Innovation (or the lack of)
- Thread starter keylight
- Start date
keylight
Veteran
Film Camera = innovation
CCD = innovation
Memory = innovation
Camera + CCD + Memory = Digital Camera = Innovation, but for a different reason I think than the three core technologies that made it possible. To my thinking, Digital Cameras were a major innovation because they really democratized communication, in the same way the internet has. Digital Cameras make it possible for anyone to capture and share moments and events. In the same way the printing press made it possible for everyone to read (which democratized information).
Camera phones (with CMOS instead of CCD), small P&S digital cameras, GoPro.... Everything else is really evolution. Even the flip, which I earlier thought about as innovation.
Anyway, think back to where we were just one decade ago:
But I'm wondering...
bread = innovative
sliced bread = progression
toast = ?
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
toast: inevitable.
I know it exists, I was asking Pickthorne if he would think that sulfur plasma lighting is the innovation he was looking for.
The sensor processing technology in Canons C100 and C300 is pretty innovative. They are doing 2x2 pixel binning, in colour, turning a 3840x2160 sensor into a 1920x1080 image, with amazing IQ. I don't know of any other cameras which do it. Everyone else, even Canons older cameras, always used line skipping, or region/area of interest.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
When I first glanced through the thread, I thought it said "sliced beer." Now, that's a stout!
And yeah, let's put a damper on the "VS." stuff.
And yeah, let's put a damper on the "VS." stuff.
What's "innovative"? It's not necessarily about a major discovery, like invention of the transistor, sometimes it's about a revolution in accessibility that truly changes the world. Apple didn't invent the computer - they didn't even necessarily invent the personal computer - all those concepts and hardware were around. But what Apple did was to make the personal computer accessible to the average person from the point of view of usability, and make it into a mass market product that changed society. That was innovative. When the iPhone came around it was also innovative - the technology and concepts were out there, with Newton, PDAs and so forth - but what Apple did was pretty revolutionary in that they put this into the hands of the average person and made it totally usable. That was innovative. Also regarding "they did nothing new in the last 5 years after the iPhone", you forgot the iPad. The iPad again used concepts and hardware elements that existed before, but put it together into a package that was accessible and usable to the average person... useful in a way in which previous "tablets" were not as those were merely running the same old OS not specifically adapted to the unique form factor and usage scenarios of the tablet. That's innovative.
Cameras - same idea. So many of those were nothing "new" - but putting it all together into one usable package that the average person could have access to as the DVX100 did, well, that was "innovative". And I strongly disagree with the person who said that it's not innovative or even good to insert "consumer" features into "pro" gear - that is precisely 100% wrong. The examples I gave were exactly that - putting the package together. Even in software. When FCPX came out, people screamed that it was taking FCP the "pro" part and doing an iMovie out of it. Wrong. As always, they took the "consumer" features and made them work so that - mark this down - this points to the future of PRO. Yes, PRO. That's the history of innovative gear and software - many features which were regarded as fluff and consumer stuff has been integrated into the "pro" to the point that today we regard it as a "must have" for pro gear.
And so I totally think innovation must come to PRO cameras, such as extensive wi-fi communication with tablets/phones, so that hundreds of useful apps and functions can be developed to monitor footage in real time wirelessly - I'd love to have that in a PRO video camera. I'd love to stream footage onto external storage so it's not stuck on a card or drive in the camera. I'd love to control the camera with my phone/tablet wirelessly and remotely as needed. I want that in PRO gear.
In general what were "pro" features yesterday, become "consumer" features today on gear - that's the history of technology whether that's about cars or bicycles, or cameras or whatnot. Viva democracy! Down with elitism! Long Live the consumer revolution! May gear become ever more accessible and affordable and powerful and within reach of even the most economically disadvantaged. If you are a real pro, you will not be threatened by that democracy and access, because tools are only one factor - the human behind it is what really counts... and if you are good, why would you be worried or feel threatened? You're the "pro", right? So a kid has a superpowerful camera - are you worried? Nope! It is a mark of a poor "pro" who wants to keep up the barriers to competition by limited accessibility and high cost of tools. If you're good, it won't matter - what matters is what you do with the tools, "pro" or not.
So the division between "pro" and "consumer" is a false one. What we need is even a faster move to erase the distinction. I hope to one day see a $1000 Alexa and better. I hope to see a day when gear is not a factor at all - for even the most poor among the willing. And we have a long way to go.
You ask about innovation. Often the real innovation is bringing the cost down and bringing tools to the massess - mass production of cars changed the world. Elite, "exclusive" pieces of high cost gear is one kind of innovation. But the mass market is another kind of innovation. And film is mass entertainment. The tools to product mass entertainment should be accessible to the massess. It's a natural evolution. Bring it on!
Cameras - same idea. So many of those were nothing "new" - but putting it all together into one usable package that the average person could have access to as the DVX100 did, well, that was "innovative". And I strongly disagree with the person who said that it's not innovative or even good to insert "consumer" features into "pro" gear - that is precisely 100% wrong. The examples I gave were exactly that - putting the package together. Even in software. When FCPX came out, people screamed that it was taking FCP the "pro" part and doing an iMovie out of it. Wrong. As always, they took the "consumer" features and made them work so that - mark this down - this points to the future of PRO. Yes, PRO. That's the history of innovative gear and software - many features which were regarded as fluff and consumer stuff has been integrated into the "pro" to the point that today we regard it as a "must have" for pro gear.
And so I totally think innovation must come to PRO cameras, such as extensive wi-fi communication with tablets/phones, so that hundreds of useful apps and functions can be developed to monitor footage in real time wirelessly - I'd love to have that in a PRO video camera. I'd love to stream footage onto external storage so it's not stuck on a card or drive in the camera. I'd love to control the camera with my phone/tablet wirelessly and remotely as needed. I want that in PRO gear.
In general what were "pro" features yesterday, become "consumer" features today on gear - that's the history of technology whether that's about cars or bicycles, or cameras or whatnot. Viva democracy! Down with elitism! Long Live the consumer revolution! May gear become ever more accessible and affordable and powerful and within reach of even the most economically disadvantaged. If you are a real pro, you will not be threatened by that democracy and access, because tools are only one factor - the human behind it is what really counts... and if you are good, why would you be worried or feel threatened? You're the "pro", right? So a kid has a superpowerful camera - are you worried? Nope! It is a mark of a poor "pro" who wants to keep up the barriers to competition by limited accessibility and high cost of tools. If you're good, it won't matter - what matters is what you do with the tools, "pro" or not.
So the division between "pro" and "consumer" is a false one. What we need is even a faster move to erase the distinction. I hope to one day see a $1000 Alexa and better. I hope to see a day when gear is not a factor at all - for even the most poor among the willing. And we have a long way to go.
You ask about innovation. Often the real innovation is bringing the cost down and bringing tools to the massess - mass production of cars changed the world. Elite, "exclusive" pieces of high cost gear is one kind of innovation. But the mass market is another kind of innovation. And film is mass entertainment. The tools to product mass entertainment should be accessible to the massess. It's a natural evolution. Bring it on!
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
Standing by my earlier comment... GoPro. In the right light (lighting is still "everything")... amazingly cinematic shots in 4K... from a virtually indestructible camera... for cheap. I'd call that innovative.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Not necessarily... One of my main complaints about 'consumer' widgets is that they locked boxes. There is either no 'work around' or 'awkward circumlocutious' methods, or proprietary methods that are intended to increase revenue.
I'll give an example.
There is absolutely no reason in a digital camera needs to have a mechanical 'time lapse' device attached to it to 'snap the shutter'.
Similarly, there's no reason a manufacturer need 'hide' the internal firmware, and the performance 'improvements' of the Canon and the GH-1/2/(and most likely 3) hacks prove that there was 'more' in the device than the 'innovative' manufacturer let on about.
I think the 'innovation' in this case would be for camera companies to publish detailed spec on this sort of thing, and then let a mass of 'innovators' have at it...
You mention Apple... iPhone, etc...
You are aware of course that the operating system, Mac OS X, that has been in both the Apple desktop/laptops and is also part of the core of iOS, and all are based in part on FreeBSD, a desendant of BSD, and a re-implementation of the concepts found in Unix. In the case of the BSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, as well as other derivatives, all have had 'millions of users, contributors, bugfixers, gnasherofteethers... etc.
But alas, most people have to wait for a few engineers in a far off country, who in turn are waiting for their respective corporate gurus of market analysis, to design The Next Big Thing.
I don't know where this project is... but there is an 'open source' camera project... I think they ought to call it Blue or Green since Red is already trademarked into proprietary hell...
http://www.apertus.org/... unfortunately they seem to be on the 'going quiet' mode, ostensibly to 'raise money'... and so it goes...
keylight
Veteran
Perhaps the GoPro is more an innovation of market rather than innovation of technology?
For example, earlier I posted the idea that:
Film Camera = innovation
CCD = innovation
Memory = innovation
CCD = innovation
Memory = innovation
Each of these three things were new innovations, not simply taking old tech and modifying it - like shrinking it, making it more durable. No. They were entirely new technologies.
But I don't think technological innovation isn't limited to only new technologies. It can also combine existing technologies to make something that already exists, radically new.
Camera + CCD + Memory = Digital Camera = Innovation
Both a film camera and digital camera can do the same thing - capture and preserve a moment in time. But a digital camera changes everything about the way we capture those moment. It doesn't just address the needs of a small segment of a market, but all segments of a market.
My view is that the GoPro, as great as it is, doesn't actually add anything new, other than shrinking it down and making it more durable. Before the GoPro, people could strap lower resolution P&S cameras to their bodies to get action shots (at much greater risk to damaging the camera of course).
To my mind, the GoPro IS an innovation, but it's an innovation of the market, taking what already exists and doing it in a way that better meets the needs of that particular market.
So, still innovative, just not technologically speaking. The tech is more evolutionary.
Anyway, that's sort of the way I see it.
A very interesting discussion!
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
But in many of these cases, the 'innovative infrastructure' existed for 'years' before the consumer, including 'pro' consumers, were given an offering.
For example... In the early 80's I worked for a company which did a lot of 'real time image processing'... so we had about $1M worth of camera(analog) and hardware to process the image to a whopping 512x512(*) digital image... We began to look a CCD arrays, starting off with 1-d arrays and moving the 1-d array to form a 2-d image... much like document scanners and the like use(used) 1-d arrays and moved the light or document depending...
So, in some sense the only 'innovation' I see in current digital cameras is packaging. The camera and processing in the iPhone is more powerful in general than that $1M system way back when, but in terms of 'concept'... it was then that I had my epiphany of 'The Future of Image Production'... namely digital was the future.
That company ran aground trying to sue a group who had left the company, who had developed a machine to perform a type of tomography called 'laminography'. The experience taught me that in the case of patents, it is all in the wording to give the patent the 'uniqueness' factor required, as the technique had been known in the analog world for some time... but with judicious wording, and tossing in 'digital equivalents' for the analog processes... eh wala... patent granted... and of course the company I worked for paid the lawyers rather than me, and the rest of the staff... and failed...
But the point of this... without a substrate of prior art, what is 'innovative', and to what level that is acknowledge, is very tenuous at best.
keylight
Veteran
I agree with everything you wrote, and I'd add one thing (from my perspective):
Innovation is more than just the creation of that which is innovative. It's taking that innovative and applying it to a way that impacts society. So it may take years of development before the full extent of just how innovative something really is can be seen.
When I look at something like the GoPro, I see evolution of existing technology, not innovation of new technology.