Cameras do 1080p do we still need 1080p camcorders: I can see this in fixed focal length applications such as flatbed scannersor webcams
but for a camera.. how will it zoom? how will we control bokeh etc..
Actually, I think you'd probably control bokeh in post. Just a thought, but an interesting way you'd accomplish this is by combining the infinite depth of field camera with some sort of low power laser to do a depth map of the scene. if you recorded the two set of data together (could actually do a 2 pixel camera, 1 sensitive to the visual light, one which would record the laser reflections), you'd have the ability to really control just about everything about how the image ends up appearing. Could be interesting.
KitHB: Practical answer... because T indicates the amount of light that actually makes it through the lens and onto the film/sensor, irrespective of lens design, different coatings and amount of glass, rather than f ratio, which is a mathematical construct based on the apparent size of a virtual hole inside the lens.
Necessary because a movie can use many different lenses of various designs and it's important to get the exposure and colour grading the same between shots or else you're into a world of pain in post-production because of variation in your multi-camera scenes.
Why the price? a) smaller production runs b) tighter tolerances and calibration, when it says focal length 75mm and 1.9 metres it actually means it. c) colour consistency so you get whole sets of matched prime lenses from Fujinon, Zeiss or Cooke and soon Leica, where they all have the same "look". They have same outside dimensions so gadgets for filters, hoods and for pulling focus all work the same way too.
They are, KitHB is a descendant of KITT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KITT
fyngyrz: "He also appeared to rubbish the site's clean but rather dated..."
To... "rubbish" it? To put garbage upon it? Eh? Is this some turn of phrase with which I am unfamiliar?
Apparently it is. Means "to speak disparagingly of".
I guess that means taking black-and-whites at Yosemite is out of the question then...?
Extending copyright for photographs to similar work, or even naked imitation, seems open to simply overwhelming abuse. How many photos, for example, imitate The Seven Year Itch? Or Ansel Adams (as I alluded to)? Or Eisenstaedt's image in Times Square? Or...you name it, people have created imitations of famous photos, famous photographers styles. Hopefully it does get appealed and something less overreaching put in place.