When I see something described as a "film camera" I infer that it uses film.
This appears to be a "film-quality, cinematic camera" that does not use film.
I had to read the whole article, carefully, to be certain that the project is purely digital. It looks digital, there's no obvious place to spool film, but phrases like "film is recorded RAW at extremely high quality" really muddy the waters.
So for anybody who's wondering, this is a digital camera.
If somebody made a post talking about a "home-made floppy disk" and I clicked on it only to discover it was a flash drive, I'd be a little annoyed, sure.
If a post said "hobbyist makes a land-line phone using modern components" but it was actually a cell-phone case shaped like a Bell handset, again, annoying.
It's not basically 1080p, it's literally 2x more pixels, which is important for cropping to 1080p in select zones, or emulating lense zoom, stabilization etc.
Heh, this is where video format naming is stupid. 1080p = 1920x1080. 2K = 2048x1080. 2K and 1080p are practically the same. 4K = 3840 x 2160, which ends up being 4x the total number of pixels as 2K/1080p.
10 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 27.8 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCeKCfgRnO4
This appears to be a "film-quality, cinematic camera" that does not use film.
I had to read the whole article, carefully, to be certain that the project is purely digital. It looks digital, there's no obvious place to spool film, but phrases like "film is recorded RAW at extremely high quality" really muddy the waters.
So for anybody who's wondering, this is a digital camera.
If a post said "hobbyist makes a land-line phone using modern components" but it was actually a cell-phone case shaped like a Bell handset, again, annoying.
The headline is actively misleading. That's all.
It's not basically 1080p, it's literally 2x more pixels, which is important for cropping to 1080p in select zones, or emulating lense zoom, stabilization etc.