combatentropy
Veteran
And yet manual cinema lenses still get announced, which makes me happy.
4k bmpcc
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
One advantage the terminator and humans have is 3D vision. I suspect we have such great instant focus because when the eyes look at an object, there is distance information in the fact that the eyes converge to a point. That tells the brain exactly where to set focus. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to tell a camera what we want it to look at in the field. Face detection is one way, but that is not nearly good enough.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Face detection from Canon is good enough, but it could definitely improve which it will.
I always like to show the 1DX Mark II sample: https://vimeo.com/153889003
My guess is in 50-100 years (maybe less), you'll have such advanced software contained in such advanced hardware (cameras) which will analyze facial features and literally lock onto faces and scan every single frame and never lose an instance of focus.
I always like to show the 1DX Mark II sample: https://vimeo.com/153889003
My guess is in 50-100 years (maybe less), you'll have such advanced software contained in such advanced hardware (cameras) which will analyze facial features and literally lock onto faces and scan every single frame and never lose an instance of focus.
John Brawley
Well-known member
It will be amazing, but for narrative drama, there’s still an element of performance in focus pulling that isn’t always about being “in focus”. The timing of focus pulls, the speed that happens, which can change take to take with performance. These nuances are hard to allow for even in a scenario where the camera can distinguish between two different faces and focus on them accurately.
I’m sure we’re not far from the facebook / LR / Apple iPhone X style facial recognition where it knows your face and can find it in real time, BUT, that’s still not storytelling. That’s just getting a face in focus.
JB
NorBro
Major Contributor
IMO, it will all be in the past one day.
You can currently change the speed of the AF with Canon to be very slow or very fast, and of course everything in the middle in increments.
If a scene calls for a certain kind of focus pull, chances are 99% of the time it's going to be the same speed every time for each take. I.E. if a scene requires a smooth, normal rack at an average speed, the human pulling the focus is probably going to keep that speed pretty consistent every time. So the machine can do that every single time as well. And more accurately. Then there are those scenes where you may want to shoot in and of course the speed could therefore be changed.
The timing is already in the past as it's available now whenever you want by just touching the screen.
---
The performance element continues to be replaced by a process of robotic filmmaking for more money as the art slowly dies.
You can currently change the speed of the AF with Canon to be very slow or very fast, and of course everything in the middle in increments.
If a scene calls for a certain kind of focus pull, chances are 99% of the time it's going to be the same speed every time for each take. I.E. if a scene requires a smooth, normal rack at an average speed, the human pulling the focus is probably going to keep that speed pretty consistent every time. So the machine can do that every single time as well. And more accurately. Then there are those scenes where you may want to shoot in and of course the speed could therefore be changed.
The timing is already in the past as it's available now whenever you want by just touching the screen.
---
The performance element continues to be replaced by a process of robotic filmmaking for more money as the art slowly dies.
NorBro
Major Contributor
BTW, these are not Nobel prize winning thoughts, lol...it's just the future.
Some industries have of course used machines (robots) for decades for more simple labor-related tasks (manufacturing plants), but others are probably still a very long way away from any successful application with humanity (self-driving cars)...but it's all coming...everywhere. lol
Some industries have of course used machines (robots) for decades for more simple labor-related tasks (manufacturing plants), but others are probably still a very long way away from any successful application with humanity (self-driving cars)...but it's all coming...everywhere. lol
Except when that's not what the camera operator wanted to focus on, like a glass of beer, a footstep, or the ear instead of the eyes.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Again, you can just tap the screen and direct the focus as people currently do.
Or you may eventually program your hardware to focus on certain focal points based on voice recognition.
Or light-field cameras and artificial intelligence will work together. Everything is then manipulated and controlled in post.
Actor/actress says a line, camera rack focus on this face or on this object...I know, I know...hard to believe now, but so was "The Internets" in the 90s.
Or you may eventually program your hardware to focus on certain focal points based on voice recognition.
Or light-field cameras and artificial intelligence will work together. Everything is then manipulated and controlled in post.
Actor/actress says a line, camera rack focus on this face or on this object...I know, I know...hard to believe now, but so was "The Internets" in the 90s.
vcassel
Veteran
Exactly why the quality of the autofocus doesn't concern me. I've had a handful of cameras so far: GH1, GH2, Canon 5D Mark III, and the URSA Mini 4K. Just a personal and sometimes professional opinion, but I've never liked relying on autofocus. Even when I was doing headshot photography with my 5DmIII. I used a Hoodman Live View Loupe to focus through with my electronic Canon primes! I bet a lot of other photographers would've given my setup a weird look, but my autofocus couldn't catch up with the microexpressions I wanted to capture. My hand and eye were much quicker. I've grown so accustomed to working this way that saving up for a good wireless monitoring/focus system was worth it to me. And I'm excited to see new innovations in these systems at lower and lower cost. Maybe one day autofocus will be quicker than my eye and hand and will be able to discern performance. Great! Maybe I'll be out of the industry then. Even better!
DPStewart
Veteran
My humble little Canon Rebel SL2 does this extremely well in stills mode.
I haven't even thought to check to see if it works in video mode, but I'm sure it could since my Samsung NX1 did that with ease several years ago. AND you could program the speed at which focus moved from one point to another.
...why on Earth did I ever sell that camera??
(Oh yeah, the good Samsung lenses were very expensive and everything went out of production after 3 years...)
NorBro
Major Contributor
It was sad to see Samsung go but they knew what they were doing...they aren't dumb and wanted to sell something people actually buy:
"Samsung ended 2017 with 21.9% market share in the worldwide smartphone market, according to new data released on Tuesday by researcher TrendForce. Samsung shipped more than 310 million units during the period, according to TrendForce."
http://fortune.com/2018/02/13/apple-iphone-samsung-market-share/
---
And that's why cameras like the BMPCC 4K and the GH5/S are so popular and so important because the days of buying expensive cameras are absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - over for 99% of humans.
Sure, you could have said that with other BM cameras and the GH4 and others, but specs are better than ever for the lowest prices ever.
"Samsung ended 2017 with 21.9% market share in the worldwide smartphone market, according to new data released on Tuesday by researcher TrendForce. Samsung shipped more than 310 million units during the period, according to TrendForce."
http://fortune.com/2018/02/13/apple-iphone-samsung-market-share/
---
And that's why cameras like the BMPCC 4K and the GH5/S are so popular and so important because the days of buying expensive cameras are absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - over for 99% of humans.
Sure, you could have said that with other BM cameras and the GH4 and others, but specs are better than ever for the lowest prices ever.
That depends on the market segment. Red has an $80k camera body- the most expensive ever for them. Arri has a 90K+ camera body- most expensive one you can buy in a while. Sony with their bare bone $50K body, more like 60k + realistically. Canon with their $45k body flag ship. The high end is definitely more expensive than it was in the past- at least the recent decade...
Bob Loblaw
Active member
Flash drives will not work, they have terrible sustained speeds.
SSDs with USB 3.0 or higher will work fine through a type c connection.
CaptainHook
Member
so the smallest solution would be an m.2 enclosure .....500gb for less than 150us. Somebody will release a integrated enclosure that makes use of the type c port, in an extended grip....3d printed. Drop out m.2's in their own sub-enclosure.....a kinda of magazine. I think that's one of the most exciting things about this camera....exciting , as in, like minidv exciting !
....so much more immediate.
....so much more immediate.
indiawilds
Veteran
With ever increasing resolutions the focusing flaws are out there to see. At least for us mere mortals it is the case now. The topnotch hollywood guys can still focus in full HD in shallow depth of fields. With 8K and beyond the margin of error is even less. What used to be "nice focus pulls" will be over due to the super duper high resolutions and beyond. Till that happens, enjoy those organic focus pulls. The iphone generation will dictate what is good. They won't care what a few professionals want. for eg look at the obnoxious vertical videos. Recently for a corporate promo, I was given a bunch of such and I had a heart attack( nearly).
Run&Gun
Veteran
And what gets me the most are the people that work in television that do this! They know better and still act like every other boob out there.
One of the many things that Blackberry(RIM) got right: when you held the their devices in a normal-use orientation(vertically), the sensor was oriented horizontally, so the video was horizontal like it should have been.