Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 112
  1. Collapse Details
    #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,781
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    The point being is that the "intended audience" won't know Xeens from Zeiss or Cookes.
    But this is


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of the Pecos
    Posts
    2,216
    Default
    YES, YES, YES. YES, and YES! So what the fudge are we here for? Film makers go on about motion cadence, image quality, 4:2:2, 10-bit, megapixels, bokeh, film grain, lens breathing, chromatic aberration, dynamic range, grading, LUTS, logs, primes, video noise, color gamut, lens flares, mist filters, aspect ratio .... and the audience is perfectly happy to watch it on a 4" screen in sunlight.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #73
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,566
    Default
    I enjoy the differences between a Zeiss Standard and a Leica Summicron, and discussing the nuances of all lens characteristics. There will be a day when the Xeen may be the choice. The idea isn't that one is better than the other, as they all do different things. The idea is, which one is helping me?

    The Xeen is a fine lens. If it ever makes my job better, I'll grab it in a heart beat. Currently it isn't on my radar.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    478
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post

    My point was that "image quality is the most important thing over all" is simply not true for a lot of people, and used the working video/film professional who has a budget and a cast and a crew as my example.
    This is true, but I think the important caveat is that there needs to be a certain baseline level of image quality achieved before it ceases to be the most important thing.

    The 5D and early DSLRs were basically proof of that. When the image quality gap gets really large, people will put up with all kinds of nonsense to attain it. I don't think anyone misses the days of aliasing, overheating, wonky controls/menus, but at the time, many folks (myself included) considered it a pretty monumental leap over what was available. Control over DOF, *much* better low light, Canon color science, much better at handling blown highlights... the look of the videos between 5Ds and HVXs were night and day, so people subjected themselves to all kinds of stress to get that look.

    But as you said, once that look caught up in other options, that was a wrap for DSLRs.

    I remember people arguing against the look at the time, but history has shown us it was preferred and here to stay.

    On the subject of image quality vs ergonomics, I'll never forget the C300 vs Scarlett release. Everyone, and I mean everyone laughed at the C300 specs compared to the Scarlett. Of course, the C300 went on to become the most widely used camera for a veeeeeeeeeeery long time, because it just worked and the image quality was good enough.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #75
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    There is an old German soccer line, which translated into an Americanism, goes something like that, "You play Tom Brady and he screws up and it's Tom Brady's fault. You play Jimmy Garofalo and he screws up and it's your fault"
    In the computer department at big companies, they used say, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Later they said Microsoft or Oracle. Anyway, I guess in Hollywood nobody ever got fired for renting Arri.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,574
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DBP View Post
    This is true, but I think the important caveat is that there needs to be a certain baseline level of image quality achieved before it ceases to be the most important thing...
    And that's my point, not that Xeen is as good as Cooke or that S1 is as good as Alexa65 but that the difference is probably smaller than a cinematographer personal preference. In other words, a professional cinematographer can currently create great footage with a $10,000 package that most people won't be able to tell it apart from a $100,000 package. And someone will go for that $10,000 package soon enough, not just as a B/crash cam.

    PS. NorBro, the German football line was with regard to Oliver Kahn (WC'02 Player of the Tournament) and Jens Lehmann, who replaced him in the WC'06. In the American equivalent, you can make an analogy with any starting QB and fans who clamor for his backup when the starter goes through a rough patch.

    Quote Originally Posted by combatentropy View Post
    In the computer department at big companies, they used say, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Later they said Microsoft or Oracle. Anyway, I guess in Hollywood nobody ever got fired for renting Arri.
    As a side note - I liked the F65 look even better but the camera was a PITA to operate. Quality wise, if it was good for Vittorio Storaro, it's good enough for the most mortals with an EFV.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    5,781
    Default
    Oh, that's true!

    That actually happens often with mediocre or overrated QBs. Or when a new QB takes over and people question why the previous one was traded.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #78
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,611
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    If these manufacturing companies are laying off people and sales are dropping, I am curious where they are planning to go? Or is it just a sinking ship?
    Filmed entertainment, as we know it, is definitely, overall a sinking ship. Gaming seems to be the future and filmed entertainment as we know it is radically downsizing and downscaling because people have so many other choices for entertainment plus there is that pesky "real world" that a lot of people over the past few years seem to have gotten more into. I would so much rather be under the ocean, on top of it on my SUP, hiking, backpacking, than sitting on a couch in front of a screen. I'd rather be doing all of those other activities IRL too than sitting in a movie theater and I am a rabid cinema fan. There is nothing to see in theaters that interests me anymore unless its a nostalgia showing of a new release of a classic film.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #79
    Senior Member Batutta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Planet 10
    Posts
    7,403
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Filmed entertainment, as we know it, is definitely, overall a sinking ship.
    You just have to look at the porn industry now as the canary in the coal mine. The only people making real money in porn these days are the few free tube sites that have basically monopolized the industry, and subscription based sites. The amount of money made by the actual performers and creators is a fraction of what it was and dwindling by the second.
    "Money doesn't make films...You just do it and take the initiative." - Werner Herzog


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #80
    Senior Member El Director's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fortine, MT
    Posts
    1,953
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry_Green View Post
    I should know, I've got over 40,000 subscribers, over 100 published videos, and over 8 million views, so not a tiny channel, probably much bigger than the vast majority of YouTubers, and my channel brings in maybe $100/month.
    I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know. I have 15,000 subscribers, over 100 published videos and a mere 3,000,000 views. I currently make around $125 a month, double that before the adpocalypse. If someone with a smaller channel is making equal to or more than you (a fraction of your subs and channel views), then it's possible that more people than you think are making big bucks. It's wrong to think that because your channel isn't successful that everyone else is in the same boat.


    Independent Filmmaker
    BMD URSA Mini 4K/Avid Media Composer/NukeX/Blender/Mixcraft/ProTools/Resolve Studio

    Feature Films
    Wulf - 2008 | Leap - 2010 | Leap: Rise of the Beast - 2011 | Surviving The Wild - 2020


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •