Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kino: Pro Video Camera

lux.camera

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 376 posts

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#161

Post by IshKebab »

liminalsunset wrote: post #51
th0ma5 wrote: post #22

On Android there is https://www.motioncamapp.com/ which has been doing raw video for years.

In typical Android fashion, this app is essentially the mathematical inverse of the iPhone version. The UI on the iOS Kino app is beautiful, crafted, and elegant. The UI on MotionCam (even after the update) is functional, brutalist, and purely an engineering driven, unstyled Android 4.4 UI elements style. But MotionCam Pro gives full control, and even a RAW mode which wouldn't be possible on iPhone. You can even do P…

I've never done any iOS dev but I always assumed it was partly because the Android GUI toolkit (views, fragments etc.) is just SO awful that it just isn't feasible to make nice UIs. Certainly in the apps I've made there's absolutely no way I would invest time into animations, custom widgets, etc.

Hopefully Flutter will fix that because the difference in usability is night and day. It's just a shame the Dart ecosystem is so dead.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#162

Post by 1123581321 »

baby wrote: post #110
atan2 wrote: post #47

"one simple principle: make good products and charge money for them." Thank you for the one-time purchase option. It's a win already on today's software world.

I just looked at two pomodoro apps on the app store, one had a one-time purchase fee, the other had a subscription only model. It's a freaking pomodoro app! I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place (why doesn't the countdown app of Apple not have a widget =.=) but a subscription? People are greedy af.

That doesn't seem odd to me. Pomodoro/focus apps are a category where people start casual, but end up developing very specific desires that narrow their options. Someone catering to that can charge a bit.

Whether it's ethical for developers to cater to that kind of helpless behavior is another question.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#163

Post by cooper_ganglia »

runako wrote: post #153
baby wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just looked at two pomodoro apps on the app store, one had a one-time purchase fee, the other had a subscription only model. It's a freaking pomodoro app! I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place (why doesn't the countdown app of Apple not have a widget =.=) but a subscription? People are greedy af.

> People are greedy af. Putting on my Older Person hat for a moment, software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s (that's ~$100 in 2024 dollars after adjusting for inflation). $100 for a single version of a single app. When the next point release comes out, the publisher might give you a discount of 50%, so it might only cost you $50. A major release was often required for comp…

You could almost use this argument to convince me for a complex software like the Adobe products that is constantly getting new, major updates, but for a Pomodoro app? Honestly, $1 seems reasonable.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#164

Post by Zambyte »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #154
hiatus wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These smaller developers go through the trouble of building an app and getting verified for distribution on the App Store but don't give even a moment's thought to pricing? Surely the easiest option is free compared to some arbitrary monthly price and having to set up payments, etc.

But why should people do apps for free?

People should be paid to do something, rather than be paid for something they did.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#165

Post by KennyBlanken »

z5h wrote: post #26

As a long time amateur photographer (using physical cameras and lenses), I have Halide (by the same company) on my iOS home screen for when I need to take a real phono on my iPhone. I use it all the time without issue. And would recommend it to any photographer. So I paid for Kino without hesitation. Just fired it up, set BNW grade, pressed record, and it immediately crashed. Tried again and it crashed again. Tried A…

I paid for Halide and almost immediately afterward, they announced a policy of locking new features made after whatever version you had bought unless you bought it a second time.

It's the only app I've ever bought whose developer has done that bullshit.

I won't make that mistake again.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#166

Post by zer0zzz »

kernal wrote: post #156
zer0zzz wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple AppStore revenue at a cursory glance looks to be double that annually with a far smaller user base globally.

Sure, that was a given. Still, 50% of the App Store revenue still proves Android users do spend money on apps.

They're over 70% marketshare world wide and they produce less than half the revenue. I am not sure how the math breaks down the odds that an individual android user will buy a $20 app, but it doesn't seem great.

My point is if the average Android user were even half as likely to buy then the numbers would be about the same plausibly, they wouldn't be half the revenue. I suspect if you're a small shop focused on apps for the top end of phones you just don't have time for all this.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#167

Post by dylan604 »

caseyy wrote: post #140
dylan604 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applying a LUT is not the same thing as color grading. It's simply applying a LUT. The app that was specifically linked to is not Resolve. It is an app tapping into the new features introduced with the newest model device. If you use the linked app to acquire footage with your phone, you would still need to make that data available to the iPad version of Resolve. Again, this app does not require that at all.

How is color grading applied if not with LUTs? You know that when you do color grading with apps like Resolve, it is stored in memory as a LUT, right?

> How is color grading applied if not with LUTs?

No absolutely not. In Resolve specifically, you have nodes that you apply to the video where each node allows for specific settings to be applied as part of the grade. In a true grading session, you dial in the settings for black levels, white levels, contrast, saturation as primaries. Then there's secondaries which start finessing. You can then draw windows/mattes to isolate a specific area or specific color range (think color image where everything is B&W except the red rose/red car/red dress style) to apply the grading. There's also tracking of those windows. There's so much more going into color grading than "apply LUT here". Just look at the control surfaces for Resolve and the number of knobs/buttons/rollers. Would something that just applied LUTs need all of that?

> You know that when you do color grading with apps like Resolve, it is stored in memory as a LUT, right?

Source? That's a very gross oversimplification of what a color session is like. LUTs don't do tracking. LUTs don't do keys. LUTs don't do mattes.

You are doing colorists a disservice if you think grading is just LUTs.

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#168

Post by fragmede »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #165
z5h wrote: post #26

As a long time amateur photographer (using physical cameras and lenses), I have Halide (by the same company) on my iOS home screen for when I need to take a real phono on my iPhone. I use it all the time without issue. And would recommend it to any photographer. So I paid for Kino without hesitation. Just fired it up, set BNW grade, pressed record, and it immediately crashed. Tried again and it crashed again. Tried A…

I paid for Halide and almost immediately afterward, they announced a policy of locking new features made after whatever version you had bought unless you bought it a second time. It's the only app I've ever bought whose developer has done that bullshit. I won't make that mistake again.

why would buying an old version entitle you to a new version?

Re: Kino: Pro Video Camera

#170

Post by runako »

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #163
runako wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are greedy af. Putting on my Older Person hat for a moment, software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s (that's ~$100 in 2024 dollars after adjusting for inflation). $100 for a single version of a single app. When the next point release comes out, the publisher might give you a discount of 50%, so it might only cost you $50. A major release was often required for comp…

You could almost use this argument to convince me for a complex software like the Adobe products that is constantly getting new, major updates, but for a Pomodoro app? Honestly, $1 seems reasonable.

I should have been clearer. Apps from big publishers were more expensive than the indies in the 1980s. And indie shops that were charging ~$40 ($100 in 2024 dollars) for their titles. This is a direct comparison to the type of pomodoro app mentioned in the upthread comment.

The thing is, all software constantly needs new updates. If not platform-driven, then security, bug fixes, etc.

The more niche (like a pomodoro app), the fewer users over which to amortize the dev costs. A lifetime fee of $1, sold to a huge audience of 100k paid users, will pay for ~1 year of a single dev in the US, perhaps 2-3 years of a developer in a low-cost country. And then where does the money come from for updates in year 4 and beyond?

Subscription payments recognize the realities that a) development never ends for most apps that are in use and b) developers are not going to be free in the future just because the publisher only charged once.

Post reply on HN