341–350 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a paid-up-front app, so you buy it through the App Store, which means you can use it with any device you have that's signed into the same App Store account. I don't see any in-app purchases.
On the App Store it says: "Up to six family members can use this app with Family Sharing enabled."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> washed out when filming in log That's only because it's not viewed in the right color space? (I'm using color space in the ICC sense to also include the transfer function). For some reason video folks seem really intent on creating their own terms for everything that photographers already standardized with ICC. And to make things worse they decided to make the EOTF and OETF not be inverses of each other. Of course…
> That's only because it's not viewed in the right color space? It's like that because it's the log encoding is not in a display-ready color space. Many modern cameras can apply LUT directly in the viewfinder though, so it's less of a nuisance today. In reality, it isn't an issue, just beginners get surprised when they see it the first time. > For some reason video folks seem really intent on creating their own terms…
IIUC it's a similar bit optimization scheme to allocate bits fairly across the entire dynamic range. The only difference is the curve used (log vs gamma). You are right in that "log" is probably more uniform from a physics perspective (something about each f-stop getting same # of bits) while "gamma" is supposedly more uniform from a perceptual perspective (something about steven's power rule). Note that even storing things in floating point is also effectively a form of log encoding since density of floating point numbers halves when you double the range.
To me they feel more similar than they are different, which is why it's annoying that there's this completely parallel set of terminology used for photography vs video-editing and I haven't been able to find a rosetta stone to translate between the two (part of this is undoubtedly because icc color management requires digital computers, while film making existed as a field long before that)
* log-encoding :: gamma encoding
* EOTF/OETF :: Gamma/transfer function (n.b. eotf not necessary inverse of oetf, unlike gamma)
* LUT application :: ICC color space conversion
* Video-workflow (make edits directly in target color space) :: Photo workflow (transfer edits to source color space)
* NCLC tag :: ICC color profile
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how literally every application I ever purchased prior to 2008 worked...
Can you please give an example please as I never heard of this bs in my whole life
There's tonnes of companies that have legacy 'pay upfront' models, that hit the wall as they'd saturated their markets, then their revenue stream dropped off and all of a sudden saw the wall of transitioning to web/mobile needing to happen and didn't have the funds to pull it off.
I'd almost completely forgotten about it until I was challenged by a prospect in a meeting monday 'is this one of these new lease software systems, I want to own it!" had to educate him on the way the world worked now...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Low ranking even on an exact title match though is pretty bad.
It's a 4 letter word, commonly used in internet slang to refer to a good film. I saw the announcement pretty early on and when I started typing in "kino" into the App Store search, the first autocomplete suggestion was the rest of the app's title in the listing "- pro video camera", and if I clicked that one it showed the app first (well, first result after an ad)
> commonly used in internet slang to refer to a good film.
I've never heard Kino used that way personally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol back to "it's not just luts lamer" heh ... In the computer world in my experience people who just like to say people are wrong never go anywhere, but it sure does feel a requirement of the entertainment industry. Just to be clear, I don't believe that it's just look up tables ... But I'm starting to believe that that's all you know to gripe about.
Wow, that's just so far off basis, it's flabbergasting. I've gone into so much detail on what goes on during a color grading session, yet you keep coming back to "but it's all LUTs" in the end. You're totally ignoring all of the work and effort that went into generating those LUTS. You're coming across like you could just download a LUT called TheMatrix.lut and any footage it is applied to will look just like The Mat…
I think the real reason why everyone including all of your cohorts behave like this is because when you press people they realize that they don't have a good way to explain it. It's a very fickle and varied thing per project and if you dig into any one example, it seems really silly and that brings out artists insecurities about how everything that they do is actually pretty silly. Whereas you know, say an experienced computer professional knows that everything is BS and they don't get so hung up on feeling called out by dumb things.
So yeah, I guess I'm used to the computer world where information sharing and how you share that information is so descriptive about where you're coming from. I guess I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from and it seems to be mostly that you have to deal with a bunch of idiots.
I do believe that there is a whole world of people out there that just think it's a lookup table. I'm sorry that that's all you deal with and that you can't explain it more than just to complain about those kind of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Halide has a lifetime IAP for $60 in there.
Which was an about 10x increase from the original price. Sure, it was definitely underpriced back then, but it was still a... let's say bold move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
> 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? I challenge you to demonstrate the Pomodoro app that has a full time dev effort for a year, and then requires anything more than piecemeal bug fixes or maybe a recompile in t…
You have already been paid everything you will ever get paid for work you did in 2021. Next year, I want you to do an unpredictable amount of work to support the 2025 iOS. How much will you charge me? Where will I get the money to pay you? Why would I spend it on this instead of something else where I might see a return?
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…
> software from indie publishers used to cost in the ballpark of $40 in the late 1980s Why go that far back? The average computer back then cost thousands of dollars, much more than what an iPhone costs now in inflation-adjusted terms. The App Store is not a new invention, it's been around since 2008, and for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee. The reason everything is a subscription now is because accountan…
Because this is the era before really any major software was sold by subscription. Even 2008 was a hybrid era where some Web software was already subscription-based. Consumer behavior had already started to shift by 2008.
> for year apps were sold for a flat one-time fee.
This model also makes a lot of assumptions about where user data is stored and who is paying for that storage. Many apps have non-trivial backend requirements to support very normal use cases like "I also would like to access this from a Web browser sometimes." Those requirements cost money on an ongoing basis. One-time purchases are not a good fit for this either. We do not see many one-time purchases of Web software; many mobile apps are essentially parts of a larger whole that includes other modes of access to underlying services.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I for one would love to see us drop the fractional frame rates (29.97, etc). They're an archaic technical relic that cause trouble when working with timecode. At Sphere we debated standardizing on 30/60/120fps but ultimately decided it was a battle we didn't want to fight in an already complicated building.
FWIW, I truly hope 24fps never goes away entirely. Something about it is the key to making movie stars look like legends and regular people look like a stars, imo.
I think very few people (including myself) have ever seen a true side-by-side test where everything other than 24fps vs 30fps is perfectly identical. This is because correctly engineering such a head-to-head test is surprisingly difficult. In addition to having identical (or nearly identical) content shot in cinematic style, there are several other variables which each have to be technically correct. These include having the same signal chain from camera shutter speed, capture, compression, edit and grading to distribution format, playback device and display.
One thing that's especially tricky is whether the 24fps content ever goes through a 3:2 pulldown conversion (or similar). A significant amount of high-quality big-screen-film-sourced content originally made in 24fps goes through this sort of pulldown when viewed at home - even when the source is 24fps (whether Blu-ray, Netflix, Amazon or Apple). This pulldown process definitely imparts a look many associate with being "cinematic". Yet what we see in an actual theater is native 24fps so that's what we need to match for an accurate comparison.
Having recently upgraded my dedicated high-end home theater I was surprised that every device from playback source (streaming box or Blu-ray), AVR and 4k HDR projector - while being native 24f capable - defaulted to having the native 24f turned off in settings (thus silently applying a real-time 3:2 pulldown to the native 24f source). This was only discovered during detailed calibration using test signals. This means many people's impressions of 24fps may actually have been formed watching 24fps content automatically converted to 30fps with 3:2 pulldown by their source, AVR or display.
I suspect associating my subjective sense about "cinematic" with the label "24fps" may not only be erroneous but unfair to 30fps. Technically, 30fps has advantages in reducing motion judder on fast-moving objects and camera pans. A good example of this is the Hollywood-produced pre-digital 24fps Oliver Stone football movie "Any Given Sunday" which was shot entirely on film. They did the best they could with 24fps but some of the fast, ball-tracking camera pans are extremely distracting - something 30fps would have definitely helped if it had been an option back then. Nowadays, for the first time, the industry has some freedom to choose frame rates and I wonder if, done properly, 30fps might be a better option in which us film-look purists would lose nothing of what we love but gain in reducing some unavoidable artifacts from 24 frame's limitations.