Davide DB

They didn't use the full potential of that sensor in Z6iii. It can output two images per frame, one at first base ISO and one at second base ISO. Then the processor can combine them to achieve near 14 stop of DR. But as its 2x data, it takes longer to read out, hence the slow read out of S1ii when DR Boost is ON. Either Nikon's Expeed processor isn't capable enough for that task, or they didn't find that rolling shutter effect acceptable, or its a feature that needs premium license they didn't bother to pay. 

Worth a look. Part I.
Without reframe — so far available on DJI Studio at least (video here) — will look like crap (versus Insta360 X5 with correction in-camera).

source
 
And now Part II... Imagine it now coupled to a new tool like this one:
 

This is my presentation page on the website of the agency that represent me : https://bangger.com/realisateur/stephane-tranquillin/
 
I have other works I can't show or that aren't released yet, including some for major brands (French car brands, TV documentaries, etc). 

I agree, but if you're trying to make a living doing this, those were a lot of billable hours that are not going to be available anymore.
I had a potential client reach out about a project and I sent her a quote. I never heard back and later saw on their socials an AI version of said project. 
I'd like to hear more about your experience because I can't quite grasp what the revision process would be like. I assume that you adjust your prompts based on client feedback, but does the client ever tell you exactly what prompts to use? And rather than trying to communicate their ideas, do they ever just generate their own AI imagery? At that point, I think I might have a difficult time justifying why I would still need to be involved.

Last month, I officially lost my first (as far as I know) video job to AI. I'm sure it won't be the last.

That is all.  Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

Totally get the love for the “celluloid look”: 24p, grain, soft image, widescreen bars. It hits a vibe. But these are aesthetic codes we’ve absorbed over time, not fixed rules. They signal “cinema” because of decades of conditioning, but it’s just one visual language.
Some of the most “video” looking content was shot on film. Sitcoms like Friends or Seinfeld used 35mm, but lit and cut for TV brightness and fluidity. Meanwhile, filmmakers like Lynch or Soderbergh have used DV or even iPhones and still delivered pure cinema. It’s not about format alone, but how it’s used.
Same with frame rates. 24p stuck around because of early sound sync limitations, and we grew to love its motion blur and softness. 60p feels more “real,” which works for news or sports, but often feels uncanny in narrative. The Hobbit in 48p was a bold move, but many rejected it because it broke the cinematic illusion we’ve grown used to.
New generations are wired differently. They grow up on 30p iPhone clips, 60p YouTube, 120Hz TikToks. What feels “cinematic” is shifting. Same with aspect ratios: 4:3, widescreen, vertical. Even black bars have become a kind of shorthand that says, “this is a movie.”
Resolution plays a role too. Some DPs shoot in 8K then soften or downscale to avoid the overly digital crispness. Others embrace every pixel. You’ve got people using 35mm, 65mm, anamorphic, spherical, vintage lenses, weird sensors. There’s no single “cinematic” look. Just choices.

Lok Cheung's input (the other part by another usual suspect is here) on 360º acquisiton for traditional use -- my bet, actually:
That London ride is exactly where I think the sensor size factor (the same for Osmo Pocket 3) makes all the difference (coupled to 10-bit realm, obviously, just not exactly all the way long like in that example but counts more than the usual reviewers tell)...

No less. My shot too :- )

This whole thing is a really silly take.
I can absolutely afford the RX1R Mark III and I can also say it's too expensive and there's no way I'd buy it at that price.
And being mentioned in the same sentence as the Q is not a win when the sentence is "this damn thing is nearly as expensive as the Q, but isn't even a Leica."  Otherwise, Fuji could just kick up the price on the X Half to $6,500 and enjoy that sweet victory.
Obviously some people are going to buy the RX1R III.  That was never in doubt.  There are always some people who will pay any price for something they want.  That's not to say that it's priceworthy.

Hi everyone,
here comes a new music video shot on insta360 v4. 
Somehow the process is really fun becuse after shooting you get to animate all the camera settings in the insta 360 app. That ist actually quite fun, feels a bit like old analog photography as you find new aspects that you did not see during the shoot. Nevertheless the process is not too good yet as you have to animate the camera settings in the app, then export it and then edit it in Resolve. Pretty time consuming! So i hope there will be a resolve plugin in some time in the future... If you have any experiences using this technique i would ne happy if you could share it here! 
 

Right, is it the hood or the bag that is made in Japan, because if it’s not both, I’m not interested as I prefer cloth and plastic from Japan and find similar items from countries such as China, Vietnam, Thailand etc, to be far inferior with their shitty cloth and plastics.
I’d pay no more than $195-197.
 

And most importantly it has a "MADE IN JAPAN" marking on its side 😉
An artisan next to Hattori Hanzo's shop makes it by hand.

Its lens hood is just 198 USD
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/907015-REG/Sony_LHP_1_Lens_Hood.html
 

Or a new LX10, or bette lr a GM 1with rhe latest Lumix technology 

Has anyone noticed with some of the biggest tech reviewers on youtube like Hardware Unboxed or MKHB, there's a trend at the moment for deadpan anti-hype style reviews.
Be careful with that as well, it's a style-change to counteract the falling viewing figures caused by them overhyping everything every day for the past god-knows how many years, as people catch onto it and get bored of it.

I hadn't thought about that, but if that's an option, I guess I could have done it.  Though at this point, I doubt I have an installer around for the old version.
Yes, for someone who needs multiple or many Adobe products, the current pricing is somewhat advantageous vs the old pricing.  A lot of people, me included, are not that person and use Lightroom almost exclusively.  The only time I use Photoshop is when I need to run SRDx.
 
The current cost for the entire suite is $70/month - over 3 years, that's $2,520.  So... wow.  That's an additional $20 in cost over $2,500.  So it doesn't seem "much cheaper" to me.  It seems to be "the same cost."
This is the pitch that is made for subscription software.  It's not applicable to most people.  I use Lightroom often enough that it doesn't make sense to turn on and off my subscription all the time.
There's no need to guess.  They went with it because it radically increased their profits and gave them a steady predictable monthly revenue instead of an unpredictable spiky revenue that got reduced if people didn't like the new version.  Now it doesn't matter if you don't like the new version.  F U consumer, you are paying for it anyway.
Here are some charts that show the true reason that Adobe went to a subscription model - prior to it, they had a pretty consistent/flat 4-5 billion dollars per year in revenue.  This is plenty of money to develop their software.  It has been on an upward ramp since then and now they are making 20 billion dollars per year.  If it flattens again, expect them to increase subscription pricing to further enrich their shareholders.  This is why subscription models exist - to enrich shareholders, not to make your life better.  I used to work for a major e-commerce company - discussions of subscription billing, etc, were very rarely phrased in terms of the benefit to end users.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ADBE/adobe/revenue
The free version is intended to stay.  Petty said in their NAB livestream that he expects that, at some point, people will be asked to pay for upgrades to the Studio License to fund continuing development of Resolve.  This is, for me, fully acceptable.  My existing version of Resolve Studio will keep working as long as it needs to work and if I find the features in a new version to be compelling, I will pay them for it.  This is a healthy business relationship.

EH FILMS gave an interesting take on the GH7:
 

Surely the main point is that if you can afford to shoot ARRI Alexa 35 you are not quibbling over software licensing fees over the week(s) long duration of a shoot.
Whereas with Adobe they scavenge £ from grandmothers and students for years and years.

As much as subscription models suck for us individuals, they are often preferable for businesses, even regarding software like Adobe. Obviously Arri's target market is rental houses, and the comment earlier about a rental house passing those temporary upgrades to customers is quite likely the intent.
It's worth spelling out the difference between subscription editing software and camera upgrades, though. With Adobe's product, if you stop paying, you can't open your old projects. In Arri's model, if you stop paying, you can presumably still open files shot with those upgrades. Losing access to the creative work that you've already done is a big difference.

I thought/assumed that the choice of cameras for f1 were similar to the reason that studios have been using Ronin 4D for a bunch of stuff - and why the last couple of Mission Impossible films used Z Cams for the stunts - because there's no Arri that could possibly fit in the places where they put the custom Sony cameras (just as there's no Arri that can be usable on a gimbal as quickly as the R4D can be ready and because there's no Arri that can fit in a lot of the places that the Z Cam does).
It's not to say that the Venice line isn't really good, it certainly seems to be, but on a movie with a budget of $100,000,000, the difference in price between shooting on Alexa and shooting on Venice is basically a rounding error.

I was with you on "it's OK to have a license as long as there's an option for perpetual," but this is the part where you're losing me.
Subscriptions, as currently implemented by companies like Adobe, are actually extremely consumer-hostile.  You're right that it's good to have an ongoing source of revenue, but you're completely ignoring that they now have no impetus whatsoever to build features that people actually want.
If I have Lightroom 5 and Adobe release Lightroom 6, I can look at the features that were added.  If none of them are something I want, I keep using Lightroom 5.  If Adobe completely misses the mark with customers, few or no people buy version 6 and they are forced to course correct or go out of business.  If they go out of business, the copy of Lightroom 5 that I have keeps working forever.  Maybe eventually it won't run on a new computer, but I have virtual machines or my old computer as options still.
In a subscription world, I pay Adobe every month to keep using the software that I already have.  They can waste as much time and money as they want on shitty new features that I don't want or care about.  I still have to pay for them.  They want to spend 1000 hours developing an integration between Lightroom and a stock photo site so they can pull extra revenue through a deal with the stock photo company?  I don't care and I'll never use it.  But I'm still paying for it.  The company spends a bunch of time integrating their own cloud service which would charge me even more money to store my files?  Don't want it, probably will never use it, still funding the development.
If a competitor has different features that I want, I can certainly move to their software, but unless the interface is identical to what I'm used to, now I lose time and effort re-training on how to use the other software.  They know that a lot of people aren't going to take that time and effort so the money keeps flowing in.  Plus maybe I've spent hundreds of hours in something like the Lightroom catalog rating and tagging things or doing some other activity that isn't necessarily stored in the XMP sidecar (not sure if ratings and tags are) and moving that to another software package would eat a ton of my life.
Stop using the software for a while?  Sometimes subscriptions are easy to pause or stop, but a lot of times, they are a pain in the ass to stop.  Once again, extra money keeps flowing in because people forget the subscription or give up on cancellation because they'll probably need it again sometime in the future.
You are arguing against yourself here.  If I own the software and it doesn't have to check a central license server every time it starts up, I can open my files in perpetuity.  Virtual machines are a thing and allow running older software basically forever.
On the other hand, if I had a file created in some version of Adobe's software in a format that isn't supported elsewhere (not sure if this exists) and I don't pay a ransom to Adobe, those files are now dead to me.  Also, if Adobe decides to stop supporting that software because not enough people are paying the subscription, those files can never be opened again.  Go offline for a month because you're traveling in the middle of nowhere and/or don't want to pay for a local sim?  Sucks to be you, you won't be editing anything after a few days because the software can't phone home.
This is increasingly a concern in the gaming industry as well - there's even a petition and a movement within Europe about it at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
Companies intentionally build their games to require an online connection and if it's gone, the game stops working.  Meanwhile, eventually most people stop playing and it costs money to run/patch/maintain the servers so the company turns them off.  Wanna play that game that you loved a few years ago?  Too bad.  Even if you have it still installed on your computer, it now serves no purpose other than to waste disk space.
Anyway, Adobe announce record profits all the time.  I'm still using Lightroom about like I was 10 years ago.  I should probably try Capture One again.  I have kind of hated it every time I installed it, but at least their model is less offensive - option for a perpetual license or subscription, and if converting from subscription to perpetual, some of the subscription costs are prorated toward the purchase.

And so one feels like searching for the Naiads, beautiful and immortal freshwater nymphs that disturb the spirit of those who catch a glimpse of them emerging from the waters. Beliefs that embody the ambiguous feeling of fear and attraction to the waters.
So far no Naiads and Nereids but only many sticklebacks!
GH5MII and GH5S, various lens, natural light
Sound ON
 
 

This looks incredible!
Great images and colour, and I really like the music and edit too.
It really is a different world down there isn't it...

We are two divers, one GH5MII in a Nauticam Housing and a GH5S in Aquatica housing.
 

Speaking of new cameras...
This was shot by a friend of mine on a "vintage" Lumix LX10 in Nauticam housing and different wet diopters.