Davide DB

The photography is very distinctive. Very documentary-like.
The underwater shots totally without contrast. It must be a stylistic choice but the underwater ones are unwatchable.
 The BBC sleeps soundly
 
 

The photography is very distinctive. Very documentary-like.
The underwater shots totally without contrast. It must be a stylistic choice but the underwater ones are unwatchable.
 The BBC sleeps soundly
 
 

Chivo is a monster, the 0:20 take with the horizon being a breaking wave was beautiful.

Bit I follow the guy on Instagram, he could make a great shot from a Galaxy S3.

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.
 
 

Its flash on hot shoe. Using any wireless system limits the speed to 1/500s.

It's hipster heaven. Will look great sitting next to my wooden headphones!

There are lots of caveats and asterisks there.

In Mac terms, the most powerful mini is available with M2 Pro.  It comes with a maximum of 32GB of memory.  Depending on needs (10gE for a NAS, the more powerful M2 Pro processor?), by the time you upgrade it, it will cost about as much as an M1 Ultra with similar specs and potentially a bit better performance.

If not looking at a Mac, as Jedi Master said, there's a lot more bang for a buck in a desktop PC.  For about as much as you'd pay for an upgraded mini ($2100-2400), you can get a 16-core AMD processor, 64GB of RAM, a couple of blazing fast NVMe 2TB drives, and a 3080ti or 4070ti (maybe even a 4080?) which has a lot more raw power than the Mac.  Though it'll also be big and a bit noisier.  This sort of choice may also depend on the price of power in your area, as it's like $0.11 per kwh in Oregon and $0.47 per kwh in Britain right now.  At almost 50 cents per kwh, you might want the computer which draws less than 200w when fully loaded (and is totally able to do everything you need) and not the one which draws 700-1000w.

On the colourist forums there's a sample test project and users submit their specs and FPS on the various tests, here's the M1 and M3 - the numbers are FPS:

Each colour is the same test between them.
The jump up from the Intel Macs is enormous - mine gets about 4FPS on the light blue test and about 3FPS on the lighter-orange test, but once you're on the Apple silicone there seems to only be incremental improvement.  Those tests above are pretty brutal by the way - the light blue test is a UHD Prores file with 18 blur nodes, and the dark blue is 66 blur nodes, and the orange ones are many nodes of temporal noise reduction!
The differences between the Pro, Max, and Ultra chipsets is much more significant though.  I found that the Resolve results correlated pretty well with the Metal tests in Geekbench:
https://browser.geekbench.com/metal-benchmarks

About 8K, from Camera Beta:
The news about the previously registered Leica new machine has been updated: it is rumored that the new machine uses a 60 million pixel sensor, which can achieve 240 million pixels, equipped with 6.5 levels of anti-shake, equipped with phase focusing, a continuous shooting speed of 9 frames per second, and supports 30 Frame 8k video shooting.

About 8K, from Camera Beta:
The news about the previously registered Leica new machine has been updated: it is rumored that the new machine uses a 60 million pixel sensor, which can achieve 240 million pixels, equipped with 6.5 levels of anti-shake, equipped with phase focusing, a continuous shooting speed of 9 frames per second, and supports 30 Frame 8k video shooting.

It's a spec war; they'll have to, regardless whoever says what. Of course, the same argument could have been make about PDAF and it too them how long? I guess we'll soon find out if they learned something from all of that.

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.
 
 

This vfx approach has been used for over 15 years. That level of in-camera "photographed" realism was pioneered by ILM in films like War of the World, Pirates 2 and Transformers. What the director is really doing is thinking back to his methodology with his first film and wanting to get back to that immediacy and creative spirit, but with a bigger vfx budget. As has been described, for him the rig was obviously fundamental to that. And I now understand how much they would have saved on shipping lights, cranes, on hotel budgets etc due to the need for less crew and gear - also crediting the high ISO there.

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.
 
 

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.
 
 

I saw it almost twice because I have a friend who works at a theater where they were showing it and I went to catch it. The script is nothing much and it gets lost in the end. Just another movie.
Let's face it: it was discussed so much for a very simple reason: all independent filmmakers and the kids (including white-haired ones like me) je***ng off with their little cameras in the backyard thought: if he made a blockbuster with my own little camera, so can I.
But picking up on the thread title "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" I venture to say that This was a whim of a very particular director (his resume proves it) but the film industry doesn't give a shit about the camera used for the film and nothing will change.
As I said 8 pages ago, if there is one reason the film will be remembered and may change the way these blockbusters are shot, it is the visuals.
The film is a visual treat. But not because of the camera or the lenses used but because unlike 99% of other similar films they chose not to create everything by computer but to use real locations as much as possible to which, in post production, the necessary modifications were applied (mainly for budget reasons i suppose). There are scenes shot in real Buddhist temples in Nepal, ruins in Cambodia, hotel, train station, and Bangkok airport, to which they added futuristic details. The futuristic lab you see in the trailers is a real nuclear accelerator in Thailand. the result is mind-blowing. The locations are real and fuck if you can see it.
The visuals have a great scope that the Star Wars productions look like South American soap operas in comparison.
In short seeing the total CGI reconstructions of entire landscapes in other much more expensive and famous films you get the impression that perfection has been achieved. Then you see this film and knowing the technique used (I would almost call it augmented reality) you realize that there is still a long way to go.

Here, in my opinion, this will be something that will change the approach of other productions.
 
 

I tried but as a resident of France, the only day it was on in original English language, I was in Ireland.
And no way am I ever watching anything in dubbed French!
 

Are you referring to Jedi Master's thread? 
He doesn't need any of the professional features required by productions. 
Just needs a sensor to capture pretty landscapes in a slow paced chill manner on the weekends. 
That's like expecting someone to read an article before commenting on it on Facebook! Totally unrealistic expectations. 
 

This is the internet...  such things are irrelevant when arguing about technical matters!

Nine pages of comments... Who saw the movie?

I think a case can also be made for the argument, ‘Just Because’.
I’ve done it throughout my career. And life.
Sometimes…most of the time, I do things the way they need to be done, but sometimes I don’t.
I’ve shot an entire 4 days of Motorsport for a top team with Fuji X Pro2’s with a bag of primes, nothing longer than ‘85’mm.
The pro photographers at the event didn’t bat an eye wit their massive long lenses as they had no idea what I was doing which was in fact doing something the polar opposite of what they were all trying to do.
Because I could.
This whole Creator/FX3 thing is a ‘Just Because’.
And what a boring world it would be otherwise…

The cinematography of the frogs part is stunning

I’m just glad we have people now who know how to consistently test and report on how these CMOS sensors actually perform. It’s the core of every camera, yet all the other stuff they build around it gets all the attention. We’ve been bumming around with 12-bit ADC video modes and adequate LOG profiles for half a decade now, VERY little actual innovation in image pipeline with regards to color or dynamic range. 
 
I’m hopeful that with consistent reporting on each CMOS, the manufacturers will be pressured to actually innovate. A leap-frog all the way to 16-bit video ADC seems appropriate now that 12-bit has overstayed its welcome, or now that 8K sensors are showing up, perhaps a dual-ADC bayer pattern or ND Filter Array would be appropriate. 
 
This global shutter sensor is an important step, and I’m glad to see it. It indicates that they’re paying attention to demand for sensor improvements, and although it DOES still have trade-offs, they’ve set a new benchmark for hybrid cameras in the category of shutter performance. Critically, I think they learn a lot from *actually* bringing a camera to production, and hopefully the next time out, they’re sticking to global shutter, and innovating further to minimize the trade-offs. Additionally, Sony builds sensors for Panasonic, and it seems like they have some form of ~2-3yr tech swap agreement. If one comes up with something, the other seems to eventually add it into their sensors a few years later. I think Panasonic remains the leader in hybrid bodies for video users, and if they take a swing at full frame global shutter, it will be implemented really well.

You don't need the upper part, its A7siii. 

I'm pretty sure there are only 4 types of cameras:
Movie cameras: these are what they use to make movies

Big cameras, which are used by "professional photographers" or rich tourists

Cameras, which are used by normal tourists use to take photos

and phones, which are used by adults to take photos of the family:

or by millennials when they're awake and have left the house:

 
There is another type of camera though.  
When you take any camera and point it at yourself in public, you instantly turn into a narcissist and the size of the camera no longer fits into the above categories, but is an indicator of how much better you are than everyone else: