 |
koolbreez
Joined on
Sep 29, 2010
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
They only bought the system, they did not develop it. As an educated guess I would say it costs more than the helicopter it is attached to, by quite a bit. I would venture to put that GSS in the 7-8 figure price range, and that might be underpricing it. Way out of reach of everyone, except a very very select few in the movie industry, and then only one, or maybe two for now.
Wolfgang Fieger: Sorry, but...
The average take in a cinema movie is a mere 15 seconds. The longest takes you could watch are in some nature documentation videos, where you could find single takes with a few minutes. I really never ever saw a movie containing takes longer than 5-6 minutes.
So what is this discussion about? This topic has no matter for movie making.
The average take in a movie has nothing to do with the intent of the 30 minute limit, it has to do with the illegal copying of movies inside a theater. Those run a few hours, and that is the recording threat. The average camcorder is low quality for pirating of movies, but the quality of still camera/video recording is superior, to the point of reaching DVD quality, and thus a huge threat to the movie industry. It has nothing to do with the length of a take in making a movie, it is all about recording that movie during its premier showing.
moimoi: Fortunately, there is still room for photojournalism...I disagree with Chung's comments as he suggested that photojournalism is a dying breed. The fact is that photography and video are two complementary medias, but I doubt that one dies for the other. There are simply captured moments, for which video will never be able to replace photography.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-16979784
This article probably aims at putting some dynamic into the discussion photography vs. video, but nothing more.
If photojournalism has no future, then the world photography as we know today will be very boring indeed.
Chung did not imply photojournalism was dying period, he stated that as a way to make a living photojournalism does not do it by itself, he had to expand his revenue sources to make a living.
This is because everyone has camera with them nowdays, and supplies photos to news agencies. This has greatly reduced the amount of money being paid for the same photograph that was being taken 10 years ago, or in some cases even less.
This first became the case in the stock photography market, and has now flowed over into the photojournalism market. There is no longer the prices being payed for a photo as there used to be, so much so that it is extremely difficult to depend on photojounalism as your sole source of income. That's all he's saying. He's not saying photojournalism is dead, quite the oposite. There are more photojournalists now than there ever were. They just aren't depending on it as their sole source of income.
Richard Katakuri: Can dpreview.com ask Sony when the 5N twin lens kit and Nex-7 will be back in stock please? Silence from Sony is rather frustrating!
Sony's NEX5N, and NEX7 manufactoring plant in Thailand was involved in the flooding, and is not expected to be back in full production until April/May of this year. It was under 2 meters of water for 2 months. That is why all the back orders, and lack of stock. Manufactoring is still shut down completely while they clean up.
Ashley Pomeroy: I sincerely hope it turns out well. I suspect it'll end up like the Wankel Rotary Engine - a niche thing, with fans - but it's nice to have a bit of diversity. I can remember when the possibilities of digital imaging seemed endless, but over time the technology seems to have homogenised, with most of the effort going into the packaging; if this could be made to shoot video the results would be beautiful.
Although I worry that the technology is too complicated to add to an existing imaging system, as a kind of added ingredient, and conversely too esoteric to capture a mass market. I wonder if it could be built into lenses, so that e.g. you could stick a 70-200mm f/2.0 Selective Focus lens on your Canon, or what-have-you?
With as many users Facebook has worldwide I don't see them even having a need to market this to photographers. This is strictly a niche market item aimed exclusively at Facebook users, with a huge market base. If they sell to just 1% of their market then they are multi-millionairs.
They could easily surpass regular point & shoot sales for any camera maker with this technology just by limiting their marketing to Facebook users, that just like Apple users, have to have the latest Facebook technology tool.
Then for those that want a print there is always just taking a screen grab. At this low resolution printing wouldn't be any better than a screen grab anyway if printed bigger than about 2x3.5.