if their image quality has surpassed film (which I don't think is the case)? It wasn't exactly raised to discuss the use of certain cameras in productions.

7 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Are you doing this as a hobbyist or a professional? If the former, then yeah, it doesn't matter what others think. 

Doing what?

On 12/19/2020 at 3:20 AM, IronFilm said:

Go stand outside a cinema and as the people leave, poll them with the questions: "did you see the rolling shutter?" & "did you find it objectionable / deal breaker?"

The answer will be "No" & "No"
(or even more likely: "what the hell are you talking about?")

Not a single person watching a film in your average cinema theatre gives a damn if the camera used has a global shutter or not. 

But if you really "must" (perhaps you shoot tonnes of flash photography, or you're the world's biggest fan of whip pans) then buy yourself  Sony PMW-F55 and be happy. (they're becoming quite affordable ish now on eBay)

I'd be lying if I said that I truly care what the average citizen likes or dislikes.

16 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

I mean the Alexa comes close. RED Komodo is global shutter. 

I do think the Alexa surpassed film. It has great color rendition and amazing latitude. 

What I was saying is that there hasn't been a digital camera on the market that has matched the look of film in all its complexities. Of course shooting on an Alexa you can mimic it with post processing due to the flexibility of the files coming off that camera. Same goes for anything that can shoot RAW. 

Thanks, I'll take a deeper look at those cameras.

21 hours ago, IronFilm said:

What he's saying, is that they've already caught up (and surpassed it). 

I'm curious to know if you have any footage without rolling shutter to show to support this claim.

4 minutes ago, independent said:

This was a good question five years ago.

Did I miss something?

5 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Supply and Demand I'd say. 

Its certainly not impossible. You'd just have to take a certain film stock and see how it reacts with over and under expose. Test it under different lighting conditions daylight, clouds, tungsten, florescent, the different variety's of mixed lighting etc.... Test how it sees the spectrum of colors, document the grain patterns when over and under exposed. As long as the sensor chosen has similar dynamic range you could pretty much match the film stock with in camera processing. 

If you shot film side by side with digital you could get them to match pretty much exactly if you have the eye for it. 

The Digital Bolex with its Kodak CCD sensor produces good quality images that look more film-like than most if not all digital consumer cameras today. I guess that indeed the demand for it wasn't high enough, or its price was just too steep. It's a real shame that CCD isn't given the priority it deserves.

Is it even possible? Are new sensor technologies needed? Are there certain developments going on that some of us are unaware of?

Who needs video when you can do other stuff while listening to videos on a streaming service? 

https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/16/netflix-is-rolling-out-an-audio-only-mode/

If cinemas are a thing of the past, and complete digital media is the future, why not phase out actors (human ones)? Surely, most people will have a hard time distinguishing CGI actors from their real life counterparts if done right. We might as well do away with script writers. Who's going to need them when artificial intelligence is able to come up with scripts that can suck more money out of the masses than human scripts do now?

17 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

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.

Once such a service has been programmed, the company can ultimately dump most of its computer programmers while keeping one or more of them to maintain it. This, of course, isn't just applicable to the movie industry.

Anyway, people change, cultures change. As much as I hope that someday, somewhere, analogue shot movies will make their comeback, and pretty cinemas with decent and properly dressed guests will become a standard again, it's doubtful that this is going to happen. At this point in time, I wonder if I even want to further adapt to the ongoing digitisation of this era. Perhaps the foundation of cinematography, the civilisation in which cinema came to fruition, has reached a terminal stage.

Kind of reminds me of this advertisement, directed by Frank Budgen:

There is just something about Japanese user interface design that doesn't seem right to me.

I don't like the design and ergonomics of this thing at all. Thanks to Sony for their image sensors.

Right now, I'd say Sony.

On 10/15/2020 at 9:02 AM, John Matthews said:

My point is "progress" is a very subjective term. I don't like what I see.

I totally agree.