3D activity, or Drone videoing and editing? I have a world-weary opinion, but I can wait for responses and your reasoning.
3D is an albatross that won't go away.
MV? Is that a good or bad thing? Which of the two will have the greatest traction for the viewer's experience?
Military facial recognition technology. (Scary)
Military AI drone technology. (Scary)
Like the still camera industry, video in cell phone. The video quality of the new phones has greatly impacted how the public sees and uses video. How many folks never attempted video because not wanting to buy a video camera. 50 mp is not great for 4K but the stuff looks good (as good as it can) on Youtube where many folks see videos and others post their work.
The promise of decent touch auto-focus from a Sony bridge camera has pretty much put a cap on 2017 for me. I live a simple life and I'm easily satisfied. One of my DINK* friends came to a party on Saturday rocking a Sony A9.
* dual income no kids, he doesn't make money with cameras. Just spends it.
Smaller and smaller gear, drones, and lightweight electronic stabilizers ( aka Gimbals.)
Take a look at the BBC's new Planet Earth series and look up the blogs (sorry don't have time to link) discussing the technology & history of wildlife documentary films: the new footage is AMAZING and really intimate in a way that wasn't possible before this tech.
Take a look at the BBC's new Planet Earth series . . . . the new footage is AMAZING and really intimate in a way that wasn't possible before this tech.
@Kinvermark : Exactly, exactly, exactly! And seeing and experiencing this last Sunday was the central and crucial reason I started this thread ( BTW: my Post was moved from Off Topic to main Vegas?) Asking the question, was to once again underscore the effect of returning to the analogue way of thinking and understanding Narrative and getting/acquiring crucial footage to appeal to and inspire the audience. Making use of analogue parallax and appreciating the intimacy of all things analogue is where the film maker makes a difference. I use the word analogue carefully and purely as a way to differentiate that which has been an attempt to garner this from the application of something like 3D FX-ing to supplant and make up for the lack of true experience. Writing this is not meant to belittle all of those armies and brigades of fine FX artists working in 3D.
The way I look at is this: there are technologies that come about simply because they can be conveniently made and marketed ( e.g. 4k presentation, 3D, HDR?) but don't have a lot of traction, and technologies that are truly enabling better audience experiences. The BBC series illustrates this really well, because they have super talented people who know how to combine a very powerful emotional narrative (e.g. the horror of the baby iguanas running the gauntlet past the racer snakes, the sad gentle smile of the island sloth...) with the tech tools needed to get the shots required.
The irony is that the tools are now so cheap that many (too many?) can afford them, but they will mostly only be used to produce pretty banal youtube talking head & eye candy videos because that is an "art" form that can be cheaply produced and distributed for free.
True . .True . . Mind you, both Shakespeare and Dickens had paper and pencil, as do I! 😉
The way I look at is this: there are technologies that come about simply because they can be conveniently made and marketed ( e.g. 4k presentation, 3D, HDR?) but don't have a lot of traction, and technologies that are truly enabling better audience experiences.
Maybe I am getting this wrong but are you saying 4K and HDR are not contributing to the audience experience?
Not exactly. For most people a 4K tv does not add value over a good hdtv at typical viewing distances, but 4k CAPTURE is very valuable (think reframing, stabilization, excellent downrezzing...) . I think HDR will likely fall foul of the same problem: typical living room viewing conditions, but I admit that is speculation on my part as there is little content and I don't have an HDR tv anyway.
So are you feeling "tech fatigue?" Maybe a little bit like the overwhelming focus on the technology of the tools detracts from the making of good content?
Yes, watching 4K on a 32” TV just doesn’t make sense and on the other hand, watching HD on 80” TV also doesn’t unless you are 5-10 meters away from it. All these new technologies do enhance the viewers experience when used as intended. Same for HDR. If your viewing device doesn’t support it then there is no gain for you. On the other hand, 3D fails because it isn’t as far developed as it needs to be. I do enjoy certain movies in a good 3D cinema but not so much on my TV. Also watching the news in 3D wouldn’t make it any better, 4K and HDR however “can” improve the experience. Unfortunately they can’t “beautify” the content of the news.
So are you feeling "tech fatigue?" Maybe a little bit like the overwhelming focus on the technology of the tools detracts from the making of good content?
No, not fatigue at all, rather I’m glad to see the BEEB using great new analogue techonogies to capture stunning content, as 3D slithers back, Smaug-like, into a deep cavern, to be awakened at some time in the future when finance directors of graphene-silico enabled widgets will form the next snake-oil best-thing solution to their faltering/failing revenue streams.
BTW, I had the pleasure to meet Doug Allan, the underwater Blue2 BEEB cameraman at a London Trade Expo. Totally charming and enthusing gentleman.
3D slithers back, Smaug-like, into a deep cavern, to be awakened at some time in the future when finance directors of graphene-silico enabled widgets will form the next snake-oil best-thing solution to their faltering/failing revenue streams.
well put there old chap...
i'm bored by the fact that there's so much 'crap' still being churned out by supposed professionals. motion graphics, drone shots, shallow dof are not in themselves a reason to make a program around them.
and yes, the beeb continues to produce some of the best tv around.
Not exactly. For most people a 4K tv does not add value over a good hdtv at typical viewing distances, but 4k CAPTURE is very valuable (think reframing, stabilization, excellent downrezzing...) . I think HDR will likely fall foul of the same problem: typical living room viewing conditions, but I admit that is speculation on my part as there is little content and I don't have an HDR tv anyway.
HDR is very dramatic, and anyone can notice the effect even on a good reasonably priced LED 4k TV above 500 -600 nits brightness. (I don't think HDR comes on non 4k TV's) There is a film effect where you fade to white to intensify emotion. It's a physical stimulus that causes an amplification of emotion & it's really effective. But it doesn't work on non-HDR TV's or even in many non-HDR digital multiplex cinemas as the contrast ratio is so low.
Dolby HDR deserves to become popular, unlike 3d.
IMHO, the Zenmuse x7. A $3,000 compact camera that has the resolution and picture quality for a 35K Arri camera. And not only can it mount on the Inspire 2, it could also be adapted to a handheld gimbal rig. And if that's the case, what you are talking about is the ability to get amazing cinematic quality and motion just about anywhere. Also the fact that Magix kept Vegas alive!
Not exactly. For most people a 4K tv does not add value over a good hdtv at typical viewing distances, but 4k CAPTURE is very valuable (think reframing, stabilization, excellent downrezzing...) . I think HDR will likely fall foul of the same problem: typical living room viewing conditions, but I admit that is speculation on my part as there is little content and I don't have an HDR tv anyway.
HDR is very dramatic, and anyone can notice the effect even on a good reasonably priced LED 4k TV above 500 -600 nits brightness. (I don't think HDR comes on non 4k TV's) There is a film effect where you fade to white to intensify emotion. It's a physical stimulus that causes an amplification of emotion & it's really effective. But it doesn't work on non-HDR TV's or even in many non-HDR digital multiplex cinemas as the contrast ratio is so low.
Dolby HDR deserves to become popular, unlike 3d.
OK, I give up. What is HDR and what does it do besides add to the cost of the TV?
JJK
Not exactly. For most people a 4K tv does not add value over a good hdtv at typical viewing distances, but 4k CAPTURE is very valuable (think reframing, stabilization, excellent downrezzing...) . I think HDR will likely fall foul of the same problem: typical living room viewing conditions, but I admit that is speculation on my part as there is little content and I don't have an HDR tv anyway.
HDR is very dramatic, and anyone can notice the effect even on a good reasonably priced LED 4k TV above 500 -600 nits brightness. (I don't think HDR comes on non 4k TV's) There is a film effect where you fade to white to intensify emotion. It's a physical stimulus that causes an amplification of emotion & it's really effective. But it doesn't work on non-HDR TV's or even in many non-HDR digital multiplex cinemas as the contrast ratio is so low.
Dolby HDR deserves to become popular, unlike 3d.
OK, I give up. What is HDR and what does it do besides add to the cost of the TV?JJK
Have you ever tried a web search? It's quite easy to do.
i find both 4k and hdr when viewed on 4k screens quite unrealistic. sure, they're both are eye-catching, but so far removed from reality as to look totally artificial. however, since we live in a plastic, fantastic* world i'm sure they'll be well appreciated by the majority for whom the more garish things are, the more desirable they become.
*thanks grace ;-)
I mostly watch documentaries and that is where both, 4K and HDR shine.
And of course, there will always be those that like to put the head in the sand... or somewhere else.
where the sun always shines ;-)
OK, I give up. What is HDR and what does it do besides add to the cost of the TV?JJK
In vegas when altering traditional 8bit colour levels there are only 256 different brightness levels (0-255) and broadcast safe levels are only approx 220(from memory). HDR is capable of displaying 1000 different levels & the same colours and brightness latitude that FILM can. I remember noticing how intense red was when viewing a 70mm fillm in comparision to the same movie I had seen on TV many times. non HDR tv's just aren't capable of displaying the same colours as film. 10bit HDR Can.
GH5 is an example of a camera that can record 10bit video so you can create your own HDR content with vegas
10bit alone does not mean that you have HDR. For HDR you will need a footage shoot in 14-16 steps (ok, 10 of the GH4/5 work too). But you have to grade in rec2020/2100 to PQ or HLR, and that with 10bit. So both color gammut and the transferfunction with more then the 6 typical steps of rec709 are required. Metadate are required too.
With the GH5 you can shoot either to HLG or better v log l (what is better then HLG) and edit that in Vegas Pro 15 in ACES 1, but be aware that Vegas is not complete HDR ready yet.