Ryan Payne wrote:You wont ever see Sony put up a full frame 10bit mirrorless. Only place your getting that is from a Sony cinema camera. Sony just doesn't need to as there's no full frame competition.
M43 is full of competition because Sony sells those sensors but keeps their full frame.
bzpop wrote:I hope BMD will follow the trend and join the large format race.
michaeldhead wrote:Rakesh Malik wrote:I'm hoping that BMD is just building inventory of that to prepare for the order rush it's going to get.
Order rush it *has already received*.
rick.lang wrote:I’m trying to find out how it does 4K from sensors that support 23/45MB stills. I guess I’ll learn someday but maybe not this week.
rick.lang wrote:Rakesh, downscaling from full sensor should give a good result. I haven’t been on their web site to see the size of the sensor but it will be just under 6000x4000 photosites for the Z6 camera with 6 micron photosites. The Z7 could be more than 8192x5460, 4.4 micron photosites? Stills shooters might favour the Z7 but cinematographers will prefer the Z6.
Sony’s XQD memory cards are shockproof, magnet proof, anti-static and resistant to breakage, and offer full performance even in extreme temperatures, under exposure to intense UV light and airport X-rays machines. Designed for prolonged professional use, Sony XQD cards are tested for dependable storage, wherever you need to shoot.
Wayne Steven wrote:I hope the pocket is used as a foray into the conventional camera market. Our local consumer camera shop has a professional broadcast camera operator. They had a display cabinet for the old pocket briefly, but how many people were going buy that without at least 4k stills. These days the industry has moved on to higher resolutions, so the 4k pocket is basic as far as stills go, but an eventual move to 8k is good for stills even poster size (you can go a little bigger in posters, but 40-80 inch reasonable quality at reading distance). At that stage they have something good for consumer and professional stills use and all they need to do is produce a better camera same resolution. Competing at this level, they can drastically reduce costs and offer quality product at a good price. But Red has bypassed this restriction, by planning to do multi angle 3D sensors, like the light 16 pocket camera does. This requires a higher workload that is harder to do cheaply at high quality in higher speed and resolution video, giving them, they hope many yea s of market survivability in the area. But as always, you got to listen to people, or to yourself if you have it. In a few years magnetic computing is going to make that amount of computing power in a low energy envelope trivial, or around 2004 if I could have developed my technology.
So, Red has to depend on costs of that technology being high, delays, initial developer advantage (the new Kodak) and branding, to present well sorted out technology (5 years+ advantage) quality from a brand people want to buy from (long term advantage). Meanwhile 2D companies struggle as new workflows using this processing technology is more trivial to handle the multi angle 3D computational technology (people can more readily afford desktop computing using it, even in limited proessing sections in the processor). The future Is to line up product against this. Starting development early. Red maybe aiming to muscle out other competitors like Arii and survive against Sony who are working on holographic cameras, which are likely more intensive in processing than the multi angle technology. So, there is a future for Sony, Red and somebody else.
michaeldhead wrote:Wayne Steven wrote:I hope the pocket is used as a foray into the conventional camera market. Our local consumer camera shop has a professional broadcast camera operator. They had a display cabinet for the old pocket briefly, but how many people were going buy that without at least 4k stills. These days the industry has moved on to higher resolutions, so the 4k pocket is basic as far as stills go, but an eventual move to 8k is good for stills even poster size (you can go a little bigger in posters, but 40-80 inch reasonable quality at reading distance). At that stage they have something good for consumer and professional stills use and all they need to do is produce a better camera same resolution. Competing at this level, they can drastically reduce costs and offer quality product at a good price. But Red has bypassed this restriction, by planning to do multi angle 3D sensors, like the light 16 pocket camera does. This requires a higher workload that is harder to do cheaply at high quality in higher speed and resolution video, giving them, they hope many yea s of market survivability in the area. But as always, you got to listen to people, or to yourself if you have it. In a few years magnetic computing is going to make that amount of computing power in a low energy envelope trivial, or around 2004 if I could have developed my technology.
So, Red has to depend on costs of that technology being high, delays, initial developer advantage (the new Kodak) and branding, to present well sorted out technology (5 years+ advantage) quality from a brand people want to buy from (long term advantage). Meanwhile 2D companies struggle as new workflows using this processing technology is more trivial to handle the multi angle 3D computational technology (people can more readily afford desktop computing using it, even in limited proessing sections in the processor). The future Is to line up product against this. Starting development early. Red maybe aiming to muscle out other competitors like Arii and survive against Sony who are working on holographic cameras, which are likely more intensive in processing than the multi angle technology. So, there is a future for Sony, Red and somebody else.
The original Pocket, or really any BMD camera, are not stills cameras. Never have been, and the Pocket4k is the first that I'm aware of that has a stills button. Why would you buy a cinema camera for stills if it isn't designed for it?
How many people bought the Pocket despite 4k? Well, it was used in multiple major films as a crash cam, including Avengers: Age of Ultron. 1080p didn't stop them from using it. And have you seen the Cinemark in-theater commercials for their "unicorn" projectors? One of the big selling points: 4k. Many theaters still project in 2k. It's streaming services (YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, for example) that are mainly supporting 4k - broadcast TV is still mainly 1080i tops, not even 1080p (there are, of course, exceptions).
3D at home was NAB 2013 or 2014 - how well did that work out? Yes, 3D theater showings will continue, but even those are seemingly becoming less frequent, not more frequent - the cost of post-conversion makes it unnecessary, and unless you're James Cameron or Peter Jackson, shooting with a true 3D rig isn't really feasible (my observation).
Are we going to see major feature films shot on the Pocket4k? No, probably not. As a crash cam in major features? Likely yes. Indies? Sure - I'm planning on doing it, at least. Corporate gigs? Absolutely. Commercials? Depends on budget, but probably yes (the winner of a Doritos Crash the Superbowl commercial [cardboard time machine] was shot on a BMCC a few years ago).
Wayne Steven wrote:
Oh great wrong negative comments. Maybe because your grand parents watched a QVGA Cathode Ray Tube TV, that's all we need too, at 17 inches+. How many people objected to any screen bigger 32 inches. 80 cm rather than 80 inches. I've got room here for over 120 inch screen, looking forward to it, not FullHD on it. The past is not a good indication of technological future until technology taps out. So while Panavision warns to be prepared for 16k and 32k, 8k is good for normal use, for hopefully all human audience members.
3D was done wrong. It was turned up with the security encryption on digital projectors, they got cinemas to pay massive prices to get both on new projectors. The cinemas, merely passed on the costs, rather than realise that their declining industry could use it at standard price to attract more people. But, even at normal price, I'd prefer auto stereoscopic. There are great strides in auto 3D coming. That is where it would be good. I don't need to, but prefer to watch everything in auto 3D, but as is, I watch the stuff that gets the advantage from 3D.
Niw, production costs. You can have single lens, normal setup 3D, with the 3D array cameras, it is even simpler. As far as the other fanciful things you mentioned, you don't need to produce a 3D film. You can produce flat broke 3D films if you know what you are doing (single lens systems don't need the multiple lens alignment and arrays do it computational photographically). The new NVIDIA GPU architecture should have enough for computational photography and ray tracing real time, but magnitudes less than my architecture. However, I know a guy that has a world leading new 3D conversion and 3D rotoscoping. He hasn't told much prior to release, but I gather it has to do with fill 3D modelling into the scene aswell. Still magnitudes less. His company has been working in the industry for a while, and doing what I wanted to do over two decades ago.
Now come on. We are talking about many features to make a still camera being virtually free (software features) and it has a stills button. Now, my box brownies don't even have the still features of a a BM camera. A lot of stuff is unprofessional window dressing on cameras, totally and completely absent in film cameras. So, if I say I hope it's a foray into the still camera market (initial) in order to get numbers up and costing down, that's entirely reasonable. I would expect much till next model, or another year or two of firmware upgrades. If they want to.
I thought Ultron used a micro not a pocket for that action scene.
Not going to be used to film a major film, yeah, like using old medium format Panavision cameras to film Blair Witch? If you film something with it, and it turns out big, then it was used to film a major film, as simple as that. Somebody may well do it eventually. But it raises the question, you could say the pocket4k is not really a cinema camera as well as not a still camera, as it is a different shape, lack this or that?
Those who live in the technological past fail to see the technological future. So give up this fantasy of how good it all is done the wrong way.
Have a good day.
Wayne Steven wrote:"3D was done wrong."
Wayne Steven wrote:"We are talking about many features to make a still camera being virtually free (software features) and it has a stills button'"
Wayne Steven wrote:You didn't really get the eloquence of the contrast about being stuck in the past versus the reality of what can be done better, or the similarities with those stuck on previous generations of technology (Cathode Ray Tubes).
Wayne Steven wrote:Maybe you guys missed the bit where I twice described many older cameras not having those features, still being stills cameras.
michaeldhead wrote:Since I'm not talking about the film age, that statement is erroneous and irrelevant. If you missed it, I was talking about the Pocket 4K and your comparison to a DSLR - which is also erroneous and irrelevant. It's not a DSLR, it's not designed to be a DSLR.
Users browsing this forum: Nick Heydon and 31 guests