About two months ago, Apple had a Lion / iOS seminar at the college where I teach (Miami-Dade College; the largest college in the US with over 170, 000 students on 7 or 8 campuses in the Miami area. I couldn't resist that 'plug'; sorry)
After the seminar, I asked the Apple Rep and his assistant if Apple had plans to build a 'one size fits all' computer and additional modules to raise the ante.
He looked like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. He thought for a moment and said he wasn't aware of any such project. His response was either a lie, or he didn't really know, or he suspected some such animal. I really didn't expect an actual answer, but I did expect a definitive "NO". He ended our conversation by walking away. That sort of told me that he knew something, but wasn't going to discuss it.
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.
Hmmm.....
I have a short clip of my grandson I shot 3 years ago -- playing goal keep in soccer.
It was shot with a Panny AVC-HD1, 12x Leica zoom, from about 25 yards.
In this particular clip he runs across the front of the net, behind players, scoops up the ball, then runs through players to the front of the box, where he punts the ball (he got an assist for a teammates goal at the other end).
I had always wanted to rotoscope this so he would be featured in full color running through other players in B&W or muted color.
I tried, a while back, using FCP 7 with the Silhouette roto plugin... but it was too tedious. The tweening does not work well on this particular clip because the motion is herky-jerky with arms and legs flailing everywhere.
When they came out in June, I bought Motion 5 and FCPX. With Motion 5, I rotoscoped shapes for the ball, head, torso, pants, left arm, right arm, left leg, right leg and the occasional parts of other players. The tweening was better, but still not good enough -- I roto'd every frame.
I am pretty happy with the results, considering no setup, live action, distance, talent of the cameraman and editor (me).
Since I have the rotoscoping already done, I think I'll spend a while and see if I can learn something about FOV -- and maybe improve the results.
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...
Thanks for the advice! Some questions:
1) By the render times do you mean things like ray-tracing or just the standard render times we're used to with FCP 7 and the like.
2) Can you setup a camera to capture live action -- like zoom in on the quarterback, and follow the throw to the wide receiver?
3) Got any links (even names or search terms) to what I should strive for in "filming" or in post?
I am a techie, not a creative. Most of my stuff is ad hoc stuff of family -- my 16-year-old granddaughter has some talent in plot, storyboarding, filming and some post. We all want to learn.
Here's an example of the kind of sports action I want to enhance -- I am using a tripod and dead reckoning (no viewfinder), I can't zoom while filming, but the AVCHD is high enough that I can zoom in post.
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.
BINGO!
Imagine a 55" iPad/iPhone. Developers create Apps for such a huge screen - but it's really just 1920x1080 (or whatever) - that work in combination with a native iPad/iPhone App. So they create one App split between the 55" iPlay and the iPad/iPhone.
Many Apps will work right out of the box with AirPlay.
It will not be a TV + box, it is the closing of the loop of the Apple Ecossystem!
And this thing will work on its own with the Cloud.
Now imagine this thing works with a Bluetooth keyboard and remote BUT it "also" works with the iPhone/iPad serving as keyboard&remote. The iPad/iPhone will also work as a trackpad for the huge screen just like the MacBook trackpads operate with the screen or the magicpad does with the iMac for instance.
So you will be able to have this gorgeous futuristic looking TV that'll make you proud and that does things that none else does but... if having an iPhone to control it enables you to use this and that game or App...
Isn't the key word for all this multi-year process "convergence"?! Convergence means synergy, a closed loop that feeds itself. Do you think Apple's lawsuits to Samsung are just about the iPhone/iPad?!
Look at the rumors, aren't they talking about Apple not going with OLED screens for a TV? They really can't say Apple is going ahead with LED-LCDs, can they?!
It's all there and it's obvious. It's been years in the works. And all the iPhone/iPad work is converged into such device.
Actually it's so simply done for Apple it would be dumb not to do so. And how it will differentiate Apple from the competitors?! Once again, they will be trying to tie their shoelaces when Apple is getting to the finish line... Because, you know, it's all about the Software integration with Hardware and there's nothing like the iOS out there, is there?
Finally, I just want to add this: if the 55" iPlay iOS device works best with an iPhone/iPad, don't you think that there'll be 200 million people drooling to have one?! Suppose that every iPhone/iPad household has got 1 to 2 iPhone/iPad, the potential is 100.000.000 iPlays. Still, if Apple makes a 40" version, "my sweet son/daughter" can have one in his room.
Now add this to FaceTime and you've got gigantic FaceTime video calling. Another boost for FaceTime, another synergy happening.
And then you'll see video content coming out of the iTunes store bigtime and the media moguls fighting it out to be able to have their movies premiere in the Apple Ecossystem! Another gigantic leap in profits in the money making Apple machine.
Actually, I believe HP's decision to drop hardware and invest in software - whomever believes they're dropping WebOS is dumb - has got to do with this they already know from industry espionage ahem intelligence. At this point in time if you're a CEO in this industry and you still haven't figured out that the key to success is CONVERGENCE and INTEGRATION then you've got to be a real loser or just interested in the millions you'll earn out of being a big biz CEO.
Heck, did you really believe Jobs when he stated Apple TV was just a hobby and there wasn't a way to get into that market?! He was not lying, he just forgot to say "now".
This has been in the works for years, do not doubt it.
One more thing: every boardroom of every company or government organization in the world will want one of these. So Apple will indeed have closed the loop because the buying frenzy will come from bottom upwards - consumers - AND from top downwards - big and small corporations/executives. To prove my point, if there ever was a need, I remember I was shown an iPad in the hands of a pharmaceutical salesperson when it hadn't still gotten to my country...
Apple is thorough, completeness, no loose ends, the whole that comes from vision.
Tiny vs. Huge: Apple TV is a tiny box few people know about, it's little and a hobby. This "iPlay" 55" iMac/iPhone/iPad is the real deal, big business, it is a HUGE presence in a living room for every one to see (vanity applies here like for the iPhone/iPad). Steve knows human nature and he knows size matters!
And I see no reason for it to be expensive, Apple will surely apply the same economies of scale and muscle to make them affordable.
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.
New zero focus techniques eliminate lenses altogether and place focus totally into the post production. It's getting close to being ready for camera production, what's holding it back is non-researcher configured tools. Cool stuff that uses whacky diffraction filters and then processes what lens and aperture you want in software. Continuous flexibility in depth of field, focal plane+sharpness and localized aperture settings.
When artists begin to trust this the whole photography/cinematography game changes. Purists will raise a stink.
Look at the rumors, aren't they talking about Apple not going with OLED screens for a TV? They really can't say Apple is going ahead with LED-LCDs, can they?!
I think it was you I said this to before, but:
I'm not paying $5,000 for a television when I can pay $99 for a box that does the exact same thing, connects to my existing televisions, and can be cheaply replaced whenever I want to have a more powerful box with new features.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XamaX
BINGO!
Imagine a 55" iPad/iPhone. Developers create Apps for such a huge screen - but it's really just 1920x1080 (or whatever) - that work in combination with a native iPad/iPhone App. So they create one App split between the 55" iPlay and the iPad/iPhone.
...
So you will be able to have this gorgeous futuristic looking TV that'll make you proud and that does things that none else does but... if having an iPhone to control it enables you to use this and that game or App...
Everybody wants this convergence,
But we still want to get TV on that wonderful new HDTV + whatever!
In the words of a Broadcast Executive friend: "the technology is here, but the politics aren't".
What we need to consider is:
1) who owns the content we want to see?
2) who has rights to broadcast that content?
3) who has rights to deliver that content into the home and to the HDTV
4) will all of these entities agree to provide access?
5) how much will it cost?
In the case of, say, a baseball game, it's the teams, the league, the Broadcast Network, the CableCos who want to get their piece of the pie -- then there are the advertisers and agencies who's contractual obligations must be met.
There are a lot of pipers who need to be paid.
As demonstrated by GoogleTV any entity can refuse access to their [part of the] content -- and you have nothing to show but web surfing. Now, that's really fun -- gather the family around the HDTV and watch Mom make typos while searching for something that doesn't interest us.
That's why Steve said that there is no "go to market" solution for AppleTV (let alone an Apple HDTV).
What is interesting is there is a broadcast spectrum auction coming in 2012 or 2013. These spectrum bands could be used for cell phones -- or possibly an alternative/addition to the current CableCo-owned bands.
Whoever wins the auction may gain negotiating leverage with the carriers and CableCos (who, often are a single company).
Anyway, as my friend indicated -- it could change the politics.
New zero focus techniques eliminate lenses altogether and place focus totally into the post production. It's getting close to being ready for camera production, what's holding it back is non-researcher configured tools. Cool stuff that uses whacky diffraction filters and then processes what lens and aperture you want in software. Continuous flexibility in depth of field, focal plane+sharpness and localized aperture settings.
When artists begin to trust this the whole photography/cinematography game changes. Purists will raise a stink.
That piques my interest -- Got any links or search terms?
Are you suggesting that cameras will show something in the viewfinder that represents a scene... then you can digitally zoom the viewfinder image while the camera captures the entire scene available to the aperture (unfiltered and unzoomed)? Then you manipulate the raw, however you want in post?
That piques my interest -- Got any links or search terms?
Are you suggesting that cameras will show something in the viewfinder that represents a scene... then you can digitally zoom the viewfinder image while the camera captures the entire scene available to the aperture (unfiltered and unzoomed)? Then you manipulate the raw, however you want in post?
Plenoptic camera. A company called Lytro is working on a still camera, they supposedly have a working prototype. I have no specific reason to doubt them, just too few details are available. The founder's doctoral thesis looks reasonably sound, but I'm not experienced in reading scientific papers.
I don't know of any such video camera in the works. It's so very different that you might be waiting at least two years for good software to be able to use video footage. I have no idea how stills can be retouched such that you can "refocus" it and the retouch would still hold.
Plenoptic. A company called Lytro is working on a still camera. I don't know of any such video camera in the works.
Yeesus Marta! Thanks for the links.
The following gallery is amazing -- you can click on any portion of a picture and it will refocus on that portion -- kinda' like the way you focus an iPhone 4.
The trouble is that I have already bought it. I own the iMac. Now I'm being abandoned because they've changed the interface rules. It's one thing if you introduce a new product with a new way to interact with it. It's another to change existing systems. Yes, today I can undo many of those interface changes. But we all know Apple. Eventually, they will remove the tools to return the Mac to its classic interface.
I think you are clinically depressed. So sad, you dislike so many things. Don't grab ahold of things so hard and you will feel a little better.
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's a great set of DVDs on basic tools of the trade. All the more so because the 3d puppets and monotone voiceovers really show the DIFFERENCE good camera work can make. Simply Amazing!
Plenoptic camera. A company called Lytro is working on a still camera, they supposedly have a working prototype. I have no specific reason to doubt them, just too few details are available. The founder's doctoral thesis looks reasonably sound, but I'm not experienced in reading scientific papers.
I don't know of any such video camera in the works. It's so very different that you might be waiting at least two years for good software to be able to use video footage. I have no idea how stills can be retouched such that you can "refocus" it and the retouch would still hold.
I fear this thing will cost a fortune for a piont and shoot. However focus after the fact capability would be wonderful. Apparently the camera lacks zoom which would suck too.
I actually believe I've heard of these folks a few years ago. Hopefully the will ship something soon. It very much looks like they are on the bleeding edge of technology here so such a camera may be worth having simply because of that.
I fear this thing will cost a fortune for a piont and shoot. However focus after the fact capability would be wonderful. Apparently the camera lacks zoom which would suck too.
I actually believe I've heard of these folks a few years ago. Hopefully the will ship something soon. It very much looks like they are on the bleeding edge of technology here so such a camera may be worth having simply because of that.
As I read these articles, one of the issues is low resolution -- something to do with each micro=lens only handling a fraction of the pixels available:
Though... that seems to be something that can be resolved as the technology matures.
I am no expert in optics (or anything, for that matter) -- but my first impression in researching light field was that optical zoom is not needed. The camera captures whatever light is available -- given precise micro lenses, enough pixel storage, the zoom could be done after the fact, similar to focus, Digital zoom to be sure -- but, maybe, really, really good digital zoom,
If light field has the ability to handle zoom, it could be used on a small, flat device like the iPhone -- the camera you always have with you!
And, the iPad, with a much larger surface, could support more micro lenses and a wider field of view. You would get even better results with the iPad -- the camera you usually have with you!
Finally if the processing is too taxing for the mobile device -- it could just record a flat image, as it does now, in addition to the light field data -- which would be rendered back at the ranch.
With consumers embracing a rapid shift away from traditional computers and towards a growing array of mobile devices, Apple may be preparing to introduce a distinct family of next-generation Mac designs unlike anything seen to date, a vague rumor suggests.
Citing an anonymous source within the Cupertino-based company's Asian supply chain, hit-or-miss macotakara.jp claims Apple with the help of its component suppliers is gearing up to introduce Macs that are "absolutely different from current products," possibly by the "end of this year."
The brief report goes on to state that although the source could provide no further details on the matter, the designs of the new Macs mark such a departure from Apple's existing offerings that they could be brought to market under a new brand or product name altogether.
As such, the latest rumor appears to be describing an initiative separate from Apple's reported efforts (1, 2) to transition its flagship line of MacBook Pro notebooks into slimmer enclosures akin to the MacBook Air, dropping traditional hard disk drives in favor of solid state drives and jettisoning optical disc drives completely.
For its part, macotakara.jp has a mixed track record in predicting Apple's future product directions. Though it accurately reported that Apple would introduce its second-gen iPad in March and push out the release of the iPhone 5 until much later in the year, other reports about new MacBook Airs featuring high-speed 400MBps flash memory and a flat-back iPad 2 did not pan out.
The Japanese publication has also issued a flurry of other claims over the past several months that remain pending, including rumors that Apple will return to an aluminum backside on the iPhone 5 and that the company is testing MacBook Airs powered by the same A5 chip found inside the iPad 2.
Are you suggesting that cameras will show something in the viewfinder that represents a scene... then you can digitally zoom the viewfinder image while the camera captures the entire scene available to the aperture (unfiltered and unzoomed)? Then you manipulate the raw, however you want in post?
Pretty much. And they do it with run of the mill SLRs with a simple lens modification to insert the coded aperture, not these whacky high priced cameras in the above posts.
I suspect that the other guys re going after a volume market but even if not that is one expensive camera.
Quote:
The image above shows a zoom lens,
As I read these articles, one of the issues is low resolution -- something to do with each micro=lens only handling a fraction of the pixels available:
Though... that seems to be something that can be resolved as the technology matures.
Well hopefully though the Lytro web site was not encouraging at all in that respect. In fact they seemed to be making up excuses. Mind you I'm not mega pixel crazed but even an extremely high quality camera can not make up for the lack of pixels.
Quote:
I am no expert in optics (or anything, for that matter) -- but my first impression in researching light field was that optical zoom is not needed. The camera captures whatever light is available -- given precise micro lenses, enough pixel storage, the zoom could be done after the fact, similar to focus, Digital zoom to be sure -- but, maybe, really, really good digital zoom,
I was left with a slightly different picture. Frankly though the web site leaves a lot to be desire. There is nothing of value on the sight when it comes to the camera itself. Further all of the pictures posts are too tiny to be of use. Now I understand this is generation one technology and very bleeding edge at that, but I've yet to see sound descriptions of what the camera output and its current status in R&D.
Quote:
If light field has the ability to handle zoom, it could be used on a small, flat device like the iPhone -- the camera you always have with you!
If they could end up so small that would be great, t just looks like it is a few years off.
Quote:
And, the iPad, with a much larger surface, could support more micro lenses and a wider field of view. You would get even better results with the iPad -- the camera you usually have with you!
Finally if the processing is too taxing for the mobile device -- it could just record a flat image, as it does now, in addition to the light field data -- which would be rendered back at the ranch.
I'm not even sure the camera can even do that. Unfortunately I found Lytro's web sight to be very boring, filled with hollow hype and just taxing on the mind.
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"?
Haha, nvidia, I hardly classify myself an "expert", but thanks for the props nonetheless!
I have 20+ years now (yikes!) in the field, but it is now literally so broad and deep that I find it impossible to become a true master in any one aspect of what I do. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me, however, is not how much things change, but rather how quickly they do.
As with your previous post, you're bang on the money with your assessment, but it really boils down to what tools are falling into what hands at what price point. There are so many people in this world with an amazing "eye" that have had no financial or practical means to realize their creative visions. That's all changing again!
Simply put, all but the stickeiest of Hollywood cinematographers are being blown away - on a daily basis - by what is being achieved by the "public" at large with the latest technologies.
That camera you linked to at B+H is indeed still part of the "video" legacy - and there are many virtues to working with such cameras, at least from a post point of view - but the real game-changers will be cameras like this one:
The AF100 is the 1st camera that attempts to meld the benefits of DSLR videography with the practicality of "true" video cameras.
I've seen it in use, and although it's a bit clunky in some regards, it is, IMO, the harbinger of the Next Wave of filmmaking.
If any of you are familiar at all with the RED cameras - they are recording much of what you see on TV and many films in the theatre now - this is the trickle down effect of that technology:
A reasonably workable RED package - all that you need to shoot a low budget film or documentary - is still anywhere from $15-40K. That may seem ridiculously huge to many, but in fact, it's utterly revolutionary.
An AF100 at $5K + $5K more for accessories is nothing short of earth-shattering.
And next year, there will be something even better!
I'm literally shaking with excitement to see what the next half-decade will bring...
Comments
About two months ago, Apple had a Lion / iOS seminar at the college where I teach (Miami-Dade College; the largest college in the US with over 170, 000 students on 7 or 8 campuses in the Miami area. I couldn't resist that 'plug'; sorry)
After the seminar, I asked the Apple Rep and his assistant if Apple had plans to build a 'one size fits all' computer and additional modules to raise the ante.
He looked like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. He thought for a moment and said he wasn't aware of any such project. His response was either a lie, or he didn't really know, or he suspected some such animal. I really didn't expect an actual answer, but I did expect a definitive "NO". He ended our conversation by walking away. That sort of told me that he knew something, but wasn't going to discuss it.
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.
Hmmm.....
I have a short clip of my grandson I shot 3 years ago -- playing goal keep in soccer.
It was shot with a Panny AVC-HD1, 12x Leica zoom, from about 25 yards.
In this particular clip he runs across the front of the net, behind players, scoops up the ball, then runs through players to the front of the box, where he punts the ball (he got an assist for a teammates goal at the other end).
I had always wanted to rotoscope this so he would be featured in full color running through other players in B&W or muted color.
I tried, a while back, using FCP 7 with the Silhouette roto plugin... but it was too tedious. The tweening does not work well on this particular clip because the motion is herky-jerky with arms and legs flailing everywhere.
When they came out in June, I bought Motion 5 and FCPX. With Motion 5, I rotoscoped shapes for the ball, head, torso, pants, left arm, right arm, left leg, right leg and the occasional parts of other players. The tweening was better, but still not good enough -- I roto'd every frame.
I am pretty happy with the results, considering no setup, live action, distance, talent of the cameraman and editor (me).
Since I have the rotoscoping already done, I think I'll spend a while and see if I can learn something about FOV -- and maybe improve the results.
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...
Thanks for the advice! Some questions:
1) By the render times do you mean things like ray-tracing or just the standard render times we're used to with FCP 7 and the like.
2) Can you setup a camera to capture live action -- like zoom in on the quarterback, and follow the throw to the wide receiver?
3) Got any links (even names or search terms) to what I should strive for in "filming" or in post?
I am a techie, not a creative. Most of my stuff is ad hoc stuff of family -- my 16-year-old granddaughter has some talent in plot, storyboarding, filming and some post. We all want to learn.
Here's an example of the kind of sports action I want to enhance -- I am using a tripod and dead reckoning (no viewfinder), I can't zoom while filming, but the AVCHD is high enough that I can zoom in post.
Dish Punt Rewind (fcp2)
TIA
Dick
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.
BINGO!
Imagine a 55" iPad/iPhone. Developers create Apps for such a huge screen - but it's really just 1920x1080 (or whatever) - that work in combination with a native iPad/iPhone App. So they create one App split between the 55" iPlay and the iPad/iPhone.
Many Apps will work right out of the box with AirPlay.
It will not be a TV + box, it is the closing of the loop of the Apple Ecossystem!
And this thing will work on its own with the Cloud.
Now imagine this thing works with a Bluetooth keyboard and remote BUT it "also" works with the iPhone/iPad serving as keyboard&remote. The iPad/iPhone will also work as a trackpad for the huge screen just like the MacBook trackpads operate with the screen or the magicpad does with the iMac for instance.
So you will be able to have this gorgeous futuristic looking TV that'll make you proud and that does things that none else does but... if having an iPhone to control it enables you to use this and that game or App...
Isn't the key word for all this multi-year process "convergence"?! Convergence means synergy, a closed loop that feeds itself. Do you think Apple's lawsuits to Samsung are just about the iPhone/iPad?!
Look at the rumors, aren't they talking about Apple not going with OLED screens for a TV? They really can't say Apple is going ahead with LED-LCDs, can they?!
It's all there and it's obvious. It's been years in the works. And all the iPhone/iPad work is converged into such device.
Actually it's so simply done for Apple it would be dumb not to do so. And how it will differentiate Apple from the competitors?! Once again, they will be trying to tie their shoelaces when Apple is getting to the finish line... Because, you know, it's all about the Software integration with Hardware and there's nothing like the iOS out there, is there?
Finally, I just want to add this: if the 55" iPlay iOS device works best with an iPhone/iPad, don't you think that there'll be 200 million people drooling to have one?! Suppose that every iPhone/iPad household has got 1 to 2 iPhone/iPad, the potential is 100.000.000 iPlays. Still, if Apple makes a 40" version, "my sweet son/daughter" can have one in his room.
Now add this to FaceTime and you've got gigantic FaceTime video calling. Another boost for FaceTime, another synergy happening.
And then you'll see video content coming out of the iTunes store bigtime and the media moguls fighting it out to be able to have their movies premiere in the Apple Ecossystem! Another gigantic leap in profits in the money making Apple machine.
Actually, I believe HP's decision to drop hardware and invest in software - whomever believes they're dropping WebOS is dumb - has got to do with this they already know from industry espionage ahem intelligence. At this point in time if you're a CEO in this industry and you still haven't figured out that the key to success is CONVERGENCE and INTEGRATION then you've got to be a real loser or just interested in the millions you'll earn out of being a big biz CEO.
Heck, did you really believe Jobs when he stated Apple TV was just a hobby and there wasn't a way to get into that market?! He was not lying, he just forgot to say "now".
This has been in the works for years, do not doubt it.
One more thing: every boardroom of every company or government organization in the world will want one of these. So Apple will indeed have closed the loop because the buying frenzy will come from bottom upwards - consumers - AND from top downwards - big and small corporations/executives. To prove my point, if there ever was a need, I remember I was shown an iPad in the hands of a pharmaceutical salesperson when it hadn't still gotten to my country...
Apple is thorough, completeness, no loose ends, the whole that comes from vision.
Tiny vs. Huge: Apple TV is a tiny box few people know about, it's little and a hobby. This "iPlay" 55" iMac/iPhone/iPad is the real deal, big business, it is a HUGE presence in a living room for every one to see (vanity applies here like for the iPhone/iPad). Steve knows human nature and he knows size matters!
And I see no reason for it to be expensive, Apple will surely apply the same economies of scale and muscle to make them affordable.
Now I REALLY rest my case!
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.
New zero focus techniques eliminate lenses altogether and place focus totally into the post production. It's getting close to being ready for camera production, what's holding it back is non-researcher configured tools. Cool stuff that uses whacky diffraction filters and then processes what lens and aperture you want in software. Continuous flexibility in depth of field, focal plane+sharpness and localized aperture settings.
When artists begin to trust this the whole photography/cinematography game changes. Purists will raise a stink.
Look at the rumors, aren't they talking about Apple not going with OLED screens for a TV? They really can't say Apple is going ahead with LED-LCDs, can they?!
I think it was you I said this to before, but:
I'm not paying $5,000 for a television when I can pay $99 for a box that does the exact same thing, connects to my existing televisions, and can be cheaply replaced whenever I want to have a more powerful box with new features.
You HAVE no case. This is nonsense.
Two words - smart TV.
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.
BINGO!
Imagine a 55" iPad/iPhone. Developers create Apps for such a huge screen - but it's really just 1920x1080 (or whatever) - that work in combination with a native iPad/iPhone App. So they create one App split between the 55" iPlay and the iPad/iPhone.
...
So you will be able to have this gorgeous futuristic looking TV that'll make you proud and that does things that none else does but... if having an iPhone to control it enables you to use this and that game or App...
Everybody wants this convergence,
But we still want to get TV on that wonderful new HDTV + whatever!
In the words of a Broadcast Executive friend: "the technology is here, but the politics aren't".
What we need to consider is:
1) who owns the content we want to see?
2) who has rights to broadcast that content?
3) who has rights to deliver that content into the home and to the HDTV
4) will all of these entities agree to provide access?
5) how much will it cost?
In the case of, say, a baseball game, it's the teams, the league, the Broadcast Network, the CableCos who want to get their piece of the pie -- then there are the advertisers and agencies who's contractual obligations must be met.
There are a lot of pipers who need to be paid.
As demonstrated by GoogleTV any entity can refuse access to their [part of the] content -- and you have nothing to show but web surfing. Now, that's really fun -- gather the family around the HDTV and watch Mom make typos while searching for something that doesn't interest us.
That's why Steve said that there is no "go to market" solution for AppleTV (let alone an Apple HDTV).
What is interesting is there is a broadcast spectrum auction coming in 2012 or 2013. These spectrum bands could be used for cell phones -- or possibly an alternative/addition to the current CableCo-owned bands.
Whoever wins the auction may gain negotiating leverage with the carriers and CableCos (who, often are a single company).
Anyway, as my friend indicated -- it could change the politics.
New zero focus techniques eliminate lenses altogether and place focus totally into the post production. It's getting close to being ready for camera production, what's holding it back is non-researcher configured tools. Cool stuff that uses whacky diffraction filters and then processes what lens and aperture you want in software. Continuous flexibility in depth of field, focal plane+sharpness and localized aperture settings.
When artists begin to trust this the whole photography/cinematography game changes. Purists will raise a stink.
That piques my interest -- Got any links or search terms?
Are you suggesting that cameras will show something in the viewfinder that represents a scene... then you can digitally zoom the viewfinder image while the camera captures the entire scene available to the aperture (unfiltered and unzoomed)? Then you manipulate the raw, however you want in post?
That piques my interest -- Got any links or search terms?
Are you suggesting that cameras will show something in the viewfinder that represents a scene... then you can digitally zoom the viewfinder image while the camera captures the entire scene available to the aperture (unfiltered and unzoomed)? Then you manipulate the raw, however you want in post?
Plenoptic camera. A company called Lytro is working on a still camera, they supposedly have a working prototype. I have no specific reason to doubt them, just too few details are available. The founder's doctoral thesis looks reasonably sound, but I'm not experienced in reading scientific papers.
I don't know of any such video camera in the works. It's so very different that you might be waiting at least two years for good software to be able to use video footage. I have no idea how stills can be retouched such that you can "refocus" it and the retouch would still hold.
Plenoptic. A company called Lytro is working on a still camera. I don't know of any such video camera in the works.
Yeesus Marta! Thanks for the links.
The following gallery is amazing -- you can click on any portion of a picture and it will refocus on that portion -- kinda' like the way you focus an iPhone 4.
Lytro Picture Gallery
This is truly revolutionary!
Hmmm... I wonder if this has anything to do with an Apple product transition...
Edit: Makes my efforts to use Motion to change the depth of field -- seem irrelevant!
Edit 2: WOT... I ran across this:
The MacTini
The trouble is that I have already bought it. I own the iMac. Now I'm being abandoned because they've changed the interface rules. It's one thing if you introduce a new product with a new way to interact with it. It's another to change existing systems. Yes, today I can undo many of those interface changes. But we all know Apple. Eventually, they will remove the tools to return the Mac to its classic interface.
I think you are clinically depressed. So sad, you dislike so many things. Don't grab ahold of things so hard and you will feel a little better.
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.
I got this: http://www.hollywoodcamerawork.us/
It's a great set of DVDs on basic tools of the trade. All the more so because the 3d puppets and monotone voiceovers really show the DIFFERENCE good camera work can make. Simply Amazing!
Plenoptic camera. A company called Lytro is working on a still camera, they supposedly have a working prototype. I have no specific reason to doubt them, just too few details are available. The founder's doctoral thesis looks reasonably sound, but I'm not experienced in reading scientific papers.
I don't know of any such video camera in the works. It's so very different that you might be waiting at least two years for good software to be able to use video footage. I have no idea how stills can be retouched such that you can "refocus" it and the retouch would still hold.
I fear this thing will cost a fortune for a piont and shoot. However focus after the fact capability would be wonderful. Apparently the camera lacks zoom which would suck too.
I actually believe I've heard of these folks a few years ago. Hopefully the will ship something soon. It very much looks like they are on the bleeding edge of technology here so such a camera may be worth having simply because of that.
I fear this thing will cost a fortune for a piont and shoot. However focus after the fact capability would be wonderful. Apparently the camera lacks zoom which would suck too.
I actually believe I've heard of these folks a few years ago. Hopefully the will ship something soon. It very much looks like they are on the bleeding edge of technology here so such a camera may be worth having simply because of that.
AFAICT, the first light field camera is this:
Raytrix-R11 4D lightfield-camera
And, it supposedly costs $25,000.
The image above shows a zoom lens,
As I read these articles, one of the issues is low resolution -- something to do with each micro=lens only handling a fraction of the pixels available:
Though... that seems to be something that can be resolved as the technology matures.
I am no expert in optics (or anything, for that matter) -- but my first impression in researching light field was that optical zoom is not needed. The camera captures whatever light is available -- given precise micro lenses, enough pixel storage, the zoom could be done after the fact, similar to focus, Digital zoom to be sure -- but, maybe, really, really good digital zoom,
If light field has the ability to handle zoom, it could be used on a small, flat device like the iPhone -- the camera you always have with you!
And, the iPad, with a much larger surface, could support more micro lenses and a wider field of view. You would get even better results with the iPad -- the camera you usually have with you!
Finally if the processing is too taxing for the mobile device -- it could just record a flat image, as it does now, in addition to the light field data -- which would be rendered back at the ranch.
With consumers embracing a rapid shift away from traditional computers and towards a growing array of mobile devices, Apple may be preparing to introduce a distinct family of next-generation Mac designs unlike anything seen to date, a vague rumor suggests.
Citing an anonymous source within the Cupertino-based company's Asian supply chain, hit-or-miss macotakara.jp claims Apple with the help of its component suppliers is gearing up to introduce Macs that are "absolutely different from current products," possibly by the "end of this year."
The brief report goes on to state that although the source could provide no further details on the matter, the designs of the new Macs mark such a departure from Apple's existing offerings that they could be brought to market under a new brand or product name altogether.
As such, the latest rumor appears to be describing an initiative separate from Apple's reported efforts (1, 2) to transition its flagship line of MacBook Pro notebooks into slimmer enclosures akin to the MacBook Air, dropping traditional hard disk drives in favor of solid state drives and jettisoning optical disc drives completely.
For its part, macotakara.jp has a mixed track record in predicting Apple's future product directions. Though it accurately reported that Apple would introduce its second-gen iPad in March and push out the release of the iPhone 5 until much later in the year, other reports about new MacBook Airs featuring high-speed 400MBps flash memory and a flat-back iPad 2 did not pan out.
The Japanese publication has also issued a flurry of other claims over the past several months that remain pending, including rumors that Apple will return to an aluminum backside on the iPhone 5 and that the company is testing MacBook Airs powered by the same A5 chip found inside the iPad 2.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
The FUTURE of the Mac is ONE OS ONE App Store
across all from iPod to iPhone to iMac to iMacPro
all with iTouch Retina Screen and iTouch Retina Monitors.
The FUTURE of the Mac is ONE OS ONE App Store
across all from iPod to iPhone to iMac to iMacPro
all with iTouch Retina Screen and iTouch Retina Monitors.
Nope.
That piques my interest -- Got any links or search terms?
computational photography & coded aperture for search terms
The following for the good links, there's other stuff out there but Durand's (first link) is the first stuff I saw published and presented.
http://projects.csail.mit.edu/photo/
http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/Mas...dAperture.html
Are you suggesting that cameras will show something in the viewfinder that represents a scene... then you can digitally zoom the viewfinder image while the camera captures the entire scene available to the aperture (unfiltered and unzoomed)? Then you manipulate the raw, however you want in post?
Pretty much. And they do it with run of the mill SLRs with a simple lens modification to insert the coded aperture, not these whacky high priced cameras in the above posts.
AFAICT, the first light field camera is this:
Raytrix-R11 4D lightfield-camera
And, it supposedly costs $25,000.
I suspect that the other guys re going after a volume market but even if not that is one expensive camera.
The image above shows a zoom lens,
As I read these articles, one of the issues is low resolution -- something to do with each micro=lens only handling a fraction of the pixels available:
Though... that seems to be something that can be resolved as the technology matures.
Well hopefully though the Lytro web site was not encouraging at all in that respect. In fact they seemed to be making up excuses. Mind you I'm not mega pixel crazed but even an extremely high quality camera can not make up for the lack of pixels.
I am no expert in optics (or anything, for that matter) -- but my first impression in researching light field was that optical zoom is not needed. The camera captures whatever light is available -- given precise micro lenses, enough pixel storage, the zoom could be done after the fact, similar to focus, Digital zoom to be sure -- but, maybe, really, really good digital zoom,
I was left with a slightly different picture. Frankly though the web site leaves a lot to be desire. There is nothing of value on the sight when it comes to the camera itself. Further all of the pictures posts are too tiny to be of use. Now I understand this is generation one technology and very bleeding edge at that, but I've yet to see sound descriptions of what the camera output and its current status in R&D.
If light field has the ability to handle zoom, it could be used on a small, flat device like the iPhone -- the camera you always have with you!
If they could end up so small that would be great, t just looks like it is a few years off.
And, the iPad, with a much larger surface, could support more micro lenses and a wider field of view. You would get even better results with the iPad -- the camera you usually have with you!
Finally if the processing is too taxing for the mobile device -- it could just record a flat image, as it does now, in addition to the light field data -- which would be rendered back at the ranch.
I'm not even sure the camera can even do that. Unfortunately I found Lytro's web sight to be very boring, filled with hollow hype and just taxing on the mind.
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"?
Haha, nvidia, I hardly classify myself an "expert", but thanks for the props nonetheless!
I have 20+ years now (yikes!) in the field, but it is now literally so broad and deep that I find it impossible to become a true master in any one aspect of what I do. The one thing that never ceases to amaze me, however, is not how much things change, but rather how quickly they do.
As with your previous post, you're bang on the money with your assessment, but it really boils down to what tools are falling into what hands at what price point. There are so many people in this world with an amazing "eye" that have had no financial or practical means to realize their creative visions. That's all changing again!
Simply put, all but the stickeiest of Hollywood cinematographers are being blown away - on a daily basis - by what is being achieved by the "public" at large with the latest technologies.
That camera you linked to at B+H is indeed still part of the "video" legacy - and there are many virtues to working with such cameras, at least from a post point of view - but the real game-changers will be cameras like this one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ur_Thirds.html
The AF100 is the 1st camera that attempts to meld the benefits of DSLR videography with the practicality of "true" video cameras.
I've seen it in use, and although it's a bit clunky in some regards, it is, IMO, the harbinger of the Next Wave of filmmaking.
If any of you are familiar at all with the RED cameras - they are recording much of what you see on TV and many films in the theatre now - this is the trickle down effect of that technology:
http://www.red.com/
A reasonably workable RED package - all that you need to shoot a low budget film or documentary - is still anywhere from $15-40K. That may seem ridiculously huge to many, but in fact, it's utterly revolutionary.
An AF100 at $5K + $5K more for accessories is nothing short of earth-shattering.
And next year, there will be something even better!
I'm literally shaking with excitement to see what the next half-decade will bring...