Can't you get "good enough" depth of field by using filters and other effects in post?
I don't consider myself an expert either.
I've never tried in post. It seems like a lot of work though. You can "fake" it at record time by having the camera as close to the subject as possible. You don't get near the level of flexibility as you might want, but with with a little cleverness, it can work.
It would need the most amazing base leg thing in the history of computing. No one will ever use a vertical touchscreen and no one will buy an angled computer unless it can be put vertically for media.
Anyway, it makes perfect sense to me that Apple would at least consider ARM. Steve Jobs said back in 2006 that they had been testing OS X on Intel since the day OS X came out. That means that they spent 5 years looking at it before making the switch, and did so when it made sense (when IBM was unable to deliver a lower voltage, cooler running version of its latest chips). Apple wasn't ready for Intel in 2001, nor was Intel ready with appropriate chips. But in 2006 when they were, Apple was ready to make the move. It might not be until 2016 or even later when ARM chips are capable of running PC/Mac software, but Apple ought to be ready for it.
I tried to push a button on the screen of my son-in-law's new MBA the other day, until he respectfully reminded me that it doesn't have a touch screen. Felt quite natural though. New MBA is a work of art!
Every iPhone I've bought I've handed off to my brothers and sisters and bought an iPhone 3GS for my mom for mothers day in 2010. Needless to say my MacBook pros screen is littered with small finger prints from my younger brother and niece because they've grown up around the iPhones! Lol
Showing that direct manipulation of the HI is both more attractive and more natural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _BeAsTMaSteR_
... Needless to say my MacBook pros screen is littered with small finger prints from my younger brother and niece because they've grown up around the iPhones! Lol
They're lucky to have such a generous relative. Nice image..
I think it's clear that Apple is looking at ways to revolutionize the entertainment industry with user-friendly computing - it's about smart, intuitive lifestyle products first and high-end, nerdy computing requirements for high-end users (programmers, graphic artists, video editors etc.) second.
We are moving towards an age of service convergence where device manufacturers provide the connected device ecosystems, leaving service providers to figure out how to make the best use of those systems - we as consumers want all of our services on whatever device is nearest to us.
Imagine for example, if Apple truly opened up the Apple TV to devs within the iOS ecosystem. Hello OnLive app, hello Hulu app, hello iPlayer app, hello Spotify app - all of a sudden you have a box that can do everything that is constantly connected to your TV. What's great about this for Apple is that it doesn't have to deal with any of the headaches associated with providing TV or on-demand gaming services and all of the incumbent licensing agreements and server space required for that. The onus is on the publisher of the OnLive app or the iPlayer app to take care of that side of things.
I think we are going to see the first TV set-top box (or maybe even a TV with the box built in) that truly transcends the personal computer/tv divide - that sounds like a 'category defining experience' that Apple already has nine tenths of the pieces in place to bring to market.
Can't you get "good enough" depth of field by using filters and other effects in post?
Ouch! It's all about the lenses... Filters for colour and getting "film looks" exist but a top notch lens used wisely can bring you much further. That's why DSLR filmmaking erupted... Progressive scan video with more affordable lenses allows more regular folk to achieve some stunning cinematography.
Depth of field is particularly hard to "fake" unless you are willing to do a lot of rotoscoping... The natural depth of feel look from a lens is hard to emulate digitally because one thing computers are not that great at doing yet is being able to take a scene and gauge objects and layering. That's why some of the pseudo-3D done by separating layers instead of shooting with a real 3D camera look so bad... eg Alice in Wonderland 3D.
Can't you get "good enough" depth of field by using filters and other effects in post?
Dick - I work in post, so I can add my 2¢.
You can do this type of thing post-shoot but a) it takes an incredible amount of system render time, b) it's filled with trial and error, and c) it almost never looks anything like what would fool your eye into thinking it's the real thing.
Unless Peter Jackson and friends at WETA are doing it for you, forget it. In our realm, it's utterly unpractical and should be used as a "drastic measures" only approach.
IMO, if you need that "cinematic" look, JeffDM is right - the equivalent video gear is out of reach. For all the DSLR's weaknesses - mainly the agressive compression codecs and their inability to follow-focus - it's truly light years beyond anything else in it's price range.
DSLR's will revolutionize the industry much like the arrival of Digital Video did a decade ago. Indeed, they already are.
About 90% of the pieces I have worked on this year - including a dramatic feature, several music videos, a feature doc and many diverse television and web-based projects - have been at least partly shot on DSLRs. Last year, that number was less than 50%. More like 35-40%.
Astounding, really.
edit: I see nvidia2008 did an admirable breakdown of why the "fix it in post" approach is a non-starter while I was responding...
Well that is why I have a real video camera. It takes reasonably good stills but not as good as my aging DSLR which I intend on replacing. If you want to shoot video, use a video camera. If you want to shoot stills, use a DSLR. The fact that they each claim to do both doesn't mean they are any good at the other medium for which they are not primarily designed.
Similarly I have Macs, Windows and Linux boxes and I always select the appropriate platform for the job at hand.
Well, it's a bit of a new medium, this DSLR filmmaking. You can see from the video linked to, it actually looks pretty damn good. They purposely kept letting it go in and out of focus (exaggerating one of the weaknesses of DLSRs - focus issues), but the look they achieved is really quite nice. Honestly if you saw that video whereby they kept the focus, did some stylistic editing, it would look quite "film-like".
At the end of the day you are taking something designed for stills to shoot long sequences of video.
But, from an aestethic perspective, I think high-end video cameras (particularly the older CCD-based ones) don't achieve that intimate, Lomo-esque feel of DSLR filmmaking (though of course many are discovering all kinds of different looks they can get, not just retro or "romantic" ones).
It's personal, it depends what you are trying to achieve, and it depends on your budget.
Like I said personally I've never thought much of CCD-based non-progressive video cameras... because, the moment you hit record, you're making "video"... nothing else, but... video.
A Canon 5D Mark2 with some nice lenses will cost more but you can get some really nice filmmaking out of it. With the caveat of having to deal with the limitations of current DSLR filmmaking.
I'm just a punter, so it's just my take on things. But I can tell you the first time I saw HD video out of a Canon 5D Mark2 equipped with quality lenses it really blew my mind.
The last thing I will note is that as more people go to DSLR filmmaking you tend to recognise the "look" of it because the DSLR lenses are quite different from RED, Arri or Panavision lenses... so it does have that more "intimate" feel rather than "big cinema" feel. But people are probably working on this as we speak.
At which point Apple will own our music, files, browsing history, location data, and various other scary tidbits. NTM, Apple was recently the highest valued company on Earth. Yes, Earth .... Apple is growing into a daunting size and sitting on more cash than the U.S. Government. This is all coming from a 20 year Apple user and shareholder that has benefited greatly from their growth. I love them and appreciate what they have done but they're starting to frighten me a bit.
I'm not interested in iSkyNet. The day Apple goes 100% iCloud is the day I go 100% linux.
p.s.
hello! this is my first post! long-time lurker, macrumors regular.
Think it through...you are already on iskynet or Echelon or whatever you want to call it. Your bits are already easily quantifiable from however many zillion locations you go to online. It's a matter of signal to noise ratio. If you have something 'they' are interested in they will GET IT period. Your choice of OS won't help you so much. But if anybody is to have all my 'stuff' I'd feel better with Apple , at least they know what intellectual property is!
I think it's clear that Apple is looking at ways to revolutionize the entertainment industry with user-friendly computing - it's about smart, intuitive lifestyle products first and high-end, nerdy computing requirements for high-end users (programmers, graphic artists, video editors etc.) second.
We are moving towards an age of service convergence where device manufacturers provide the connected device ecosystems, leaving service providers to figure out how to make the best use of those systems - we as consumers want all of our services on whatever device is nearest to us.
Imagine for example, if Apple truly opened up the Apple TV to devs within the iOS ecosystem. Hello OnLive app, hello Hulu app, hello iPlayer app, hello Spotify app - all of a sudden you have a box that can do everything that is constantly connected to your TV. What's great about this for Apple is that it doesn't have to deal with any of the headaches associated with providing TV or on-demand gaming services and all of the incumbent licensing agreements and server space required for that. The onus is on the publisher of the OnLive app or the iPlayer app to take care of that side of things.
I think we are going to see the first TV set-top box (or maybe even a TV with the box built in) that truly transcends the personal computer/tv divide - that sounds like a 'category defining experience' that Apple already has nine tenths of the pieces in place to bring to market.
You could be onto it there.
Apple will leverage its strengths:
Superior hardware and experience in developing hardware
You pull your iComp out of your pocket. You UNFOLD it, to the desired size, and begin using it, with fingertouch screen.
So, you want it, 2" x 4", that how much you unfold it, 4" x 8", unfold again, 8" x 16", you guessed it, unfold again.
OR, how about the same theme, yet, you ROLL out your iRoll computer onto a desktop, wall, picnic table, car hood ? fire it up, and let "Your Fingers to the Talking"!
Print this, or put it in the back of your memory bank, because you WILL come back to it someday soon, and say "How in hell did he know"? "How is this masked man"?
In the last quarterly earnings calls, the Apple CFO referred to a major product transition in the September quarter, but people are assuming it is the iPhone 5.
Edit: maybe a tablet that's built in to a table, like the Microsoft one. A "desktop iPad"
I think you said it right, they know what Win8 will have and they're trying to come with something similar before MS does.
Comments
No expert here, just trying to learn...
Can't you get "good enough" depth of field by using filters and other effects in post?
I don't consider myself an expert either.
I've never tried in post. It seems like a lot of work though. You can "fake" it at record time by having the camera as close to the subject as possible. You don't get near the level of flexibility as you might want, but with with a little cleverness, it can work.
It would need the most amazing base leg thing in the history of computing. No one will ever use a vertical touchscreen and no one will buy an angled computer unless it can be put vertically for media.
something like this?
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...mac-touch.html
something like this?
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...mac-touch.html
Except usable, yes.
One link.
One Baaaaaank! One Caaaaaaard!
I tried to push a button on the screen of my son-in-law's new MBA the other day, until he respectfully reminded me that it doesn't have a touch screen. Felt quite natural though. New MBA is a work of art!
Every iPhone I've bought I've handed off to my brothers and sisters and bought an iPhone 3GS for my mom for mothers day in 2010. Needless to say my MacBook pros screen is littered with small finger prints from my younger brother and niece because they've grown up around the iPhones! Lol
... Needless to say my MacBook pros screen is littered with small finger prints from my younger brother and niece because they've grown up around the iPhones! Lol
They're lucky to have such a generous relative. Nice image..
Cheers!
almost but not quite cricket
some cried out blue blue
55' TV
game over
our new family was found
i need a break
9
I think it's clear that Apple is looking at ways to revolutionize the entertainment industry with user-friendly computing - it's about smart, intuitive lifestyle products first and high-end, nerdy computing requirements for high-end users (programmers, graphic artists, video editors etc.) second.
We are moving towards an age of service convergence where device manufacturers provide the connected device ecosystems, leaving service providers to figure out how to make the best use of those systems - we as consumers want all of our services on whatever device is nearest to us.
Imagine for example, if Apple truly opened up the Apple TV to devs within the iOS ecosystem. Hello OnLive app, hello Hulu app, hello iPlayer app, hello Spotify app - all of a sudden you have a box that can do everything that is constantly connected to your TV. What's great about this for Apple is that it doesn't have to deal with any of the headaches associated with providing TV or on-demand gaming services and all of the incumbent licensing agreements and server space required for that. The onus is on the publisher of the OnLive app or the iPlayer app to take care of that side of things.
I think we are going to see the first TV set-top box (or maybe even a TV with the box built in) that truly transcends the personal computer/tv divide - that sounds like a 'category defining experience' that Apple already has nine tenths of the pieces in place to bring to market.
No expert here, just trying to learn...
Can't you get "good enough" depth of field by using filters and other effects in post?
Ouch! It's all about the lenses... Filters for colour and getting "film looks" exist but a top notch lens used wisely can bring you much further. That's why DSLR filmmaking erupted... Progressive scan video with more affordable lenses allows more regular folk to achieve some stunning cinematography.
Depth of field is particularly hard to "fake" unless you are willing to do a lot of rotoscoping... The natural depth of feel look from a lens is hard to emulate digitally because one thing computers are not that great at doing yet is being able to take a scene and gauge objects and layering. That's why some of the pseudo-3D done by separating layers instead of shooting with a real 3D camera look so bad... eg Alice in Wonderland 3D.
No expert here, just trying to learn...
Can't you get "good enough" depth of field by using filters and other effects in post?
Dick - I work in post, so I can add my 2¢.
You can do this type of thing post-shoot but a) it takes an incredible amount of system render time, b) it's filled with trial and error, and c) it almost never looks anything like what would fool your eye into thinking it's the real thing.
Unless Peter Jackson and friends at WETA are doing it for you, forget it. In our realm, it's utterly unpractical and should be used as a "drastic measures" only approach.
IMO, if you need that "cinematic" look, JeffDM is right - the equivalent video gear is out of reach. For all the DSLR's weaknesses - mainly the agressive compression codecs and their inability to follow-focus - it's truly light years beyond anything else in it's price range.
DSLR's will revolutionize the industry much like the arrival of Digital Video did a decade ago. Indeed, they already are.
About 90% of the pieces I have worked on this year - including a dramatic feature, several music videos, a feature doc and many diverse television and web-based projects - have been at least partly shot on DSLRs. Last year, that number was less than 50%. More like 35-40%.
Astounding, really.
edit: I see nvidia2008 did an admirable breakdown of why the "fix it in post" approach is a non-starter while I was responding...
Have a look at this... it's funny:
An open letter to Canon from a disgruntled DSLR owner
Well that is why I have a real video camera. It takes reasonably good stills but not as good as my aging DSLR which I intend on replacing. If you want to shoot video, use a video camera. If you want to shoot stills, use a DSLR. The fact that they each claim to do both doesn't mean they are any good at the other medium for which they are not primarily designed.
Similarly I have Macs, Windows and Linux boxes and I always select the appropriate platform for the job at hand.
Well, it's a bit of a new medium, this DSLR filmmaking. You can see from the video linked to, it actually looks pretty damn good. They purposely kept letting it go in and out of focus (exaggerating one of the weaknesses of DLSRs - focus issues), but the look they achieved is really quite nice. Honestly if you saw that video whereby they kept the focus, did some stylistic editing, it would look quite "film-like".
But the reality check is important, eg. http://www.filmmakingwebinars.com/on...reality-check/ (not an endorsement, just highlighting one also needs to know what one is doing to get the best results)
At the end of the day you are taking something designed for stills to shoot long sequences of video.
But, from an aestethic perspective, I think high-end video cameras (particularly the older CCD-based ones) don't achieve that intimate, Lomo-esque feel of DSLR filmmaking (though of course many are discovering all kinds of different looks they can get, not just retro or "romantic" ones).
It's personal, it depends what you are trying to achieve, and it depends on your budget.
Like I said personally I've never thought much of CCD-based non-progressive video cameras... because, the moment you hit record, you're making "video"... nothing else, but... video.
Something like this for $2K sure is sweet:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...HDV_1080i.html
But it's still... video.
A Canon 5D Mark2 with some nice lenses will cost more but you can get some really nice filmmaking out of it. With the caveat of having to deal with the limitations of current DSLR filmmaking.
I'm just a punter, so it's just my take on things. But I can tell you the first time I saw HD video out of a Canon 5D Mark2 equipped with quality lenses it really blew my mind.
The last thing I will note is that as more people go to DSLR filmmaking you tend to recognise the "look" of it because the DSLR lenses are quite different from RED, Arri or Panavision lenses... so it does have that more "intimate" feel rather than "big cinema" feel. But people are probably working on this as we speak.
edit: I see nvidia2008 did an admirable breakdown of why the "fix it in post" approach is a non-starter while I was responding...
Why thank you, coming from an expert like yourself. You've certainly clarified it further.
Can you comment on my post above on DSLR filmmaking as I see it?
Share more. Do you see Sony and Panasonic (eg. P2), for example, losing out a lot of ground to Canon, despite Canon's DSLR "shortcomings"?
> Your iPad will serve as your keyboard (similar to adobe apps on the appstore) and the macbook becomes an iTablet
> A brain implant
At which point Apple will own our music, files, browsing history, location data, and various other scary tidbits. NTM, Apple was recently the highest valued company on Earth. Yes, Earth .... Apple is growing into a daunting size and sitting on more cash than the U.S. Government. This is all coming from a 20 year Apple user and shareholder that has benefited greatly from their growth. I love them and appreciate what they have done but they're starting to frighten me a bit.
I'm not interested in iSkyNet. The day Apple goes 100% iCloud is the day I go 100% linux.
p.s.
hello! this is my first post!
Think it through...you are already on iskynet or Echelon or whatever you want to call it. Your bits are already easily quantifiable from however many zillion locations you go to online. It's a matter of signal to noise ratio. If you have something 'they' are interested in they will GET IT period. Your choice of OS won't help you so much. But if anybody is to have all my 'stuff' I'd feel better with Apple , at least they know what intellectual property is!
Two words - smart TV.
I think it's clear that Apple is looking at ways to revolutionize the entertainment industry with user-friendly computing - it's about smart, intuitive lifestyle products first and high-end, nerdy computing requirements for high-end users (programmers, graphic artists, video editors etc.) second.
We are moving towards an age of service convergence where device manufacturers provide the connected device ecosystems, leaving service providers to figure out how to make the best use of those systems - we as consumers want all of our services on whatever device is nearest to us.
Imagine for example, if Apple truly opened up the Apple TV to devs within the iOS ecosystem. Hello OnLive app, hello Hulu app, hello iPlayer app, hello Spotify app - all of a sudden you have a box that can do everything that is constantly connected to your TV. What's great about this for Apple is that it doesn't have to deal with any of the headaches associated with providing TV or on-demand gaming services and all of the incumbent licensing agreements and server space required for that. The onus is on the publisher of the OnLive app or the iPlayer app to take care of that side of things.
I think we are going to see the first TV set-top box (or maybe even a TV with the box built in) that truly transcends the personal computer/tv divide - that sounds like a 'category defining experience' that Apple already has nine tenths of the pieces in place to bring to market.
You could be onto it there.
Apple will leverage its strengths:
Superior hardware and experience in developing hardware
The best OS (OS X/iOS)
Fantastic ecosystem
Hands-off services (iCloud)
Name.
All the best.
You pull your iComp out of your pocket. You UNFOLD it, to the desired size, and begin using it, with fingertouch screen.
So, you want it, 2" x 4", that how much you unfold it, 4" x 8", unfold again, 8" x 16", you guessed it, unfold again.
OR, how about the same theme, yet, you ROLL out your iRoll computer onto a desktop, wall, picnic table, car hood ? fire it up, and let "Your Fingers to the Talking"!
Print this, or put it in the back of your memory bank, because you WILL come back to it someday soon, and say "How in hell did he know"? "How is this masked man"?
Skip
In the last quarterly earnings calls, the Apple CFO referred to a major product transition in the September quarter, but people are assuming it is the iPhone 5.
Edit: maybe a tablet that's built in to a table, like the Microsoft one. A "desktop iPad"
I think you said it right, they know what Win8 will have and they're trying to come with something similar before MS does.