[HN Gopher] Kino: Pro Video Camera
___________________________________________________________________
Kino: Pro Video Camera
Author : louis-paul
Score : 816 points
Date : 2024-05-29 17:06 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lux.camera)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lux.camera)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Looks pretty good.
|
| We'll have to see where it goes, from here.
| phren0logy wrote:
| I didn't see it mentioned here, but is there any support for
| timecode?
| sandofsky wrote:
| Not at launch, but it's on the roadmap.
| phren0logy wrote:
| Thanks - that seems like a must-have for anyone anyone
| working with this level of tools. Glad to hear it's on the
| way. I would love to be able to use this with both external
| mics and storage, but I'm not sure how well the iPhone would
| handle both of those through a hub.
| OKThatWillDo wrote:
| Are you going to integrate the Atomos/TCS wireless system?
| Apogee does for audio in their apps, for example. And Zoom
| recorders support it. Would be nice to go with the emerging
| wireless standard for timecode.
| masto wrote:
| For a video recording app, it's an interesting marketing decision
| that there's only one video on the page. And at least on my
| computer, it doesn't play, I only hear the audio.
|
| These folks have a stellar reputation, and I'll be buying this
| app on that (and the I-was-expecting-more-digits price) alone,
| but I would have enjoyed seeing some kind of short film "shot on
| Kino". If only to see some professional work.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > but I would have enjoyed seeing some kind of short film "shot
| on Kino".
|
| Funny enough, the website for the app is
| https://www.shotwithkino.com/, but it also doesn't have feature
| any videos shot with Kino.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > These folks have a stellar reputation
|
| The name they've chosen for the app, Kino, is a bit weird to
| me. When I hear the word Kino, I immediately start to think
| about lighting as that's how people refer to lights from
| Kinoflo which gained popularity from their fluorescent lights
| in the years before LEDs took over.
| stnmtn wrote:
| I think of the internet "meme" of calling movies you like
| "Kinography", or saying that a movie you watched was "kino".
|
| Example: Movie XYZ is pure kino
| dylan604 wrote:
| I get the use of Kino, and that's why I caveated the
| statement with "weird to me" immediately followed by the
| specific reasons it is weird to me. I did not say that it
| is weird because it has nothing to do with anything. It's
| just when someone that's been in the production world and
| familiar with equipment names and brands, Kino definitely
| has a specific meaning on first hearing it.
| janfoeh wrote:
| Kino is German for "cinema" -- maybe that is the origin of
| the name?
| aldanor wrote:
| German, and Russian, and a few other languages...
| keiferski wrote:
| Kino is directly or extremely similar to the word for
| _cinema_ in many languages, including German, Polish, Slovak,
| Czech, Danish, Croatian, and Finnish, to name a few. The word
| _cinema_ itself is ultimately from the hard-K Greek kinema:
|
| _Borrowed from French cinema, clipping of cinematographe
| (term coined by the Lumiere brothers in the 1890s), from
| Ancient Greek kinema (kinema, "movement") + grapho (grapho,
| "write, record"). Compare German Kino ("cinema"), ultimately
| from the same Greek source._
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cinema#English
| sandofsky wrote:
| We definitely had more video examples planned, but production
| fell through at the 11th hour, and we decided it was important
| to ship before WWDC. So it goes.
|
| However, the advertisement in the blog post made by Sandwich
| Video was entirely shot on Kino.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Making the decisions like that for getting exposure from an
| event with a pre-release version is always a scary thing.
| Luckily, WWDC attendees will be much more understanding of
| early versions vs the public. Good luck!
| kulor wrote:
| Complete sidenote but I'm an accidental fan of Sandwich (video
| production company) and the promo video in this did not
| disappoint.
| Trung0246 wrote:
| Unfortunately iOS only.
| luuurker wrote:
| For RAW recording at least there's MotionCam Pro:
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.motioncam....
| croes wrote:
| Kino is also the german word for cinema
| andreygrehov wrote:
| It's the same meaning in German, Polish, Russian, and Slavic
| languages.
| amerine wrote:
| Great app so far. Only taken a couple test shots, but it's great
| to use. Highly recommend an iPhone 15+ for ProRes support.
| dagmx wrote:
| I'm glad the page does a call out to the Invisible CG series.
|
| I know it's a quick aside but it's important for people in the
| trade to stand by each other.
|
| On a different note, I am curious though how the page manages to
| use so much copyright content though. I always think that's a
| risky move.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > use so much copyright content though
|
| It's called fair use. They are static shots and not even close
| to the magical "8 seconds" rule. They are providing dramatic
| examples that many people are familiar with. Showing the
| before/after of something your mom shot means nothing to
| people. Showing extremely famous examples immediately lets
| people know what is possible and to what extent.
|
| I see nothing wrong with any of what was used or how it was
| used but especially why it was used.
| dagmx wrote:
| Fair use gets tricky when you intermix it like this. Though I
| must first call out that there's no actual 8 second rule.
|
| Even with fair use, it's still good form to attribute it. But
| more importantly , those images are intermixed among product
| clips/videos which can fall on the other side of fair use
| because it may give the impression that they are associated
| with the product.
|
| That can be a tight line to walk and so it's again usually
| best to specifically call out that they are there for
| illustrative purposes.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Notice the quotes around the "8 seconds" rule. It's not a
| rule, but that's what it is known as. I mainly know it from
| the audio world, but it was a common theme/trope/meme in
| radio shows about using music without royalties.
|
| Whether or not it's described in the text of copyright law,
| it is a common concept people are familiar.
| dagmx wrote:
| Nitpickiest of nits: given your intended description, the
| quotes should be around "rule" not "8 second". When
| around "rule", that implies it's not really a rule. When
| around "8 second" it implies that it's not 8 seconds
| exactly or it's what it's colloquially called, but it
| would still be a rule.
|
| Regardless, the fair use laws are very loose and tend to
| vary depending on the medium type and association with
| product.
|
| Anyway , I get what you're saying but given it's part of
| a product page, it should at the very least, call out
| that they're illustrative and not actually associated.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Do you really think that this company is implying that
| they made The Matrix or Dune? It is clearly just an
| example used to aid in the discussion of the surrounding
| text. There is no claim of "we used this software to make
| Dune". If they had, you can assume they would have put
| that out in some sort of call out in their marketing.
|
| If you were confused by the image as them trying to take
| credit, then boy, I don't know.
| dagmx wrote:
| I don't know why you default to being hostile.
|
| I'm just stating that they're intermixing it and that can
| play into whether it is fair use. I'm not saying that I
| personally am confused. I'm just saying that intermixing
| it may give people the wrong assumption if they're not
| familiar with these films. Remember, the matrix came out
| 25 years ago. There's many people who will likely never
| see it but will be working in film/cinema etc and use
| this.
|
| I'm not ascribing malice either, just that it's good form
| in the industry to delineate clearly.
|
| Maybe take it down a few notches or step away from the
| keyboard.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You are reading way more into these comments than is
| actually there. Just because someone challenges something
| you've written does not mean you are being attacked.
| There's no notches to take it down from.
| sandofsky wrote:
| On copyright, we go out of our way to generate original
| graphics for our posts, but if we do use an excerpt of other
| people's content, we keep it brief and link back to source for
| the full details.
|
| Are you referring to the shots from the Matrix and Blade
| Runner? In this case, I think we're commenting on the source
| material, which falls under fair use. I think the imagery is
| iconic enough that it feels a bit silly to say "this is from
| The Matrix," but I could be convinced otherwise.
| dagmx wrote:
| The matrix, blade runner and the Nicolas cage shot that I
| can't identify personally. I think it would still be
| reasonable to have attribution and/or also say that the
| projects in question weren't shot with Kino.
|
| Of course it's obvious that the Matrix isn't shot with Kino ,
| but I think it's still good form to caveat that it's there
| for illustrative purposes.
| artimaeis wrote:
| You're not asking, but in case anyone is curious - the
| Nicolas Cage shot is from Con Air.
| dagmx wrote:
| Ah, thank you. I haven't seen that film in a couple
| decades now.
| spdustin wrote:
| Wonder if Kino is an homage to Stargate: Universe
| kgeist wrote:
| Kino means "cinema" or "movie" in many European languages
| lelo_tp wrote:
| I don't know much about the company and never used their
| products, but this article is such a delicious read:
| https://www.lux.camera/orion-from-idea-to-launch-in-45-days/
|
| Really tells how much they care about their craft
| Yenrabbit wrote:
| Delicious is the right word, everything (post included) is
| crafted with care.
| tomw1808 wrote:
| Oh man, I wish the app was available on the iphone 15 pro too.
| I keep holding off buying that external HDMI monitor for the
| A7SIII, and that might be just the solution to keep the camera
| bag small...
| dylan604 wrote:
| "Now, it's not always possible for Kino to pick cinematic
| settings, such as when shooting in bright daylight."
|
| Since the phone's cameras are fixed aperture, you lose one leg of
| the exposure triangle. Instead, they lean heavily on the shutter
| speed as ISO is also a function of the chip. Increasing the
| shutter speed also increase the jello effect from the rolling
| shutter. Using an ND filter helps. If you find yourself without
| an ND filter but you have your sun glasses, shoot your camera
| through a lens on your sunglasses. It'll be awkward but it will
| help. Bonus points if your sunglasses are polarized. You can
| rotate your sunglasses to "dial" in the effect similar to a
| circular polarizer. I'd assume at this point that there are a
| plethora of lens filters available for cheap.
| SamBam wrote:
| > Bonus points if your sunglasses are polarized. You can rotate
| your sunglasses to "dial" in the effect similar to a circular
| polarizer.
|
| Surely that would only affect polarized light, like glare from
| reflections, no?
|
| Possibly that's all you're saying (I understand the general
| purpose of polarized lenses) but it sounded like you were
| suggesting you could make the whole scene darker -- and thus
| improve the motion blur effect -- by rotating the lens.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > but it sounded like you were suggesting you could make the
| whole scene darker
|
| Did you read over this "Bonus points if your sunglasses are
| polarized."? I'm not talking about regular polarized lenses
| in your glasses. I specifically said the world sunglasses
| multiple times. The entire point of sunglasses is to make the
| whole scene darker. I really don't know how to describe this
| any more plainly.
| SamBam wrote:
| Huh? I'm talking about being able to "dial in the effect."
| I read that as "dialing in the darkness" (as it relates to
| motion blur). That's what I'm talking about.
|
| Obviously the sunglasses alone make the scene darker.
| You're the one who brought up dialing it in with polarized
| lenses.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _it sounded like you were suggesting you could make the
| whole scene darker -- and thus improve the motion blur effect
| -- by rotating the lens._
|
| That would be true if the iPhone's lens also has
| polarization...
|
| https://www.seattleu.edu/scieng/physics/physics-
| demos/optics...
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SIxEiL8ujA
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| It's been a while since I used a CPL but I recall using them
| to darken the sky, so that would probably affect your overall
| exposure somewhat.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| On Android there is https://www.motioncamapp.com/ which has been
| doing raw video for years.
| flakiness wrote:
| I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the call out!
| liminalsunset wrote:
| 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 ProRes (but it
| doesn't work very well for long unless you have a new phone
| with good cooling).
|
| For the purpose I use it for (magnifying glass/telescope, using
| S23 Ultra), it's wonderful. But I always wished that the two
| worlds of Android and iOS development styles would collide for
| a moment....
| IshKebab wrote:
| 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.
| kernal wrote:
| Your concept of Android development looks to be stuck in
| the 4.4 days. Jetpack Compose and its declarative UI is how
| modern Android apps are developed.
|
| https://github.com/android/compose-samples
|
| >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.
|
| I don't see how the difference is night and day when they
| both use declarative UI's. Whether you use Jetpack
| Compose/Kotlin or Flutter/Dart is really up to your
| objectives. As for your claim that the Dart ecosystem is
| dead - I really don't get that, since Flutter/Dart is the
| #1 cross-platform development environment.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > Jetpack Compose and its declarative UI is how modern
| Android apps are developed.
|
| [citation needed]. I looked into Jetpack Compose a year
| or two ago and it was way too immature then to use in
| production. I guess maybe that's improved a bit but we're
| talking about existing apps here. They don't magically
| move to Jetpack Compose. Someone has to update them. How
| much would you bet that MotionCam Pro uses Jetpack
| Compose?
| kernal wrote:
| I download a lot of iOS apps using AppRaven and I can tell
| you that 95% of them are extremely poorly designed from a UI
| perspective - I'd even call them ugly. A lot of them don't
| even follow Apple's UI guidelines.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Is there an equivalent to Halide or Spectre (for raw still
| photos/long-exposure photos) for Android?
|
| My Thinkphone has a pretty awesome camera and native camera app
| with integrated RAW output, but these apps do often provide
| some features and polish beyond what's available in that tool.
| For example, I was just trying to take a long-exposure photo of
| the aurora (visible a couple weeks ago here in Michgan) and the
| limits on even the manual controls had ranges that limited what
| I could do. Spectre (or its equivalent) would have been awesome
| to have.
| sneak wrote:
| Insta-buy as soon as I saw the "Data not collected" privacy
| label.
|
| Thanks for not bundling spyware like everyone does in apps these
| days. I'm happy to support anyone who isn't spying on users.
|
| I don't use Halide specifically because it _does_ phone home (and
| is IAP subscriptionware cancer).
|
| Even though I shoot log and use Resolve, this might be fun for
| quick stuff without a round trip through the desktop computer.
| lynndotpy wrote:
| Just a heads up, the "privacy label" does not necessarily match
| the actual privacy policy. It's not required to match, and
| there is no accountability mechanism when it doesn't.
|
| What you want is the Privacy Policy, which links to
| https://halide.com/privacy/, which is a 404 page.
| sandofsky wrote:
| Sorry about the broken link. We're fixing it. To give a
| summary of our philosophy in the mean time: we don't want
| your data.
| sandofsky wrote:
| Hope you enjoy Kino! To clear up a few things about Halide...
|
| The only time Halide communicates with a server is when we do a
| controlled rollout of a feature, and anonymized reporting when
| a capture fails. I'd prefer we didn't need either but 1) the
| App Store model doesn't accommodate safe rollouts and 2) iPhone
| capture and photo library frameworks regularly break, and
| sometimes the only way to get a fix escalated is to have
| numbers in hand.
|
| If you don't want to subscribe to Halide, though, there is a
| one time purchase option in app.
| sneak wrote:
| The Halide one time purchase is $60, and I carry a full frame
| mirrorless (rx1) with me at all times. Also, while I
| understand your QA issue, I won't spend money on apps that
| phone home against my will, on basis of principle.
| vile_wretch wrote:
| So then it objectively isn't "IAP subscriptionware
| cancer"..
| sneak wrote:
| Halide is $3 for a month, $12 for a year, or $60 for
| perpetual. $25-30 for perpetual would be reasonable.
|
| Kino costs $10 for perpetual, for reference.
| vile_wretch wrote:
| Yes I'm aware of the prices. You not liking the price of
| an app doesn't make it "cancer". Personally I think the
| fact that they have found a model that works and that
| doesn't require releasing entire new versions of the app,
| keeps legacy users' versions up-to-date and bug-free
| while continuing to deliver new features and improvements
| should be celebrated. Especially from an independent
| developer team who clearly loves the craft.
| z5h wrote:
| 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 AGAIN and it worked... (iPhone 13
| mini, iOS 17.4.1).
|
| I have faith this will be worked out soon.
| sandofsky wrote:
| Sorry you ran into that. I distinctly remember testing the 13
| mini, due to notch layout issues, so this is unexpected. As
| soon as the crash reports come in, we'll dig into that.
|
| Unfortunately, while we had a QA person on this, and nearly 100
| beta testers, the iPhone camera APIs are a mine field. We'll
| get a fix out as soon as we have details.
| danielskogly wrote:
| Same issue on my iPhone 13 mini 17.5.1, tried with Sando.
| Crashed immediately after beginning filming
| ungamedplayer wrote:
| I heard that the iPhone landscape was not fragmented though.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Definitely fragmented, even within the same generation and
| software version there are clearly meaningful hardware
| differences, but more like "dry mud" cracked apart than
| "grand canyon" cracked apart in comparison to other
| options. Still something you have to deal with though, no
| getting around that.
| sandofsky wrote:
| If you stick to the high level "Hey, take a photo for me"
| APIs, it isn't a problem. If you want to take advantage of
| hardware specific features, the iPhone camera system varies
| from generation to generation, and sometimes within a
| single generation. On top of this, the AV frameworks have a
| mountain of undefined behavior which easily breaks with iOS
| updates. There are tons of iOS and model specific code
| branches that have cropped up in Halide over the years.
|
| That said, it doesn't hold a candle to Android
| fragmentation. It's a major reason we will not touch the
| platform.
| infinitedata wrote:
| This looks really promising, hope all goes great! My only
| concern is reading that you do collect crash reports despite
| being privacy-focused. How much information is there to
| identify the picture/video taken or the device/person?
| js2 wrote:
| There's two possibilities.
|
| 1. They're using the crash reports provided through App
| Store Connect. These are stack traces with no personally
| identifying information. You can enable/disable these under
| Settings > Privacy & Security > Share With App Developers.
|
| 2. They're using a third-party crash reporter. Under the
| covers these are often based on PLCrashReporter or KSCrash.
| A few such as Firebase (previously Crashlytics) implement
| their own exception handlers/stack unwinders. These are
| typically anonymized, but at this point it's the app (or
| the crash reporting SDK it includes) to decide exactly what
| to report. Most apps will try hard to avoid PII because
| that's easier than dealing with GDPR, CCPA, ATT
| disclosures, etc.
|
| > As soon as the crash reports come in
|
| This leads me to believe it's (1) since third-party crash
| reporters usually send in the crash reports as soon as the
| app has restarted, while Apple delays crash reports in App
| Store Connect. In which case the app itself isn't
| collecting anything: it's iOS and you choose to opt-in when
| you first setup the device.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Their privacy manifest shows that they do not collect any
| data. So they are either not using Firebase or similar
| for crash analytics, or their privacy manifest is
| inaccurate and should be reported.
|
| We must specify that we're collecting diagnostics (apart
| from the ones Apple collects on our behalf for opt-in
| users) even if they aren't attached to PII or user
| identifiers. So if they're doing this honestly, it
| indicates they are relying on Apple's opt-in crash
| analytics exclusively.
|
| In my experience at least 80-90% of users are NOT opted
| in to sharing usage analytics with Apple, so they won't
| receive most crash reports unless they're collecting them
| through an undisclosed backdoor.
| sandofsky wrote:
| Yup. We just use Apple's crash reporting system.
| col_rad wrote:
| Same issue with iPhone 12 mini, iOS 17.4.1
| shrew wrote:
| Same phone and same OS version down to the patch number. I've
| noticed UI hangs and stutter when changing the grades, and BNW
| in particular seems to cause the biggest issues. Not yet
| experienced a crash even if I flick between grades in quick
| succession.
|
| I did also find manual focus produced odd green visual
| artefacts in the live view as you move the focus control.
|
| With that said, it's a nice UI, hopefully the bugs can be
| ironed out!
| sandofsky wrote:
| The green is focus peaking. In a future update, we plan to
| make that opt-in in the UI.
| shrew wrote:
| Ah, my lack of knowledge rather than a bug then, my bad!
| Thanks for explanation!
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| 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.
| fragmede wrote:
| why would buying an old version entitle you to a new version?
| zamadatix wrote:
| For every couple year major versions (with decently
| advanced notice it's coming and/or a recency allowance) I
| think it's fair to charge anew but for minor improvements
| over the lifecycle of a major version I think it's fair to
| want to buy everything that will come in the major version
| up front if you're making a one time purchase. Tons of
| software is this way from Sublime to Windows to ZBrush to
| an absolute crapload of games. In this model a one time
| purchase is seen more as an alternative to holding a
| subscription over the lifetime rather than the intent to
| forego any future features or enhancements out of interest
| of the exact current feature set being all you'll ever
| want. There is also the "in-between model" e.g. IntelliJ
| where you get the current version + a period of updates and
| you can either stay with where it ends at that period or
| pay a smaller amount for more updates.
|
| I'm not sure which group the Halide changes mentioned above
| fell into but just on the general topic I think it's a fair
| expectation.
| augustohp wrote:
| They do something which is "common" in Apple-land (Dash
| for MacOS does this, a Twitter client did this as well,
| over and over): They get the same app, add some features,
| call it v2, launch as a _new_ app and _remove_ v1 from
| the store.
|
| They don't "give" you the new version. They take away the
| app you paid "once", and provide you with a version with
| an expire date. So you have no choice. You either pay
| them, again, or lose access to the v2 (subscription
| based) app.
|
| I don't mind paying for good software, I even think
| Hallide is worth $60. But I won't make the same mistake
| again. So best of luck Lux! I really wish you all the
| success. If you treat your customers right this time.
| Clamchop wrote:
| "Entitled" seems like an inappropriate word here. OP isn't
| entitled to the software, and the publisher isn't entitled
| to repeat customers or the perception of being a good
| value.
| fragmede wrote:
| What word seems more appropriate to you? "Entitled" is an
| unfortunately loaded word, but it seems to be the verb
| most appropriate to me.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| I dunno. I understand "entitle" has connotations - like
| the word "privilege" these days - but I thought this was
| used in the straight sense of the word.
| sandofsky wrote:
| It sounds like you bought Halide 1. At the time, we had
| supported Halide 1 for three years of huge feature updates
| when we launched Halide Mark II. Rather than just drop Halide
| 1, we gave everyone Mark II and a year of additional updates.
|
| The alternative would have been to just release a separate
| app called Halide 2 and stop updating Halide 1. In that case,
| version 1 would probably fall apart pretty quickly due to OS
| and camera changes year to year.
|
| I'm genuinely curious if you'd have preferred we stopped
| updating Halide 1, because we're always trying to find the
| best way to support users while keeping the light on.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| How do you guys manage new versions?
|
| Updates have always been a PITA on iOS. There's no way to
| charge for them.
| agos wrote:
| they really don't. the last feature they released was
| support for the action button on the new iPhones, seven
| months ago
| sandofsky wrote:
| Following the action button release, we added deferred
| processing support. It involved rewriting a bit of the
| capture pipeline, but significantly speeds up 48MP
| captures.
|
| Following that, we had a series of bug fix updates while
| we worked out the next major update. It's maybe 2/3 done,
| but we had to shelf it until after the Kino launch for
| external reasons.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| That's how literally every application I ever purchased prior
| to 2008 worked...
| yard2010 wrote:
| Can you please give an example please as I never heard of
| this bs in my whole life
| liamwire wrote:
| Without any malice or snide intent, I assume you must be
| under 25? Quickest example that comes to mind is every OS
| update to both Apple and Microsoft platforms until the
| former went free. Hell, iPhone OS 2 was a paid upgrade
| for iPod touch users.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop#Version_his
| tor...
|
| New version every 2-3 years which required a purchase. It
| was a few hundred dollars every time you wanted to
| upgrade (people may not remember this, but PS was the
| "value" product when it launched; professional software
| was often low 4 figures).
| RowanH wrote:
| 30+ years in the software industry. Everyone did this
| back in the day - then it changed for 3 reasons (1)
| completely unsustainable (2) people didn't upgrade, or
| being forced to upgrade and pay large prices got grumpy
| about it. (3) the money people figured out subscriptions
| were more profitable.
|
| 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...
| ein0p wrote:
| One time fee + good software = instant purchase from me as
| well. Subscription usually means no deal. I don't lease my
| tools.
| firecall wrote:
| FWIW, no issues on first run on my iPhone 13 Pro Max :-)
|
| Could be related to the 13 mini cameras specifically.
| parkersweb wrote:
| Just to add - same issue iPhone 12 - iOS 17.4.1
| totetsu wrote:
| Crashed on an SE
| pseudosavant wrote:
| I'm interested in the benefits of this app for anyone who doesn't
| have an iPhone 15 Pro that takes video in Apple Log. The post
| made it seem it seem to me like an iPhone 15 Pro was required.
| icelancer wrote:
| Yeah, I am quite interested in the app but I would need this
| cleared up as I have an iPhone 13 Pro.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The ability to record in log is very important. Without log,
| you're never going to get the results as advertised on the
| box. You can attempt to grade any footage from any camera
| with any color grade software, but with a huge amount of
| limitations. When recording in a format that is not "log",
| you will have already trashed the majority of data an app
| like this needs to make those subtle adjustments. In log, the
| highlights tend to be preserved better as well as details in
| shadows have not be crushed into oblivion. If your non-log
| footage is brought in, the same knobs/buttons will be
| available, but the data it is needing has been lost and it
| just will not have the same effect. You will not be satisfied
| with "its abilities" as you are now in the "you're doing it
| wrong" with your workflow
| icelancer wrote:
| Unfortunately that's what I figured was likely to be the
| case.
| frankus wrote:
| Kind of a tangent but I'm worried that "Kodiak" is not going to
| pass the "a moron in a hurry" test
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry) and could get
| them in trouble. I for one read it as "Kodak" the first few
| times. Hopefully they cleared it with the owner of the trademark.
| hatthew wrote:
| The design of the Kodiak card (logo? icon? not sure if there's
| a better word) also seems like it's intentionally mildly
| reminiscent of the Kodak logo, without being close enough that
| it's obvious at first glance.
| lxhrstn wrote:
| Looks very cool - but will be curious to see how the results from
| this end up comparing to Blackmagic's excellent (and free) pro
| iOS video app
| (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccamera)
| dylan604 wrote:
| I don't see a way to grade the footage from within the BMD app.
| Their app seems more designed to take advantage of the
| ProRes/log captures intended to be used in Resolve Studio. This
| app allows you to do the grading on your device. So that's a
| pretty obvious difference. If you're someone using Resolve,
| you'll probably be enticed by the BMD app as it fits your
| existing workflow. If you're someone looking to stay on device
| or just don't have a computer, this gets you to a similar
| ability right there
| fassssst wrote:
| You can apply a LUT to the capture. They also have a good
| Davinci Resolve iPad app; maybe they'll make an iPhone
| version in the future.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| caseyy wrote:
| 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?
| dylan604 wrote:
| > 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.
| lukevp wrote:
| I also thought grading was just LUTs. Does kino let you
| do all of the things you mentioned directly in the app?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Might I ask why this is all you thought a grading session
| involved? Clearly, this is a touchy subject for me as I
| spent a few years as an assistant to a very talented
| colorist. The plethora of YouTube videos saying color
| correct using my amazing LUTs available when you join my
| Patreon blah blah nonsense is really sad.
|
| There are some truly amazing colorists, and then there
| are people that claim they are colorists when they just
| applied a LUT. I would be embarassed to call myself a
| colorist that way. With my experience, I still do not
| call myself a colorist. I also don't go around calling
| myself a DP because I own a camera and make pretty
| pictures, yet people go around with no real training
| calling themselves that because it's cool.
| lomase wrote:
| You are on a tech forum. People are going to talk about
| the technologies that make possible color grading.
|
| Without LUTs, Look Up Tables, a computer would not be
| able to do color grading.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| This is all I ever hear though. It isn't (just) LUTs, a
| bunch of posturing, and then "but it is magic that I
| can't share or you wouldn't understand."
| dylan604 wrote:
| Not understanding might not be far from the fact, but it
| is probably just posturing. I doubt most of the Tubers
| understand it themselves which is the real reason they
| can't share. They saw it on some other YT video, and then
| made it like it was their own idea.
|
| I've tried to explain how to use waveforms/vectorscopes
| and why they are important. Those things are rarely used
| any more, and people just don't realize how much more
| difficult they make it on themselves by not using them.
| Just because you can push that knob to an 11 doesn't mean
| you should. Pushing that knob while looking at the scopes
| will tell you when to stop. This was life or death when
| making content for broadcast.
|
| Also, I've seen all sorts of weird things that blindly
| applying a LUT wouldn't solve. There was a specific Red
| camera in town that had a very strange issue where the
| green color channel was not recording correctly. One
| shoot we had footage on was of an ice cream type place
| that had lots of whipped cream on the desserts. However,
| as you pushed the levels up, the green lagged behind so
| as the red and blue channels were maxing out the color on
| the screen went magenta. Applying a LUT would have looked
| terrible, but the colorist was able to go in to adjust
| the levels of the green channel separately so that the
| cream went back to white. It saved the shoot because a
| camera was not working properly.
|
| There's also interesting tricks to do like when shooting
| through windows of a high rise will give a green tint to
| things. So lowering just the green channel will bring
| things back which could be a specific LUT, but the thing
| with LUTs is they tend to get used for the wrong reasons.
| Shooting underwater without a filter can also be dialed
| back, but it's specific to camera/depth type of
| situations.
|
| Another common ask was to "open up the eyes". Well lit
| faces are notoriously hard as the sunken eye sockets just
| naturally shadow. So you add a window to the eyes and
| push the exposure up to achieve the effect that no LUT
| will ever achieve. If the camera moves for a tracking
| shot, the windows can track along with it. No LUT will
| ever accomplish that either. The eye is naturally
| attracted to the brightest area of the screen, so there's
| ways of grading something so that it suddenly receives
| some attention that a LUT would not get there, again
| using windows. Some of the internationalization of
| releases have small forensic tells in them to indicate
| which locale it might have been leaked from. One specific
| example was a stack of towels in the background of
| various colors. Through color correction, they changed
| the colors of the towels to be different for each region.
|
| So so so many things that well graded footage can have
| done to it that "you wouldn't understand" but would never
| come close to achieving with a LUT. Wouldn't understand
| is very harsh though, and is a total cop out from someone
| that sounds very pompous. I would say "wouldn't consider"
| as something that could be done let alone needed to be
| done.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| Tracking eyes and reducing shadows within a mask is ...
| Beyond what I would call grading. It all feels like some
| serious gatekeeping. Thanks for your reply heh but there
| sure is a lot of FUD out there in the mastering and
| grading world.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Beyond color grading? Gate keeping? (whatever in the
| world you mean by that).
|
| Might I ask how much experience you have with the world
| of professional color sessions? I have been in film/video
| post pretty much since graduating high school, so I have
| been a part of prepping content/materials for a color
| session for decades, but have also spent several years
| working at a post house that only did color correction.
| I'm guessing that it is you that has the incorrect
| understanding of what goes on in a color grading session.
| If you want to go around thinking that applying a LUT is
| all that happens in a grading session, then you might as
| well think that anyone that uses Wix or Squarespace is a
| web designer, or anyone that assembles Ikea furniture is
| a craftsman. Your definition would be very skewed.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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 Matrix. That's not going to
| happen.
|
| Somebody else came at me that they build AAA video games
| and that's their background with grading with LUTS.
| That's not even the same realm of grading camera
| originated footage. Being unable to recognize and admit
| that is just not worth arguing and that's where I left
| that one. Clearly, you are absolutely right in your mind
| and unwilling to acknowledge anything other than what you
| hold true.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| I know it's not just lookup tables. I'm waiting for you
| to talk about something other than that lol
|
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| What more could you possibly need me to explain? I've
| provided much more detail than a lot of the YT tutorials
| of saying download my LUT. I've described recognizing
| that as the signal was pushed to the max the color
| changed from white to magenta and the actual cause coming
| from a bad sensor in a camera not delivering enough data
| in the green channel which required using the grading
| software to isolate and push the green channel harder so
| that it went back to the desired white. I've briefly
| talked about the basics of primary and secondary grading.
| I've talked about using the scopes to see how the
| adjustments you are making are actually affecting the
| signal. I have provided much detail on how a grading
| session is not just applying a LUT. I have never in a
| serious conversation said that's proprietary knowledge
| and you're not worthy. I have openly shared. You have not
| actually asked any direct question other that taking
| offense and my offense.
|
| I really don't know how you think me and my cohorts are
| behaving. Is it that we (extrapolated from conversations
| I've heard) get offended because someone calls themself a
| colorist because they can apply a LUT? You think this is
| pompous that we do not agree that the ability to apply a
| LUT is the same thing as running a full color session? At
| this point, I'm really not sure what high horse you are
| on or that you think I am on.
| caseyy wrote:
| You seem to misunderstand the role of LUTs in color
| grading. LUTs (Look-Up Tables -- a simple multi-
| dimensional array data structure) describe how one color
| is transformed into another, and they are used for
| efficient color transformations. In Resolve, the tools
| you described help build a LUT in memory, which is then
| applied to each pixel in each frame, often using SIMD
| instructions for efficiency. This avoids the need to
| procedurally apply each setting to each pixel
| individually, which is way slow.
|
| Drawing windows, mattes, tracking, and other masking
| tools determine where and how the LUT is applied within
| the rendering pipeline.
|
| > 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.
|
| I work in AAA games and have written code for tonemapping
| and color grading. We often use a gbuffer (graphics
| buffer that could be seen as a 2D screen-shaped image
| that is never shown) to mask different objects in the
| scene and apply different LUTs accordingly. So, it is not
| only LUTs that are applied in a similar screen-space way,
| but also masking is similar.
|
| > 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?
|
| On a low level, it essentially is about applying LUTs.
| How you create these LUTs and how you mask their
| application are crucial aspects of the process. But
| ultimately, a LUT is applied to pixels. You are talking
| about the artistry techniques involved in making a LUT
| and masking where it is applied, which is not debated.
|
| LUTs are not just files you can import and export to
| grade the whole image or frame. They are a fundamental
| compact data structure that makes SIMD operations easy,
| which is why they are used in grading. If you set up a
| color grading pipeline with nodes in Resolve, it is very
| likely compiled into one or more LUTs, which are then
| applied to the frames.
| dylan604 wrote:
| My contention isn't how a LUT works in the background
| technically, but the fact that people consider applying a
| LUT all of what a colorist does. If you want to simplify
| it to that level, then it's really not even a
| conversation worth having as that's not the answer to the
| question.
| caseyy wrote:
| > If you want to simplify it to that level, then it's
| really not even a conversation worth having
|
| Hehe, you are not wrong.
| janekm wrote:
| The Kino introductory blog post makes quite clear that
| all they do is apply one of a set of LUTs that ship with
| their app. Personally I'd be interested in one that tried
| to apply colouring more "intelligently", e.g. detecting
| faces etc and applying appropriate settings.
| lxhrstn wrote:
| The app is obviously targeting a different audience, but having
| bought it and recorded some test footage on it now, it has
| considerably fewer features than Blackmagic Cam for
| videography/cinematography pros - no zebras, focus peaking,
| stabilisation settings, anamorphic de-squeeze, etc - even
| commonly-expected framerates like 23.98fps / 29.97fps and
| settable aspect-ratios like 2.39:1 aren't available as far as I
| can see.
|
| Would hope to see them address these missing features in future
| updates, but at the moment there's nothing here to make me move
| away from Blackmagic for "serious" iPhone videography.
| burntwater wrote:
| 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.
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| 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.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Yeah, agree on 24fps, and I don't think poster above you
| meant to remove 24, just those annoying NTSC/PAL rates
| that are close to integers, but aren't and are stupid as
| hell in an all-digital 2024.
| yard2010 wrote:
| NTSC and PAL used as actual region locks back in the
| ps1-2 days.
| burntwater wrote:
| Yeah, what qingcharles says. I personally can't say I've
| seen what's special about 24fps artistically, but it
| doesn't bother me from a technical perspective (as much).
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| As someone who lives more on the artistic side than the
| technical, but appreciates both, that's honestly
| reassuring to hear.
|
| And for what it's worth: I think 24fps is partially why
| people of frankly similar talent and beauty look
| untouchable on film, but just like some dude on social
| media. My personal back-filled theory is that it's
| something to do with the fact that 24fps creates more
| gaps for your imagination to fill in with whatever burns
| inside your personal subconscious -- those "missing"
| frames let you "see" in Russell Crowe or whomever just a
| little bit more of yourself than is possible in gapless,
| real-time reality. Sort of like how old photos with lower
| resolution feel comforting and organic, because they're
| cloudy like dreams, unlike the stark reality that can be
| achieved by modern lenses.
|
| It would also somewhat explain why high FPS works better
| for things like sports (where most of the awe is that
| you're watching real people do these amazing things) and
| video games (where the awe comes from actually embodying
| the figure on screen and existing in their full framerate
| surroundings).
| mrandish wrote:
| I too have a similar subjective sense from being in and
| around film and video production over the last couple
| decades about that "cinematic something" look we
| associate with film. However, I'm not sure we're being
| accurate in thinking it's entirely the frame rate.
| Certainly that's part of it but I think it's entirely
| possible we'd view 30fps as every bit as good - _if_ all
| other things were equal.
|
| 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.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| > With AutoMotion, Kino automatically _choses_ the best exposure
| settings for cinematic motion blur.
|
| The part I've italicized above should be "chooses".
|
| Great looking app though!
| jihadjihad wrote:
| It's not the only typo, either (not a big deal, but I noticed
| it too)
|
| > For one, there are artists who _sculpts_ the contrast and
| color
|
| emphasis mine
| ValentineC wrote:
| As a former happy Halide user, I bought their previous new app
| Spectre on launch, but sadly haven't found a good chance to use
| it.
|
| (Why "former"? I switched over to Apple's Camera app for the bulk
| of my casual photography when Apple introduced Live Photos, since
| I really like the added vividness of having a video moment
| attached.)
|
| I don't do many videos, and the Camera app (along with their
| Action Mode software video stabilisation) seems to do everything
| I need it to, so I'm not sure if I would be able to use any of
| the "pro" features here at all.
| atan2 wrote:
| "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.
| ertgbnm wrote:
| I give it 2 years before they have regressed to a subscription
| model.
| ashton314 wrote:
| Their other apps are much older than 2 years and still have a
| buy-once model. This company has a good track record. (There
| is a subscription for some long-running services if I'm not
| mistaken.)
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| They have been around successfully selling apps with this
| business model for a lot longer than 2 years, why do you
| think they plan on changing it?
| Kerrick wrote:
| FiLMiC Pro, another pro camera app for iPhone, also existed
| for years [0] and sold with the one-time-purchase business
| model. They're now a subscription [1] and owned by Bending
| Spoons / Evernote. (Plus, more bad news [2]...)
|
| [0]: http://web.archive.org/web/20111130073123/http://www.f
| ilmicp...
|
| [1]: https://www.cined.com/filmic-pro-is-joining-forces-
| with-bend...
|
| [2]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/3/23986187/filmic-
| staff-lai...
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| That kind of proves that one time sales can be a
| successful business model, doesn't it?
|
| They were a successful business employing 23 people after
| more than a decade on the one time sales model!
| bowsamic wrote:
| No one said it's not possible to be successful with it
| colechristensen wrote:
| What happens is you run out of new people to sell your
| niche app to (or hit a long rather thin tail) while
| continuing to provide updates for your existing userbase.
| So you either have to release arbitrary new versions from
| time to time leaving the old ones neglected and eventually
| unsupported (or with the overhead of supporting several
| versions) or you switch to a subscription model.
|
| It's happened with so many businesses.
|
| Maybe the solution here is to stop supporting _new_ phones
| with old versions. So your app works forever but if you
| upgrade your phone you have to buy the software again. It
| 's hard to find what feels fair.
| volleygman180 wrote:
| Subscription fatigue is very real today, but to your
| point, as a business you can't provide eternal updates
| (work) for free.
|
| In the old days, you'd buy a new version of Mac or
| Windows or any software that you run on it (Office,
| Parallels, etc.) when you wanted the new features each
| year.
|
| I think Apple's App Store has a lot to do with why
| everything is now subscription-based. They used to offer
| developers a smaller Apple-commission (15%) for
| subscription sales instead of the typical 30% for in-app
| purchase sales and paid-apps.
|
| This was great for businesses, but in my opinion, only
| service businesses should be subscriptions - this
| transition would help reduce subscription fatigue. Normal
| software should mostly go back to just issuing new
| versions each year (or whatever frequency), so that
| consumers re-frame the purchase cycle to something that
| feels more reasonable again.
|
| In order for this to occur, however, Apple may need to
| adjust the App Store algorithms. If you were to launch a
| new app (ex. "Kino v6"), you'd start all over again from
| day 1 with 0 app ratings and reviews, and not rank well
| on any keywords nor in the top apps charts.
|
| Some apps simply rename their app with each new version,
| but that introduces similar complexities, especially for
| users who already paid & downloaded the previous
| "version". So in a big way, the App Store de-incentivizes
| any kind of transition away from a subscription-based
| business model.
|
| The "new versions" business model vs. subscription may be
| similar cost to consumer (it wouldn't support monthly
| users), but it would allow consumers to only update when
| their _ready_ and could continue using an old app version
| (especially on older devices) as long as they 'd like. If
| a customer really likes the software, they'd likely buy
| the new version to access new features & device support
| before too long anyhow
| sunnybeetroot wrote:
| What do you mean used to take 15% commission, that has
| never stopped since the small business plan became
| available.
| volleygman180 wrote:
| I mean that initially the 15% commission was only for
| subscription sales. Then more recently, Apple added the
| small business program which gave 15% commission for
| _any_ sales (not only subscriptions), at least for
| smaller companies
| RajT88 wrote:
| > Normal software should mostly go back to just issuing
| new versions each year (or whatever frequency), so that
| consumers re-frame the purchase cycle to something that
| feels more reasonable again.
|
| One way which feels fair that I have seen companies do is
| provide "Maintenance".
|
| Premium paid support offerings which also includes
| upgrades to any versions released during your contract
| duration. It's enterprisey, and maybe weird for a camera
| app (how much support could you possibly really need?).
| KoftaBob wrote:
| What about releasing new features as in-app purchases?
| This way you can make money from existing users too.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| Personally, even if I don't personally purchase this, I hope
| your wrong because I am strongly against subscriptions in
| most cases.
|
| I see cases where it makes sense...but I also see the need
| for development to get paid their salery, and once you have
| reached all the users you can....their is no new user
| growth....and if your just selling based off a one time fee
| then that means you got very little income except the random
| guy who might donate, but a company shouldn't rely on
| donations to keep products alive.
|
| If the thing needs updates or changes regularly say once very
| 6 months....due to changes in standard or just keeping things
| updated....this stuff costs money to keep developers paid.
|
| My crude C program I wrote that converts an input between
| celcius or Fahrenheit is not really going to change. Unless I
| want to also support data inputs other than floating point
| numbers, I don't need to update or modify anything. But other
| stuff is more complex and might change due to standards,
| advancements, and the needs of the users.
| earthnail wrote:
| The real problem is that people are afraid of paying high
| one time prices. Subscriptions allow you to lower your
| prices, which lowers the barrier of entry.
|
| On iOS, it gets even worse as there never were high prices
| to begin with. Which means that the OTP model was never
| very sustainable.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I don't understand what people have against
| subscriptions.
|
| To me that's the fairest. First, it incentives them to
| make a good product, and keep developing it as opposed to
| just throwing it out there and then not updating.
|
| And secondly it's also fair for the customer. If I don't
| find something useful I might stop using it after a week,
| but I paid the full price, same as if I found it useful
| for years.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| What do, say, furniture stores do when they "run out of
| users"?
|
| > If the thing needs updates or changes regularly say once
| very 6 months....due to changes in standard or just keeping
| things updated....this stuff costs money to keep developers
| paid.
|
| The problem is of course, that the industry has settled
| into a nash equilibrium of constantly changing things, so
| regular people have to continuously update software, as a
| way to charge rents, on top of whatever productive
| improvements they provide.
| zuminator wrote:
| Sofas don't need constant bug fixes; they don't
| inexplicably stop working when someone upgrades their
| apartment with a new TV. Also, the up-front cost of a
| piece of furniture is a couple of orders magnitude higher
| than most apps, which help keeps the retailer in the
| black until it's time for the customer to buy another,
| similarly high priced item.
| tekeous wrote:
| That's what I said about Halide, before they moved it to a
| subscription model.
| ezfe wrote:
| Only for new features right?
| wilsonnb3 wrote:
| Yeah and you can still buy it for a one time $60 purchase
| if you want.
| Jeremy0 wrote:
| You must be confusing Halide with Filmic Pro.
| prawn wrote:
| I think they're talking about this, from Halide's page in
| the App Store:
|
| In-App Purchases Yearly $11.99 Monthly $2.99 One Time
| Purchase $59.99
| klysm wrote:
| It's so much harder to sustain the business though. Obviously
| it's better for the consumer, but way harder to run
| baby wrote:
| 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.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| If you don't mind a PWA, I like this:
|
| https://qoomon.github.io/time-timer-webapp/
| runeb wrote:
| iOS and macOS ships with Pomodoro. Open Shortcuts and you
| should see it.
| yumraj wrote:
| > People are greedy af.
|
| Personally, for smaller developers, I attribute this more to
| ignorance than malice (greed). Pricing is hard so they just
| look around and pick what they see happening around them
| without taking a moment even to think, forget about doing
| actual research.
| hiatus wrote:
| 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.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| But why should people do apps for free?
| Zambyte wrote:
| People should be paid to do something, rather than be
| paid for something they did.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| What? I create something, and I shouldn't be able to sell
| it? What?
| Zambyte wrote:
| Software isn't a "thing" so there is nothing to sell. The
| only way to monetize software is to monetize the labor of
| writing it directly. When you "sell" "licenses" to
| software, you're just double, triple, N dipping on
| monetizing labor that already happened.
|
| The alternative is charging to write software, which is
| actually how most _people_ (employees) make money writing
| software. Corporations take advantage of the difference
| between paying people to write software, and charging
| people over and over again to use the same software that
| has already been written.
| hiatus wrote:
| I never said "they should do apps for free". I was
| rebutting the idea that small app developers don't give
| any thought to pricing and just use a monthly
| subscription, which sounds like more work than just
| giving it away for free. If they landed on a subscription
| model they must have given it _some_ thought.
| yumraj wrote:
| Obviously they want to be paid.
| fragmede wrote:
| "having to set up payments, etc"
|
| people (including me) complain about apple taking a 30%
| cut from developers, but for that money, they do make
| that part easy.
| runako wrote:
| > 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 compatibility with a new OS
| version.
|
| All the software we used back in the day? We spent
| significant money on it.
|
| Do you think apps like these pomodoro apps would sell in
| sustainable quantities if it were $100 for major releases and
| $50 for point releases? What if it were $100 to get the
| current version every time iOS did a major version upgrade?
|
| Or is it more likely that these apps would simply not exist?
|
| People say they want one-time purchases, but the small $
| subscriptions are more consumer-friendly than is immediately
| apparent. And they support a vastly more comprehensive
| software ecosystem.
| cooper_ganglia wrote:
| 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.
| runako wrote:
| 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.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 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 that four years of support...
| eropple wrote:
| That application is also probably not selling 100,000
| units, so adjust your expectations downward accordingly.
| rexf wrote:
| Apple Watch app, widgets, Live Activities, new phone
| sizes... there are always things Apple wants you to add
| over time. Do you want meaningful updates or abandoned
| software? It doesn't take a full time job, but it's
| significantly more than $1 per install
| runako wrote:
| Let me put it a different way.
|
| 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?
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Adobe was $600 per update. Per app.
| rchaud wrote:
| > 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
| accountants decided that recurring revenue was how every
| startup should be valued, and every vendor adjusted their
| pricing structure accordingly.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| This is happening with a lot of companies that don't
| really have to care about "startup value"; they're tiny
| (sometimes even one-person) shops that aren't likely to
| ever go public, be bought for millions, or so on. I think
| you've got the cause and effect reversed for a lot of
| these -- the App Store pricing model has driven the price
| people expect to pay for apps down substantially, which
| made the "buy outright and then buy a new version in a
| couple years, at a discount, if it appeals to you" model
| much harder to sustain. I don't love subscriptions for
| apps that don't have a server-side component, but I get
| it.
|
| (The example of the Pomodoro app with the subscription is
| pretty dubious, though.)
| runako wrote:
| > Why go that far back?
|
| 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.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| 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.
| gdubs wrote:
| People are so used to the zero interest rate period of tech
| that everyone expects the pricing model of VC backed startups
| that can burn money forever and maybe figure out a business
| model at some point.
|
| Software costs time and money. People complain that they
| don't want the same uninspired corporate created junk - and
| then they balk at paying indie developers a reasonable amount
| for apps.
|
| So much work goes into this stuff! It's so tempting for indie
| devs to just take the high paying job, and then congrats - no
| more unique and interesting apps like this.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I'm not sure what your point was. Is this in defense or
| against IaP?
|
| Most people don't balk at paying fair prices for an app,
| but the definition has drifted so far that EUR7/month
| (EUR84/year) is described as "fair" for a simple timer, and
| that is plain absurd.
|
| Halide goes for EUR69 one-time purchase, or EUR12,50/year.
| For professional software that is really well designed and
| is actually kept up to date. This should be the benchmark.
| sitkack wrote:
| What to ZIRPs have to do with Pomodoro subscriptions?
| spiderice wrote:
| > I can't believe I have to pay for that in the first place
|
| > People are greedy af
|
| I hope the irony of these two statements isn't lost on you
| patrickcorrigan wrote:
| I know right! I run a freemium B2C app and I get users
| telling me this all the time. It's so ridiculous. No one is
| forcing anyone to use the software. Go write your own
| version and give it away for free.
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| Agree, it's frustrating to see simple apps like this
| requiring a subscription model.
| MaximilianEmel wrote:
| What's the font they're using for the UI?
| sandofsky wrote:
| Halide Router, a custom typeface we commissioned.
| Uehreka wrote:
| > Speaking of accidental taps, when gripping the side of your
| phone to keep things stable, we found it too easy to accidentally
| tap buttons.
|
| I have this problem CONSTANTLY with the iPhone 15 Pro Max, not
| when filming, but when doing everyday tasks. Something about the
| edge of the phone is such that a bit of my palm goes over just
| enough of the screen to trigger gestures, and now the YouTube
| video I'm watching is double speed or something I'm reading
| scrolls to the top for no reason.
|
| I'm generally good about not dropping my phone (knock on wood) so
| I'd rather not get a case just to fix this weird touch
| sensitivity issue. As far as I recall this wasn't an issue with
| my iPhone 12 Pro Max.
| MillionOClock wrote:
| I frequently have exactly the same double speed issue on
| YouTube, nice to know I'm not the only one
| Uehreka wrote:
| I will say I love this feature on my iPad (touch the screen
| and hold without moving, the video will be 2x until you let
| go) but I wish it could be turned on on a per-device basis.
| tamimio wrote:
| But blackmagicCam is free..
| alin23 wrote:
| This is great! Just yesterday I was looking for a way to get a
| daylight 5500k white balance on videos the same way I do in
| Halide but it seems there's no way to do that in the built in
| camera app.
|
| I know you can "lock white balance" but it is still nudging it
| towards neutral before locking.
|
| Unfortunately there's no white balance option in Kino, but I
| already love its Auto Motion and manual focus. Maybe you'd be
| open to adding a white balance control too?
|
| I also think it would make sense to have an option to persist the
| chosen white balance even after the app is quit. Same on Halide.
| I prefer "daylight" on all my shots [1], but I have to switch
| from AWB every time.
|
| Sorry for the premature feature request, Kino is awesome anyway,
| the UI is so so good! and thank you for launching it with 50%
| off!
|
| [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eQPPa_8Z13o
| Chilko wrote:
| On the linked page they mention that manual WB is on the
| roadmap.
| tehnub wrote:
| You can do that with the (free) Blackmagic Camera app https://w
| ww.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccamera#:....
| localfirst wrote:
| is there something like this but for DJI action 4/pocket 3
| camera? doesn't seem like this app will run on iphone se
| TheJoeMan wrote:
| "Opening a LUT file directly from an app will give you an option
| to open in Kino...even works in Messages!" - Anyone able to test
| how tapping on a .cube in iMessages opens in Kino? Last time I
| tried to code something like this, Messages is the holdout in not
| working properly. This StackOverflow I found requires a QuickLook
| extension: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22826978/custom-
| extensio... So does Kino open directly or is there 2 taps to open
| from iMessage?
| SuurRae wrote:
| It's sort of a PITA. Click on the name of the person who sent
| you the LUT in iMessage and scroll down to "Documents". Tap on
| the LUT file. Use the Share button in the lower left corner and
| then, where it lists the apps, tap "More". You'll see Kino
| listed. If you tap it, it will automatically import it.
|
| Again, PITA, but given the iOS infrastructure, I'm surprised it
| works at all.
| tonetegeatinst wrote:
| On graphene is so I'm unsure how well this could work...but I
| might recommend this to my family members that only buy iphones.
|
| Question I do have though: is the purchase done through the app
| store or your website, and if its done via the app store or
| website, can I use it on as many of my own devices attached to
| the account? Or is it more of a 1 liscense per device?
|
| Second: the presents you have sound nice and you mention that "Of
| course you can turn off Instant Grade to save the original Apple
| Log footage, allowing you the flexibility to change your look in
| our video reviewer. " does this support saving the original apple
| log footage, then opening that footage in the app and being able
| to preview how the different effects would look? And can I export
| the effected footage as a copy of the original that way I can
| have both the original and graded footage without overwriting the
| original data?
| ihuman wrote:
| 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.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| On the App Store it says: "Up to six family members can use
| this app with Family Sharing enabled."
| aprilnya wrote:
| That's for family sharing with _other Apple IDs_ , but for
| your own Apple ID there isnt a limit like that
| al_borland wrote:
| I'm tempted to buy this while it's discounted, but if I'm a
| realist, I've taken 7 videos this year for a total of 2 minutes
| 47 seconds. I'm probably not the target market, but I'm glad to
| know options like this exist.
| malshe wrote:
| I am with you on this one. I looked through my photo library
| and realized that the last video I took was from the New Year's
| Eve :)
| littlestymaar wrote:
| The editorialized title should probably be changed. I get that
| the original one ("Introducing Kino") is not descriptive enough,
| but at the same time "Kino: Pro Video Camera" is misleading since
| it's not a camera (let alone a professional one) but a camera app
| for iPhone.
| nerdjon wrote:
| Is it just me or does the marketing seem to disagree with itself
| a bit?
|
| On the one hand it is talking about how until the iPhone 15 Pro
| one of the issues is that you were stuck with whatever version of
| the video your iPhone decided to record, but then it is talking
| about how this recording app is not just recording straight log
| and doing its own magic? What am I missing here, arn't they doing
| the exact thing that they were saying was bad in the first place?
|
| Related to that, they seem to talk about LUT's but if with this
| we are saying that we can use these prebaked LUT's what exactly
| does that get me over using prebaked LUT's in my video editor?
|
| I am curious how this compares to BlackMagic Camera.
|
| Also curious how this will standup when Final Cut Pro Camera
| launches later this year (but that is obviously only valuable if
| you use FCP).
|
| For $10, I may download it and give it a shot. But I am not fully
| sure I am seeing the value proposition here and I feel like there
| has to be something I am really missing here. If it isnt
| targeting the pro market as some commenters are saying, then what
| is the point of this over the built in camera app?
|
| For context, I do my recording on an iPhone 15 pro max so maybe
| this isnt targeted at me?
| janandonly wrote:
| I did some quick testing. On my iPhone 15 pro it did not crash as
| some reported.
|
| But the app did create a video file that has audio backed in at
| 2x the speed. So halfway true the video the audio stops already.
|
| I guess this is an interesting app to keep eyes on after a few
| updates.
| vorprokuror wrote:
| Hi, I've just bought the app, congratulations on your release!
| Wishing for real time de-squeeze for anamorphic lenses users. And
| one more thing. If there's any way to make it compatible with
| various gimbals and I mean like actually compatible with
| zoom/focus controls etc, it'd be a killer feature.
| kentf wrote:
| Take my money.
| blehn wrote:
| Does it disable (or allow for disabling) iPhone's dreadful
| dynamic tone mapping? (It makes exposure-locked footage look like
| auto-exposure is on)
| bigdict wrote:
| > let's walk through a few of the tent-pole features
|
| Hehe nice job on the Apple lingo signaling
| tptacek wrote:
| Standard marketing language, used especially in the features
| and series film industry. The Avengers is MCU tentpole IP.
| bigdict wrote:
| Never heard it in any context in tech other than Apple.
| tptacek wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent-pole_(entertainment)
| bigdict wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/business/apple-siri-
| ai-ch...:
|
| > a tent pole project -- the company's special, internal
| label that it uses to organize employees around once-in-
| a-decade initiatives
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13305285
| tptacek wrote:
| Pretty sure they lifted that from the features industry.
| bigdict wrote:
| sure, I'm just saying it's not "standard marketing
| language"
| drewbeck wrote:
| This looks cool but the line about "show don't tell" is followed
| by a LOT of telling.
| ape4 wrote:
| You're also not supposed to say "show don't tell"
| OKThatWillDo wrote:
| ...and accompanied by an image that shows a camera oriented the
| wrong way for video
| l33tbro wrote:
| The copy is atrocious.
| OKThatWillDo wrote:
| A "filmmaking" app prominently features a camera turned the wrong
| way (for video) on its homepage.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Cries in Android.
|
| Realistically I don't blame em, but it sucks to see IOS get all
| the cool apps. With emulators coming to iOS I know my next phone
| will probably be an iPhone
| xster wrote:
| A bunch of Android OEMs already baked into the OS's default
| camera. The Honor Magic6 Pro for instance just lets you shoot
| log or preview (or bake in) any number of lut while capturing.
| I think they had it for 4 product cycles already.
| zer0zzz wrote:
| There's MotionCam Pro for android:
| https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.motioncam
|
| I myself feel the same, with emus on iOS the only missing class
| of software at this point is like... Blink+V8 instead of
| WebKit+JSC as a browser choice.
| sonium wrote:
| Literally every color grading example shows log footage as the
| "before". Of course this lacks contrast and vibrancy because it's
| not meant to be watched "as is". Please show me regular footage
| as a baseline so it's a fair comparison.
| tiptup300 wrote:
| I didn't read this as a comparison against normal iPhone output
|
| normal iPhone output is great looking just not "the look"
|
| I prefer without a comparison of iPhones version.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's a meaningless comparison. They're showing a "before and
| after" but the "before" is something that nobody uses.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yeah talk about disingenuous.
| bambax wrote:
| I like the still from Con Air (sporting Cyrus 'The Virus'), but
| do people actually use a phone to shoot 'serious' movies? Even
| amateur, super low-budget ones? When so many cameras that can be
| bought used for dirt cheap, shoot D-Log, and many have
| interchangeable lenses, and an actual shutter button, and
| removable SD cards, etc.
|
| Taking pictures with a phone is unpleasant enough, but shooting
| movies is another world of pain.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think the overall goal here is to increase the
| frequency at which you choose an iPhone when you're carefully
| considering which camera to use from a large selection of
| available cameras.
|
| Instead, I think the overall goal is to increase the video
| quality for times when you _don't_ have the chance to carefully
| consider which camera to use from a large selection of
| available cameras. Your iPhone is already in your pocket.
| justinator wrote:
| I wish they just said, "color grading made easy on the iPhone 15"
| in their copy. And then if they wanna dive in a explain it, fine.
| sandofsky wrote:
| The submitter linked to the announcement on our blog, which
| goes into greater detail than our marketing.
|
| https://www.shotwithkino.com
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| Yeah, I may be stupid, but I initially thought it's a camera
| that I can buy, kind of like GoPro, but for cinematic effects,
| and I was trying to understand what the price is.
| localfirst wrote:
| same thought this was a smartphone based camera
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| It's refreshing to see you kept the website simple. No stupid
| scroll jacking or fancy (read distracting) transitions or scroll
| effects.
|
| I like supporting independent software studios like yours who try
| not to sell out, so bought it without hesitation, even though I
| don't shoot a lot of video with my iPhone. This will probably
| make me experiment more with video.
| wilg wrote:
| This is a blog post about the app, not the website. The actual
| website has the fun you are complaining about:
| https://www.shotwithkino.com/
| uxcolumbo wrote:
| Ha ok, didn't realize that.
|
| The main site doesn't use scroll-jacking, i.e. scrolling
| feels like walking through a muddy swamp.
|
| The other effects are subtle enough that they don't make me
| want to leave the site, i.e. make my laptop fan spin more
| violently.
| willseth wrote:
| When I upgrade my iPhone I will buy this immediately.
|
| It's unclear if you already support this, but I would love an
| option to automatically bake graded footage back down to HEVC. I
| will never edit most of the video I take, I just want to dial in
| the look I want.
| qwertox wrote:
| That animation with the comparison swipes below "What if you
| could use all that powerful extra color data and get a cinematic
| look with one tap?" looks highly misleading. I've never seen
| original videos as bad as the ones used in the "before"-state. Am
| I wrong? I'm not into filming, so I might be.
| zamadatix wrote:
| As mentioned immediately prior to the comparison/line:
|
| > Out of the box, Apple Log footage looks really flat. It's not
| meant to look good. It's meant to be edited later.
|
| The before/after is about how you can apply each of those
| different prebuilt LUTs immediately with a tap, not about
| comparing how much better edited log looks than unedited log.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| > Am I wrong? I'm not into filming, so I might be.
|
| Yes, it's because you haven't seen raw log video before. It'll
| look very washed out when filming in log (and typically when
| previewing recent shots) but then in post-processing you'll
| actually tune the colors (called "color grading", in case you
| wanna seek out more about it).
| krackers wrote:
| > 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 things will look off if you display a log-encoded
| image on a display that uses a power-gamma. You have to
| linearize the input (invert the log-encoding) then
| delinearize (inverse power) before sending it to the display.
| With ICC-aware tools (that most photographer uses) this
| conversion is done automatically for you (e.g. colorsync on
| mac).
|
| But for some reason video workflows are not icc color
| managed. As I understand the oetf is basically unused
| entirely: since edits are made under bt1886 conditions,
| effectively baking in this bt1886 assumption on the viewer
| side as well. This seems to be the exact opposite of how ICC
| workflows work, where regardless of the monitor color profile
| the editor uses, all edits are transferred to the underlying
| source color profile of the image.
|
| The only page I've ever seen which actually acknowledges that
| "log encoding" is just an alternative to gamma encoding is ht
| tps://imatest.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/KB/pages/114161421...
| , as I discussed in an earlier rant
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37877599
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| > 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 for everything
|
| Which to me makes sense. If I'm looking for terms that can
| apply to many areas, it becomes harder to find the right
| thing. I much prefer separated terms than the approach than
| one term being used in many areas, so it gets easier to
| search and talk about.
|
| > actually acknowledges that "log encoding" is just an
| alternative to gamma encoding
|
| Not sure they are 100% alternatives though, but I'm much
| more familiar with log encoding than gamma encoding. As far
| as I understand, log encoding uses a logarithmic curve to
| capture a wide dynamic range, preserving detail in shadows
| and highlights for extensive post-production grading. In
| contrast, gamma encoding applies a non-linear curve that
| approximates human vision, producing footage with natural
| contrast and color suitable for immediate viewing and
| minimal post-processing.
|
| But, I could also misunderstand the differences, and would
| be happy to be told otherwise :)
| krackers wrote:
| >gamma encoding applies a non-linear curve that
| approximates human vision
|
| 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
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| The original Matrix wasn't color graded like that! They only
| pushed the green levels in the subsequent home video release!
| joecool1029 wrote:
| The original bluray release really went overboard to a jarring
| amount with that green. The original had some green but nothing
| to that level. Apparently the newer UHD release backed it down
| closer to the original.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Yeah, I recently watched a 4k scan of the Matrix taken from
| the original 35mm reels, it's a great time.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| If you want to say "lets you do color grading", then fine. But
| claiming/implying this can make "pro video" or stuff that looks
| like it came out of a cinema camera is _absurd_. I know they don
| 't say that outright, but it is heavily implied that the only, or
| major, difference is just color space and grading. And the name
| is just...laughable.
|
| > On a technical level, why does video shot on an iPhone look
| different than one shot on a big Hollywood camera?
|
| ...and then they launch into color grading and whatnot.
|
| The real answer:
|
| Because the pixel pitch on a cinema digital camera is _four
| times_ the area of the pixels on an iPhone which allows for much
| greater light gathering which means lower noise, and the sensor
| is far less limited by diffraction.
|
| Because the iPhone lens, being so tiny, has almost zero depth of
| field and that looks like shit.
|
| Because the people operating the camera are very good at
| cinematography.
|
| ...not because of some software.
| jdcola wrote:
| And most importantly, the artificial lighting.
| Exuma wrote:
| I love this landing page, excellent work. Steps me through lots
| of examples with clean and efficient writing. Nice work!
|
| Edit: i just bought it
| zamadatix wrote:
| I really appreciate that the app is just an up front price! I
| probably don't really need it but at that price and
| straightforwardness it's not really a big loss if I don't use it
| much so I grabbed it. I looked at the other apps and realized
| they had made Halide as well which I tried out for a bit, for
| some reason thought it was subscription only & decided I didn't
| want it that much while clearing out subscriptions, and just
| (re)noticed they say you can buy it outright too. Initially I
| probably saw a high price tag and wanted to see how long I'd
| really like it for but going back into the app I can't seem to
| find the straightforward purchase option (perhaps because my
| initial year subscription hasn't expired?) which means I can't
| find how much it is without searching the net.
|
| Perhaps I'm just uneducated and there is a place to still see it
| in the app with an active subscription or see the IAP price on
| the app store but even if there were it'd all just be a pain
| compared to "It's $9.99, wanna buy?" in your face at the app
| store and anywhere you read about it.
|
| The only other (very minor) thing that gave me a startle was the
| onboarding process asks if you want to go "starter" or some other
| more advanced category. I thought I missed that it would try to
| upsell you until I reread and saw it meant I could select either
| layout type out of the box. Not sure that's really the apps fault
| as much as my paranoia after having just checked through all the
| above and being left thinking I missed something.
| selectodude wrote:
| Halide has a lifetime IAP for $60 in there.
| stefandesu wrote:
| 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.
| gregoriol wrote:
| I think I've read that the current price for Kino is
| "launch price" and will be higher in a few days
| altairprime wrote:
| $70 is incredibly cheap for photography software. It's
| cheaper than Capture NX was twenty years ago, _without_
| accounting for inflation. I 'm sad that they undervalued it
| at first, but at least they corrected course later on.
| yreg wrote:
| Unfortunately the freemium + subscription model usually works
| so much better money-wise that it's difficult to justify
| publishing a simple paid app with upfront cost.
| ClassyJacket wrote:
| I'm totally fine with subscription apps, but the price has to
| be reasonable.
|
| I'm not a video editor so I can't speak to that but here's
| one example:
|
| Most calorie counting apps want ~16AUD a month from me.
| That's what Disney+ costs and they spend billions of dollars
| making content. It's 3$ more than Spotify charges and they
| have almost every song ever made. It doesn't have to be free,
| or even a one-off cost, but it has to be reasonable. I'd pay
| 4$ for calorie counting features. 16? No.
| sundvor wrote:
| Yeah, thanks for reminding me - cancelling MyFitnessPal
| trial - it's 130 AUD for a year, way more on a monthly
| basis.
|
| There are some apps in this genre that are absolutely
| insane - $300 or so for an AI image analyser, which you
| have no way to try unless you sign up for a trial where you
| are committed to that amount unless you remember to cancel.
| yreg wrote:
| I have an app and I'm trying to figure out the pricing.
|
| I'm offering a one-time in app purchase of life-time
| subscription. Currently it costs 6x the monthly
| subscription cost.
|
| I'm worried that makes it too expensive for a simple app,
| at the same time lowering it would make the monthly
| subscription less sensible.
|
| I'm curious if anyone has indie experience and thoughts
| regarding this.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I 'm totally fine with subscription apps, but the price
| has to be reasonable._
|
| I'm fine with it if includes some monthly re-occurring
| service, like cloud storage/sync.
|
| I purchased YNAB4 and I ran it just fine on my desktop. But
| YNAB5 went to subscription, and it included things like
| syncing multiple devices (which of course needs servers,
| which cost), but I have no need for that, and so I did not
| move to it. I'd much prefer I pay some one-time fee, and if
| I want syncing I can subscribe to just that.
|
| I also understand that if I pay $x for Version Y, then if I
| want Version Z there may be an upgrade fee.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > I'm fine with it if includes some monthly re-occurring
| service, like cloud storage/sync.
|
| What sucks is when the developer _adds_ some recurring
| service to their software that I don 't want, purely as
| an excuse to justify moving to subscription, and then no
| longer offers the software without the "service" for a
| one-time price.
|
| For most of the software I use, I specifically _don 't_
| want to be tethered to some kind of online service, have
| to have a network connection to run it, and so on. And
| I'll actively look for the competing software that's a
| one-time cost and isn't Cloud-ified.
| domador wrote:
| This is a widespread and recurring problem when a
| software tool that should be a product gets artificially
| turned into a service.
| joshspankit wrote:
| One of my most-used apps is $2/yr and I'm very happy about
| it
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| One of mine is for $10/yr and is not too much but
| still... And do not have another choice
| ErigmolCt wrote:
| And price is often do not come up with this criteria
| jessesbye wrote:
| I recently discovered Lose It. The pricing is much more
| reasonable compared to other calorie counting apps -
| $10USD/year. There's also an option for lifetime purchase
| but I haven't used it long enough to justify locking in for
| that much time.
|
| The only annoying thing is you have to get the free app,
| wait a day or two and then it will offer you the discounted
| premium subscription.
| FpUser wrote:
| I use way too many applications. IF I was subscribing it
| would be nightmare for me. So I only buy from companies that
| offer perpetual licenses and upgrade whenever I feel the
| need.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| It does not work as well anymore as it once did, and it will
| continue to flatten out.
|
| People can only afford a limited number of subscriptions at a
| time, and with an ever-increasing number of companies putting
| their hand into that pocket, there is less to go around.
| augustohp wrote:
| They did the same thing with Hallide.
|
| Give enough time (1-2y) and they will charge a subscription
| from you and lock you away from the app you've purchased.
| rlt wrote:
| That's a rather cynical take. Halide has been around for 7
| years and they haven't gone to subscriptions.
| NikxDa wrote:
| Halide is 2.99 a month, or 12.49 a year, and has been a
| subscription model since 2020. Sure, you have a one-time
| purchase option, but it is $70. I believe people who bought
| before the subscription got one year free, but things like
| widgets aren't supported. So unfortunately, that is likely
| the same fate for Kino.
|
| This post introduces the subscriptions:
| https://medium.com/halide/introducing-halide-
| mkii-30f9f2bcea...
| zamadatix wrote:
| I'm fine if I can get a reasonable number of years out of
| it. I'm not expecting infinite updates forever for $9.99.
| 1-2y for this would be disappointing but not even a bad
| deal. On Halide it seems the problem is more "pricing in
| general" - a 1 year subscription costs more than the one
| time purchase in this app so naturally expecting get and
| keep the app plus years of updates is a bit eyewatering
| for a camera app (but not necessarily because of the
| pricing model/that it switches major versions in long
| cycles).
| gcr wrote:
| There's "I expect to get three years of value for $9.99",
| and then there's the "Halide isn't a subscription
| product, what are you talking about" people in this
| thread.
|
| The unpredictability of the pricing model itself is an
| important point.
| domador wrote:
| Speaking of infinite updates forever, I am frustrated
| that software publishers and users have come to expect
| that all software should either be free, subscription-
| based, or a one-time purchase with permanently free
| updates. Each of these models can make sense for
| different kinds of software-based products and services,
| but they are problematic in the case of standalone tools
| (such as cameras, multimedia editors, productivity
| software, etc.) Some of the problems:
|
| a) Free: Due to lack of revenue, the company that makes
| your favorite tool may stop developing new features, add
| intrusive ads, sell your personal data, and/or sell
| itself to a nasty buyer that will end up killing your
| tool's future in one of various ways.
|
| b) Subscription-based: Many software tools are naturally
| products, not services, yet this model can artificially
| and unnecessarily turn them into services. Users may end
| up paying too much over the long run, the software
| publisher is not necessarily motivated to keep improving
| the tool, and if the company or a future owner decides to
| kill off the product, you won't be able to keep using it
| (regardless of how much more you'd be willing to pay to
| do so.)
|
| c) One-time purchase with permanently free updates:
| Though it provides the software publisher with revenue
| and users may appreciate the ability to keep using the
| tool they bought forever, the product may experience
| market saturation at some point, and the publisher may
| stop receiving revenue from new users. The publisher will
| not be motivated and/or financially able to improve the
| program and may be tempted to switch to the subscription-
| based model.
|
| I really wish more companies would go back to the old-
| style model where users can buy the current version of a
| software tool but would need to pay a discounted price to
| upgrade to a newer version of that tool (a major-version
| upgrade.) Along with this, customers would get free
| upgrades for a limited time (such as year) or all minor
| upgrades during the current major version. I believe this
| model creates a healthy incentive for a software
| publisher to keep improving its products while receiving
| revenue from both new and existing customers (reducing
| the market-saturation problem.) Unfortunately, both
| publishers and especially users may have grown
| unaccustomed to this model and may not appreciate its
| benefits.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _I 'm fine if I can get a reasonable number of years
| out of it. I'm not expecting infinite updates forever for
| $9.99._
|
| "Reasonable number" implies that you're fine with it. But
| where is that threshold? I bet it's different for
| everyone.
|
| Companies need to be up front with what they are charging
| for. "Let's say $9.99 because we're not even sure if
| we'll be around in 5 years" is not a good model.
| zymhan wrote:
| > you have a one-time purchase option, but it is $70
|
| That is a perfectly reasonable amount of money for
| consumer software to cost.
| sandofsky wrote:
| We have never, ever locked away Halide from people who
| already purchased it. If you bought Halide 1.0 in 2017, you
| can still use it today, with all the features you bought,
| without paying another penny.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Personally, for the tiny amount I paid back in 2017 for the
| app, $59.99 one time now is cheap to me. That's under
| $1/month over that time which is well worth it to me. If I
| got "locked out" if I stopped paying, then I'd feel
| different, but that isn't the case so keep up the good
| work!
| jsjohnst wrote:
| I've been a Halide customer since the first week it was
| released. I've gotten numerous updates since and not been
| locked out of anything available when I purchased (and
| including many new things since too) without having to pay
| another dime. In fact, the app has never even mentioned the
| option to subscribe, I only learned of that option via this
| thread and found it buried deep in settings. I value their
| work, so I'll now pay as I heavily use the app (among other
| of their products), but to say I've been forced to and/or
| "locked out" is dare I say grossly inaccurate at best.
| frognumber wrote:
| At the $9.99 price point, I'd buy an Android version in an
| instant.
|
| At a subscription or a significantly higher price point, I
| wouldn't.
|
| Plural of anecdote isn't data, but anecdote is better than
| nothing, so there you have it.
| blackhaj7 wrote:
| Beautiful app. At $9.99 it was an instant purchase.
|
| Seems nice upon first use but either way it's worth the $10 as a
| lesson in beautiful UIs
| motoxpro wrote:
| Unboxing experience in an app is super cool.
| mike50 wrote:
| Unimpressed. It's just an adobe filter ported to a phone. Just
| found the equivalent of people who buy vinyl.
| nvader wrote:
| Somewhat unrelated, but it is my dream to one day build a product
| for this segment of the market: passionate users in an
| interesting niche who are using my product in pursuit of what
| they love.
| Poiesis wrote:
| Just so you know: this app does not support zooming, it only
| switches between lenses. (This was a little surprising to me, but
| I'm not a video professional.)
| zeckalpha wrote:
| That's the hardware. You can crop in post!
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Seems like what I'd expect from a movie making app. Why digital
| zoom your 4K camera 4x and pixelate your result down to 1080p?
| wilg wrote:
| If you're not shooting ProRes I'd imagine you'd get fewer
| compression artifacts by zooming before encoding.
| hijklmnopq wrote:
| Why does it say it's 4 years old? Is that just when you initially
| put it in there during development?
| qzervaas wrote:
| Content rating. Ages 4 and older.
| k8sToGo wrote:
| Don't worry. For a long time, like you, I thought it refers to
| the age of the app. But it's really the content rating (meant
| for people older than 4 years old).
| hijklmnopq wrote:
| lol I see. Just switched to iPhone recently so still learning
| new things.
| cwillu wrote:
| ...app. Pro Video Camera App.
|
| It's not in the title, but it really should be.
| wraptile wrote:
| I wish titles on HN would clarify the platform for limited
| releases like this. This is iOS exclusive.
| wilg wrote:
| Hell hath no fury like an Android user spurned.
| wraptile wrote:
| Nah all software should be multi platform if possible.
| Locking programs in to some specific brand is just silly and
| you don't even need to be a open software extremist to
| acknowledge that.
|
| Also not mentioning the platform anywhere in the title or
| even article body itself is inheritly deceiving.
| wilg wrote:
| I think its okay for people not to do twice the work to
| support a type of phone they don't care about or use. Who
| is this deceiving? You figured it out, clearly. I think
| you're more mad than reasonable here.
| wraptile wrote:
| I figured it out after reading the half of their ad and
| navigating around their website where the platform isn't
| mentioned anywhere explicitly. Of course I'm mad for
| having my time wasted. This opaque obscurity feels almost
| like a dark pattern for farming more engagement and SEO.
|
| Also transparency in a discussions forum is objectively a
| good thing so extending the title would clearly be
| beneficial to everyone involved.
| drittich wrote:
| While your original comment might be taken as funny, this
| one quickly devolved into a strawman argument ending in a
| personal attack. Was that your intention?
| wilg wrote:
| It's not a strawman but it is an attack on what this
| person said. I don't think they are being reasonable.
| hbn wrote:
| From what I've heard about camera APIs, making an app
| like this for Android would be much MUCH more than twice
| the work, and also probably would become 98% of your
| support tickets because X feature doesn't work on the
| Samsung Galaxy J5 Skyrocket Plus LTE when running a
| custom ROM from XDA Developers.
|
| Someone from the company said in another thread it's
| already enough of a hassle dealing with all the possible
| camera configurations across different iPhone models, and
| iOS updates breaking things. I think there's a reason you
| don't see apps like this on Android.
| alexdns wrote:
| Globally android has a 70% market share.
| tristor wrote:
| Only due to cost, the majority of that share is not devices
| that are capable of doing what would be required for an app
| like Kino to work with these features. The share of
| flagship Android devices worldwide is lower than flagship
| iOS devices.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I'm not sure if most Android manufacturers support recording in
| raw which would be the closest analogue to this proprietary log
| format, so it's not like they could even make it if they wanted
| to.
| mrandish wrote:
| Similar apps on Android offering direct RAW format recording
| include MotionCam Pro and Mcpro24fps. While compatibility
| depends on the phone, most recent (~ 4 yrs) models from
| Samsung, Google, Sony and several others are compatible. I
| think this covers >90% of Android phones.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Just a future suggestion. Can you make the record button go on
| for a set time at set intervals. Would be useful when filming
| action or yourself but you just want to capture a variety of
| clips as you're progressing at doing something. Eg. 15 seconds
| every 5 minutes as you're painting a room.
| jeswin wrote:
| Thanks for the honest pricing, and letting people own your
| software. I have an iPhone 11 with which I probably can't make
| the best use of Kino, but I bought anyway just to support you
| guys.
| keithalewis wrote:
| Does it come with a gold plated audiophile quality cable i can
| use to tap my reticule? i don't know what any of that means, but
| i really, really want to feel like a big shot movie director.
| Where do i send my money? Is it okay if i tell people i work for
| HBO or Netflix while sticking an iPhony in their face, or should
| i tell them i am an influencer.
| lencastre wrote:
| I've used FilmicPro for years until bendyspoons acquired it and
| made a mess out of it. From there I jumped to BlackMagicCam from
| the DavinciResolve team and never looked back.
|
| I already had VideoLUT and LumaFX so any kind of grading can be
| done afterwards.
|
| I never had Halide.
|
| Just saying, I'm trying to understand how Kino improves on this?
| seper8 wrote:
| ctrl-f android: 0 words. Really? Interesting choice not to even
| mention it.
| yard2010 wrote:
| Remember when Apple banned camera apps that used the volume
| button to take photos?
| petercooper wrote:
| Gotta love Apple's App Store. Search for "kino" and get a
| competing app as an ad, but then numerous other apps that aren't
| Kino including a variety of _keno_ games. Search for "kino pro
| video camera", same situation, but finally find it in position #5
| despite being an exact title match. Bravo App Store search team.
| (The same happened when Threads launched.)
| petargyurov wrote:
| Same thing happens on Android. Even for recognised apps/brands,
| the top search result is an ad for a competitor.
|
| Just this morning I searched for "Strava" and the top result
| was some random hiking app.
| lauriswtf wrote:
| Well they just launched today so I'd assume that is the main
| reason behind low rankings. It will get up there soon.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Low ranking even on an exact title match though is pretty
| bad.
| hbn wrote:
| 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)
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| It also literally means "Cinema" in [at least] two other
| languages.
| rtkwe wrote:
| It's improved as people download it, the root comment by
| petercooper though found it at position 5. It's also not
| just a 4 letter word search it was the full app name
| which is where I was saying it was particularly bad.
| That's 17 letters not counting spaces and an exact match,
| that should be a really strong signal even with a brand
| new app that the person is looking for that app.
|
| > commonly used in internet slang to refer to a good
| film.
|
| I've never heard Kino used that way personally.
| infinitedata wrote:
| Can we change the microphone source with Kino, to a specific
| iPhone mic or if we are using any bluetooth device, like airpods?
| spikey_sanju wrote:
| I bought the app right away when I saw it. I wanted it for its
| color editing feature. The app is nice and easy to use, and I
| didn't have any problems with it.
|
| But when I started recording, the app crashed. It crashed again.
| It crashed again. It crashes while I'm still recording. This was
| very frustrating for me.
|
| P.S -- I use iPhone 13
| temporallobe wrote:
| I purchased the app! I love the MF, and the grades look great.
| Can I make a feature request? One thing I have never seen on a
| camera app is a "record pause" button, like we used to have on
| old school video cameras (on pressing, it pauses the recording
| then continues when you press again, making seamless cuts in a
| single scene). IMO that would make this a killer app.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| Please enlighten me, how are the color "grades" different from
| just a bunch of filters? Granted they have sleek marketing. But
| why is this app supposedly worth $10 (or $20 when not on sale)?
| Don't all free camera apps support filters for hdr videos?
| moffkalast wrote:
| It's the difference between someone going mad with lipstick,
| and a theatre makeup department.
| remix2000 wrote:
| Long time ago, I bought Halide from them, then they stopped
| supporting my preferred iOS version. Good riddance, I'm currently
| daily driving an Xperia and compared to it, that iOS app kinda
| looks like a Fisher Price toy now... ^^"
| slmjkdbtl wrote:
| A breath of fresh air when there's no "AI" mentioned in a product
| launch
| ldayley wrote:
| I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that this appears to be a
| (very polished) "Hipstamatic for video" yet. I feel like
| Hipstamatic has been a zombie app for years now, but was once
| beloved and at one point in 2011-2012 people spoke about it
| alongside Instagram...
|
| Obviously video is harder, but the "analog film" UI looks mighty
| familiar... ;)
| frutiger wrote:
| That's because it's a Halide for video.
| rpastuszak wrote:
| Has anyone used both Kino and Blackmagic? I have the latter so
| I'm wondering if there's a reason for me to buy Kino. I'm on
| iPhone 12 Pro, so can't use log iirc
| Nexxxeh wrote:
| Not sure if it's my setup or me or what, but the AutoMotion video
| makes me feel queasy when it switches to AutoMotion on. Feels
| like VR sickness.
|
| (Stock old Lenovo laptop with Intel iGPU and stock base-model
| X250 panel.)
| kkukshtel wrote:
| I just downloaded this and ran it on my iPhone 15 Pro Max and the
| video quality is incredible. I had missed that Apple even added
| LOG support in the past, and the quality of color coming out of
| this thing is incredible. This is the first time I've seen video
| (even just a small test) from a phone camera truly look properly
| "cinematic" without taking footage into Resolve to grade it
| manually, etc. Bravo.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-30 23:02 UTC)