GH5 How interested are you in a GH6 anymore?

smaller systems? cameras are oriented around optics, a photovoltaic sensor, and a human interface. there's a limit to how small all that can get.

I also don't think the 1% becomes the .01%. The amount of labor and production in film/TV is driven by audience size and revenue, which I expect to remain relatively stable

even if every movie becomes part-video game, there will still be principle photography, probably in every scene
 
ahalpert said:
even if every movie becomes part-video game, there will still be principle photography, probably in every scene
Click to expand...

I appreciate your positive outlook.

And not .01% in downsizing, but .01% in their separation from normal video production. The capabilities, possibilities, the post-production.
 
ahalpert said:
smaller systems? cameras are oriented around optics, a photovoltaic sensor, and a human interface. there's a limit to how small all that can get.
Click to expand...

Yeah, smaller...maybe not this small, but smaller. Maybe half the size of a Mini LF.

They'll make something, they always do.

Click image for larger version Name: BM Micro.jpg Views: 0 Size: 24.1 KB ID: 5684275
 
1% refers to the fraction of the professional community

Live TV broadcast will look largely similar. There's only so much that can change.

Many movies are already made the way you describe

33926wpzekk31.jpg
but still with real cameras

And when they made the new lion king, they used real cameras tied into the virtual environment so a human could finesse the camera operating and make it more natural and real/organic

I love "everything will change" takes full of buzzword salads that don't consider the fundamentals of the structures they analyze
 
ahalpert said:
1% refers to the fraction of the professional community

Live TV broadcast will look largely similar. There's only so much that can change.

Many movies are already made the way you describe


but still with real cameras

And when they made the new lion king, they used real cameras tied into the virtual environment so a human could finesse the camera operating and make it more natural and real/organic

I love "everything will change" takes full of buzzword salads that don't consider the fundamentals of the structures they analyze
Click to expand...

Bro, this is boring 2020s stuff...come back to me in 2500.
 
My kids will be dead by 2150. That's the timescale im considering. But I think it's like we say -- consider the optimal use case irrespective of current technological limitations. Technology may provide that. I don't think that watching 100% video games done with 100% computer-driven virtual cameras is the optimal product the consumer will desire. Nor do I think that continuing some aspects of Hollywood principle photography tradition will be cost noncompetitive
 
You're terrified of change, I love it, lol.

Things change. Didn't you say the other day how you were amazed by some new technology where they can see from impossible angles or something and you couldn't believe how they did it and it reminded you of Trek?
 
they'll never use look-around technology to shoot films. the quality would be such **** by comparison.

here's what I mean about rigging. famous crane shot in Gone With the Wind (1939) (the shot is at the end of the clip):


description of crane shot in 1917 (2019):

“The camera comes off a 50-foot Technocrane, it gets carried up the hill and walked backward [with a] Mini Libra head,” Deakins says of the choreography required in the shooting of a take of the film’s climactic final run across a battlefield. “Then it gets put on another Technocrane that’s on the back of a truck, and it goes racing off, and the grips who carried it are in uniform, so they got paid as being extras. There were probably 13 grips and our camera car driver.”
Click to expand...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...raphy-1265314/

As long as there is principle photography, the camera will have to be moved through space. Whatever that camera is. And as long as there is handheld camerawork, the camera will be rigged for being held. Only a 100% transition to virtual cameras would change that equation. But even live TV would still do live camerawork. Even if all the cameras were robotic, the rigging and movement would be similar. That's life, NorBro
 
lol. Well if that's what was said and done then surely that's life and nothing will ever change again because people never do things differently in the future.

Plus, Deakins, your fave, said it so he surely knows best and will likely live to 2500 to tell us more then.
 
I think this is the relevant bts


Based on what you said, they would do this with a drone and a tiny camera. Maybe just a guy running on a green treadmill. Makes no difference. It's still largely the same. And I think that what's true today will always be true, that the more elements that are real the better it will look
 
I don't think its an issue of being afraid of change. I think its about being realistic of what change might be possible. Just because some do not agree a potential change will happen doesn't mean they fear it.

If any of "the who the heck knows what we are even talking about anymore" changes actually happen then they do and all of us will adapt and move on. Some of us will not adapt and go on to something new and likely live our days in a nursing home barking about how good video used to be. Some of us will adapt and do what we need to.

The fact is none of us here know what the future will be. We could be using large cameras for another 100 years. We could have cameras replace our eyes and 100% of our days recorded and watched by all. Given our fear of vaccines and masks I doubt that will happen. Smartphones could magically figure out a way to pull in 100x more light on a tiny sensor, make tiny glass resolve 100x detail, a way to adjust aperture on a tiny lens, a way to change lenses, a way to have optical zoom and any number of other controls and take over everything.

I tend to care about the now and not 100 years from now. I'm more focused on what can we do with the tools we have today. I'm not really concerned about a kid with a iPhone taking away all the production work. Honestly if it looks great and brings value to the client then good for that kid. He figured out a way to sell what the client needs better than we did. Thing is I don't see that happening yet. Maybe in a few years it will. Maybe Covid will kill all of us in a few years.

Right now I'm only really focused on the GH6 and what I can do with the R6. I'm more concerned about the next cameras BMD comes out with and if the DSLRs will ever add internal raw recording.
 
ahalpert said:
I think this is the relevant bts


Based on what you said, they would do this with a drone and a tiny camera. Maybe just a guy running on a green treadmill. Makes no difference. It's still largely the same. And I think that what's true today will always be true, that the more elements that are real the better it will look
Click to expand...

I didn't see the movie, but I'm sure it's great.

Look, I don't like getting too deep into this particular subject because you can't find a person who truly could care any less about what happens.

But in my mind, they could have shot that scene in at least 20 different ways and it would have been amazing.

People always fixate on shots but that's the way they decided to film it and that's what the world saw and that's going to be the shot that's going to be discussed in history. But other shots could have been as great whether they decided to use a drone or a robot running on the beach or a vehicle with 6 different cameras built into it for even more dynamic overage with different focal lengths (WS, CU, a shot of the feet, maybe a slow-motion angle of sweat and blood and debris flying everywhere, whatever.) Although I think it's one take so then just use a vehicle with one camera built into it, a self driving vehicle. (Yes, a human will have to program point A to point B because cars don't have human brains, yet.)

This is a great shot but the bottom line to me is that you can't mess this shot up. Explosions, lots of people running around on a beach. You can cover this in many ways and it would be great.
 
Also, what's my vested interest in the availability of camera work in 2500? Ludite accusations are an ad hominem distraction from holes in the argument
 
ahalpert said:
Also, what's my vested interest in the availability of camera work in 2500? Ludite accusations are an ad hominem distraction from holes in the argument
Click to expand...

There's no argument because I can't convince you to change your view about the future, especially when we both don't know what it will be like. But I don't know why you insist on having these pointless conversations every other day.

Some are nice, but others are just repetitive because I will never understand how your brain thinks about some things. That's not a distraction; just a personal point of view.

If your thought-processes were more open-minded I would really love to learn from you, but they aren't, IMO.
 
My opinion is that as long as there is physical camerawork, there will need to be sophisticated means of moving the camera smoothly through space. That was the point of the comparison between Gone With the Wind and 1917. Many technological changes. Some common underlying fundamentals.

It could be a drone, it could be a phone. But I expect there to be some common underlying fundamentals.

Only a totally virtual production environment would do away with those. That's possible, but I think it has fundamental drawbacks that will never be overcome. Anyway, we have it already. It's called computer animated films

Optics/physics never change either. As long as there is physical camerawork, people will see serious cameras doing serious things, the best-looking stuff they ever watch
 
OMD (ex-Olympus) says they have no chip shortages to negatively effect their production of ... something. This bodes well for whatever new models might be coming out in 2022 across the entire range.

Also, the new Leica (M11) has some very interesting features, including triple resolution for photos. It steals the A7IV full frame 60 MPX sensor, which also suggests that Panasonic, probably S1RII, will have it down the road That should permit the higher res sensor for either GH-6 (which it probably won't) or GH-7, something in the low-30s a la A7IVor perhaps even 8K/42 MPX for GH-7.

As to the immediate future, I see even smaller sizes for the high end pro work, a reduction similar to the Minis dropping down from the full size Alexas. The aim is the RX1 series, though the next stage will be closer to current high end full frame models. Or Komodo.
 
NorBro said:
But in my mind, they could have shot that scene in at least 20 different ways and it would have been amazing.
Click to expand...

The whole movie is shot as a faux oner (a la Rope). You can argue that it was the wrong decision. But you can't argue that the effect is the same as montage
 
DLD said:
.

As to the immediate future, I see even smaller sizes for the high end pro work, a reduction similar to the Minis dropping down from the full size Alexas. The aim is the RX1 series, though the next stage will be closer to current high end full frame models. Or Komodo.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, the camera could become as small as a sensor with a storage bay and you could control it wirelessly

However, I don't think that would be practical. My guess is a high-end camera won't be smaller than the collection of mounting points, handles, buttons, displays, and ports on the Venice 2. Because all that stuff is way more useful in daily operation than shedding the last couple inches or pounds. You could have a tiny specialty camera for sticking in corners or on drones, but I don't think it's desirable for regular use
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top