Inventors and ideas for progress

Hey, Jason,

I mean the design of cameras. So, either Panasonic, Sony, or Nikon could be the audience. But smaller companies or tinkerers, like Ikonoskop, Digital Bolex, or Apertus, could listen in as well.

I don't want it way down at the bottom, in DIY. I think it should be beside News. Call it Design. These kinds of discussions always spring from news --- a recently announced camera or an upcoming expo always gets people thinking about how cameras could be better. The DIY section attracts people who want to make something in their workshop, like a dolly, boom pole, shoulder rest, etc. Sawdust is involved. But I'm thinking more about polls, drawings, and discussions of the pros and cons of image sensor tech, codecs, camera ergonomics, etc.

Someone may say it's delusions of grandeur to think that Sony or Panasonic or Canon will listen. But I remember Panasonic did, when the AF100 was in progress. We started a wish list. It was even at Panasonic's request, I thought. Plus, we have Jan Crittenden as a member here, from Panasonic. And I believe that, if not now, that more and more companies will take RED's approach of using online forums.

Basically, if you want to know what I have in mind, take every thread in the News section, and start from the beginning. After a few posts about what is actually coming out (for example, Panasonic announces some new camera) you'll hit a change in direction in the discussion, when someone says, well couldn't they have done _______? Then there's discussion for the rest of the thread about how it could be a little better if only they did _______. Sometimes, it changes course entirely, where the camera people are talking about is nothing like what was first announced. If you were to hypothetically snip the discussion right there and dump them in my new forum, that's basically what I'm talking about.

But I'm hoping it will be more than that. The discussions in the News section are always a little rushed, because people are aware they're taking it off topic. And then there is always someone who chimes in, Shouldn't you guys be working? A forum that starts off with the purpose of people unloading their ideas would be more intentional and hopefully organized. For example here are some topics I would start right away:
  • What's the ideal K? 2K, 3K, 4K? Given the trade-offs in dynamic range, sensor noise, storage size, and human visual acuity?
  • Shoulder mount or handheld? Or something else entirely? What's the best camera body?
  • Is 4:4:4 really necessary, or is 4:2:2 good enough, even for grading? Is even 4:2:0 perhaps only worse on paper but visually the same to human eyes?
I don't imagine that we'll all come to unanimous agreement. But I do see a lot of disagreement borne out of ignorance. If we just talked things through, I think we could narrow it to a few cameras that this board wants, rather than as many different cameras as there are members (okay, a slight exaggeration). After all, we all have two eyes, ten fingers, and we shoot motion pictures. The SLR served, and still serves, a wide variety of professional still photography: documentary, portraiture, sports . . . A lot of the distinctions in video cameras are not for good reasons. They are artifacts leftover from older technology, awkward first attempts at adapting to rapidly changing technology. I think the digital video industry is still in adolescense, where it's growing very fast and somewhat awkwardly. It has big ears and it's voice cracks sometimes. But in a few years, hopefully, I think it could reach maturity --- or at least a maturity for a while --- when certain benchmarks are reached. Still photographers and cinematographers did not go on and on like us about film. I think part of that is because film didn't suck, at least visually (perhaps workflow-wise). It is only recently that video has started to look like film. And in latitude it is still lacking a little. Even the most expensive cameras, like the Alexa, still underperform film by about a stop. And people are also still not taking full advantage of the dynamic range they do have because they're not grading properly or the manufacturer baked in a certain curve that can't be moved much in post because it's 8 bit.

Please, please, create a Design forum (right beside News). If it doesn't work out, you can pull it after a few months of testing. I think it will be a huge hit!
 
Last edited:
"I mean the design of cameras. So, either Panasonic, Sony, or Nikon could be the audience. But smaller companies or tinkerers, like Ikonoskop, Digital Bolex, or Apertus, could listen in as well."
Look. They will listen. What makes you think that they are not listening to ALL threads ? It takes nothing to assign a social and professional networking guru to scour the forums for FREE ideas. What makes you feel that putting a NEW chat thread at the top will make them incorporate things on YOUR schedule?
Or do you have another motive for this?
I would acquaint yourself better with the design process of technology. It's NOT like making a new flavor of ice cream, based on the feedback of customers.
 
combatentropy said:
But I'm hoping it will be more than that. The discussions in the News section are always a little rushed, because people are aware they're taking it off topic. And then there is always someone who chimes in, Shouldn't you guys be working? A forum that starts off with the purpose of people unloading their ideas would be more intentional and hopefully organized.
Click to expand...
+1

It gives a place to be constructive. The only other places to do this are on Camera Announcements, and DIY, but DIY sounds like using duct tape and plumbing parts to create something that already exists on the market, and anything other than grand praise for a new camera makes it sound like a bunch of complainers, rather than people who know what they want.

Also, I wouldn't have to read through 50 pgs of a camera announcement just to read a few open minded concepts. I have completely stopped participating in the product announcement threads all together.

One thing about innovation, is will it work? Yes, it will.

...Though it should not be a place that only invites someone with a radically new idea, that would be too scary, but could also be where individuals could suggest an improvement on something small, or something that is already a given.




Example 1
For example, I started a thread about pictures styles: #1

My main idea was that any intelligent person could design their own picture style, and that all of the industry standard picture styles were not perfect, nor even ideal, and maybe not even as beneficial as they are said to be. It wasn't something that I could copyright, because it was an open conversation. I mean, I could have just created a picture style, make some nice looking videos, and sell it, but I wanted a dialogue to form, and hopefully get more minds involved. I had a good conversation with Samuel H about how cinestyle was not giving much extra dynamic range, and he went and created flaat. I still use my own styles, but I enjoy the diversity of minds, and the potential of sharing.





I like how combatentropy phrased it, and that is that many ideas are shared all through out this forum, but not in any organized way. They are scattered amongst threads with camera names for titles. It would be great to have a place for those that want to have a dialogue about advancements, with out feeling like cheap gripers, every time we suggest a camera doesn't meet our needs. And if that inspires a new product, than great. If not, at least it can serve to broaden the communities ideas of how things can be done.

Again, there is no place structured for this dialogue.
-DIY is for cheap solutions for things that already exist on the market.
-Camera announcements are just that, and they should be simple, but turn into 150pg debates about how they could have had this or that, and who is a whinger.
-Camera forums are a place for people to talk about a camera and how to use it best. Already too late to change anything.
...
In fact, if you go down the list of categories, almost everything is categorized by a tool (camera, software...), and the only things that are open ended is "FILMMAKING" portion, or the "cinematography", "Cafe ala DVX", and "film discussion", none of which really seem to help facilitate innovation on a broad scale, but particularly not in the tools category.

The categories are very consumer support based. It would be nice to see a movement towards ideas and sharing vs consumer support. I don't mind the talk about cameras, that's fine, but at least have a sub-section that doesn't make it easy for someone's ideas to be considered "whining". There should be a place where users can openly talk about what they like and want. Whether they just want to vent, dream, or if they want to start an intelligent discussion with CAD drawings and hard numbers. Whether they want to educate, or whether they just want to start an open discussion. There are a million brilliant and like minded people out there, and none of them are fanboy/girls. (okay some of them are)



Example 2
Another recent thread was started in the DSLR section. It was titled "Is HD enough?". This can fit there, but it tends to get stifled into, "well the DSLR is 1080p and if you can't use it, than you shouldn't be making films", yadda yadda. Whereas if this topic were posted on an open ended section, that was more about debate, innovation, design, and advancement, then the conversation could focused more on the visual phenom itself, and not be tied to the "HDSLR" tool.

Example 3
The "form factor" conversation started in the "News" section was awesome, but I feel it fizzled out because it was put in the "News" section and therefore, even I felt that I was off topic from the get go.




When DVXuser first came out, it seemed like people actually did just own one type of camera. A DVXuser was a DVXuser. It was the only 24p digital camera in the budget range. There was no other. Now, many of us use almost any camera, and don't care about brand, but just the right tool for the job. I use RED, Sony, Canon, Panny, Nikon, 1/3", 1/2" 2/3", m43, APS-C, FF35, 24p, 60i, 60p, 25p, 30p, etc, etc, etc.... So, when I look at the DVXuser interface, I see 20 camera categories, and it just seems like a consumer/manufacturing way of organizing things, at least from a "film makers" point of view.


I also further agree with combatentropy that the section should not be towards the bottom, but up towards the top with News. The camera sections should be at the bottom, imo.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
but DIY sounds like using duct tape and plumbing parts to create something that already exists on the market,
Click to expand...

Sometimes yes. But a LOT of cutting edge ideas grew our of the DIY threads....
1) Zazaslider. which has been widely copied, improved and in my case modified significantly and patented (pending)
2) A novel follow focus mechanism that shall go unmentioned further
3) Before there were affordable HD field monitors, we were re purposing HD projector panels and I had the unenviable distinction of turning Neilsen Frames into rugged aluminum enclosures.
4) LED Illuminated light cap for the poor suffering HV20 users
5) Lanc replacement for HV20
The list goes on. The key is that DIY should be replaced with DIY Skunkworks!
Oh and yes, I actually saved a shoot once with duct tape so don't laugh. I had to use it to hold my camera onto the tripod head cause I forget the mounting plate at home ! Now that is TRUE DIY DUCTAPE form.
 
Zephyrnoid said:
Sometimes yes. But a LOT of cutting edge ideas grew our of the DIY threads....
1) Zazaslider. which has been widely copied, improved and in my case modified significantly and patented (pending)
2) A novel follow focus mechanism that shall go unmentioned further
3) Before there were affordable HD field monitors, we were re purposing HD projector panels and I had the unenviable distinction of turning Neilsen Frames into rugged aluminum enclosures.
4) LED Illuminated light cap for the poor suffering HV20 users
5) Lanc replacement for HV20
The list goes on. The key is that DIY should be replaced with DIY Skunkworks!
Oh and yes, I actually saved a shoot once with duct tape so don't laugh. I had to use it to hold my camera onto the tripod head cause I forget the mounting plate at home ! Now that is TRUE DIY DUCTAPE form.
Click to expand...
Tape is no joke.
 
Anyone here ever read Thom Hogan's Nikon site bythom.com?

He likes to point out errors in design direction that Nikon could've avoided by listening to their customers even a little.

It's seldom a design limitation that would've been difficult to avoid, or a real flaw/error/bug, or even an issue that would only be noticed by pros in extreme use cases.

It's usually an exasperatingly illogical design choice that any n00b who's used a camera in the real world for 15 minutes could've helped Nikon avoid.

That's why we need to create this forum and promote the hell out of it to the vendors.
 
Last edited:
Lee Saxon said:
Anyone here ever read Thom Hogan's Nikon site bythom.com?

He likes to point out errors in design direction that Nikon could've avoided by listening to their customers even a little.

It's seldom a design limitation that would've been difficult to avoid, or a real flaw/error/bug, or even an issue that would only be noticed by pros in extreme use cases.

It's usually an exasperatingly illogical design choice that any n00b who's used a camera in the real world for 15 minutes could've helped Nikon avoid.

That's why we need to create this forum and promote the hell out of it to the vendors.
Click to expand...

Good luck. you obviously have never been on a HW design team. HW is designed form the inside out (to the customer). No other way to do it really.
 
Camera manufacturers don't want to make the perfect camera. There is no money in perfect solutions. Instead it is better business to make solutions incrementally better, in a gradual process. This is a basic and irritating fundamental of the capitalist world. Progress is stifled. Where we could be in 10 years technologically, we will be in 1000. All thanks to capitalism/the type of people that run the market.

They know exactly what we need, but the won't make many sales if they give it to us. 1 camera each and thats all the business all camera companies ever get.
 
Will Turner said:
Camera manufacturers don't want to make the perfect camera. There is no money in perfect solutions. Instead it is better business to make solutions incrementally better, in a gradual process. This is a basic and irritating fundamental of the capitalist world. Progress is stifled. Where we could be in 10 years technologically, we will be in 1000. All thanks to capitalism/the type of people that run the market.

They know exactly what we need, but the won't make many sales if they give it to us. 1 camera each and thats all the business all camera companies ever get.
Click to expand...

That's a lamentation, typical of self-centered design. "They know what I want, why don't they just sell it to me now at a no profit price tag?"
No. You might want to read "The Breakthrough Imperative" and some books on technology design.
It's not just about big business controlling the marketplace. In the case of cutting edge / bleeding edge technology there is a lot of 'confluence' anxiety in the design process.
By that i mean that there often has to be an intersection of the right elements at one time, in order for the 'sweet spot' to emerge. Then you add forced paradigm shifts which really muddy the waters constantly.
The book uses the example of Apple a lot. Apple's first hand-held, the Newton was a failure. Too much promise and no performance. failure. It took Apple nearly 15 years to re-enter the PDA market and then they got it right with iPhone.

There is no 'perfect camera' only perfect movies, which are something else altogether :)
 
Will Turner said:
Camera manufacturers don't want to make the perfect camera. There is no money in perfect solutions. Instead it is better business to make solutions incrementally better, in a gradual process. This is a basic and irritating fundamental of the capitalist world. Progress is stifled. Where we could be in 10 years technologically, we will be in 1000. All thanks to capitalism/the type of people that run the market.

They know exactly what we need, but the won't make many sales if they give it to us. 1 camera each and thats all the business all camera companies ever get.
Click to expand...
getting close to politics.

Let's clarify, the design innovation, and progress forum, would be for the members of this forum. Manufacturers may benefit, or may not, but they do not factor in. They already have hundreds of threads that are company and model specific. Of course names like nikon, or c300 will inevitably drop in, but the spirit of the thread would at least be brand agnostic.
 
Will Turner said:
Camera manufacturers don't want to make the perfect camera. There is no money in perfect solutions. Instead it is better business to make solutions incrementally better, in a gradual process. This is a basic and irritating fundamental of the capitalist world. Progress is stifled. Where we could be in 10 years technologically, we will be in 1000. All thanks to capitalism/the type of people that run the market.

They know exactly what we need, but the won't make many sales if they give it to us. 1 camera each and thats all the business all camera companies ever get.
Click to expand...

Steve Jobs was a refreshing alternative:

Put Products Before Profits
When Jobs and his small team designed the original Macintosh, in the early 1980s, his injunction was to make it “insanely great.” He never spoke of profit maximization or cost trade-offs. “Don’t worry about price, just specify the computer’s abilities,” he told the original team leader. At his first retreat with the Macintosh team, he began by writing a maxim on his whiteboard: “Don’t compromise.” The machine that resulted cost too much and led to Jobs’s ouster from Apple. But the Macintosh also “put a dent in the universe,” as he said, by accelerating the home computer revolution. And in the long run he got the balance right: Focus on making the product great and the profits will follow.

John Sculley, who ran Apple from 1983 to 1993, was a marketing and sales executive from Pepsi. He focused more on profit maximization than on product design after Jobs left, and Apple gradually declined. “I have my own theory about why decline happens at companies,” Jobs told me: They make some great products, but then the sales and marketing people take over the company, because they are the ones who can juice up profits. “When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off. It happened at Apple when Sculley came in, which was my fault, and it happened when Ballmer took over at Microsoft.”

When Jobs returned, he shifted Apple’s focus back to making innovative products: the sprightly iMac, the PowerBook, and then the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. As he explained, “My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. Everything else was secondary. Sure, it was great to make a profit, because that was what allowed you to make great products. But the products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It’s a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything—the people you hire, who gets promoted, what you discuss in meetings.”

--- from The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson, in the Harvard Business Review​


Steve Jobs left Apple in 1985. In 1996, when he returned, Apple was months from bankruptcy. Apple may soon be worth a trillion dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top