Medium Format and Video

[eronald]

You should describe your bandwidth issues to some guy who does deployment for big companies; there are ways to mirror stuff out so that people get to see it fast.

Thank you for posting some very interesting info.

Edmund

I have clients that want to see an edit in some form of HD (which covers a lot of territory) usually from their home, on an I-pad.

They always call and say "it won't play" and I always say give it 10 minutes or more.

10 minutes to a client is like 10 days, so  . . .

In the end it will all get there but right now the web bandwidth we all receive is variable.

IMO

BC

[eronald]

J,

 We are lucky to be now. With digital and VR and holography and drone cameras starting up seriously around now, we're back not to a big clean slate, but at least to a wiped corner of the big slate: we can experiment with new visual expressive modes that can be achieved by ways of digital capture and presentation, and  if we are lucky some of these modes we invent might even outlast the job they were placed in, or even outlast us. I think the gifs in this thread are one such small novelty ...just think of what a cliché timelapse has become ever since every digital camera contains an intervallometer.

Edmund

My bad.

I didn't want to ruin this discussion talking about band width.

My clients are fine viewing in their offices as they have loads of bandwidth, but when they go home it all starts creeping slower.

I'm not Dreamworks, but I can conform video for web play and have about 4 dozen settings depending on client, device and local.

Maybe France is rocking with speed but that could be that Edmund is still working on a minitele.  (that's a joke for my French friends).

Actually Joe is probably right.  Messing with this stuff is a lot of work for not a lot of return and none of it is really new and for it to really work you need (oops said it again) good bandwidth and more importantly a good idea.

That fiat 500 link I showed was I believe shot with a series of still cameras fired sequentially from a computer.

Not to go totally of topic but Douglas Trumbull then his protege John Geata (Matix . . . the bullet effect) really developed it a long time ago (at least in the digital world).

For any of us mortal still and motion photographers to get close to what these guys did we'd have to drill a tunnel to empty the Federal Reserve and live to be 300 years old.

http://www.wired.com/2003/05/matrix2/

Once again sorry to go off topic, but what the heck.


IMO

BC

Oh and BTW:   A lot of background plates for effects are requested from still cameras.  Usually something in the range of a Nikon D800.  That's more than enough resolution for a film like the last Mad Max.

[Chris Barrett]

I've been getting ads in my facebook feed for weeks now for a software that does this.

Flixel

I looked at it and thought, 'oh that's cool' for about 2 seconds and then I was bored.  You guys really think there will be demand for it?  Feels like a gimmick that will lose impact very quickly.

[JoeKitchen]

I've been getting ads in my facebook feed for weeks now for a software that does this.

Flixel

I looked at it and thought, 'oh that's cool' for about 2 seconds and then I was bored.  You guys really think there will be demand for it?  Feels like a gimmick that will lose impact very quickly.

I think there will be, more for social and perhaps website front pages. 

I still think the still image for print is the main deal and what is most important to get right.  However, the creative briefs I am seeing from agencies all have some sort of cinemagraph added in for social.  Most of the time, they are handling the post in house, but it would be important to have the files to make it possible. 

Personally, just like most picture, most cinemagraphs really don't catch my eye beyond the initial few seconds, but most are not being well produced or are too gimmicky.