Is video degrading new still camera models?

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Seems like the emphasis on it is taking away from still functionality
and that is probably bad, though not for the target market of this
camera, I'd guess.

http://dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcgf2/


For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than 10
minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

In article , Alex VI
writes

For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
that have many longer than 1 minute.

If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
the two acts? ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On 11/5/10 PDT 5:49 PM, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Alex VI
writes

For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
that have many longer than 1 minute.

Indeed. Most cuts are easily measured in seconds. Except on amateur
efforts.

If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
the two acts? ;-)

Perhaps the poster was slyly hinting that his prowess in certain X rated
scenes requires that amount of uncut action..... if you know what I mean.

--
john mcwilliams

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 18:05:38 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 11/5/10 PDT 5:49 PM, Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Alex VI
writes

For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more
than 10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
that have many longer than 1 minute.

Indeed. Most cuts are easily measured in seconds. Except on amateur
efforts.

If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
the two acts? ;-)

Perhaps the poster was slyly hinting that his prowess in certain X rated
scenes requires that amount of uncut action..... if you know what I mean.


Or that any more than that would never be used.

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than
10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
that have many longer than 1 minute.

If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
the two acts? ;-)
--
Kennedy


I'm not a Hollywood film producer, so I guess I wouldn't know.

But I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
if they had video.

"Alex VI" wrote in message
...
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than
10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
that have many longer than 1 minute.

If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
the two acts? ;-)
--
Kennedy


I'm not a Hollywood film producer, so I guess I wouldn't know.

But I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
if they had video.


In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about ****ing.

"Alex VI" wrote in message
...
"Alex VI" wrote in message
...
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
For video to be any good on still camera's, it needs to record more than
10 minutes. If you know what I mean. ;-)

Can you name a single Hollywood movie with a single shot that has more
than 10 minutes between cuts? I suspect you will struggle to find many
that have many longer than 1 minute.

If less than a minute is good enough for Hollywood, why is it wrong to
force the great unwashed to limit their clips to less than 10minutes -
almost 5x as long as a single reel of 8mm cine film?

Is there any commercial need to watch "little Johnny" gorging his bar of
chocolate and vomiting it all up 11 minutes later without a cut between
the two acts? ;-)
--
Kennedy


I'm not a Hollywood film producer, so I guess I wouldn't know.

But I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their
cameras if they had video.


In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about ****ing.




In case you haven't worked it out, Alex is one of the many who should
disconnect their keyboards before typing.

IMDb commentor Phantomg6, on the movie "The Player":
"The answer to your question of which film has the longest take is "Russian
Ark." It is a feature length film consisting of merely 1 long-take, not a
single cut in the entire film. Before this film, the record for longest cut
must have been Hitchcock's "Rope", as the entire film cuts only, I believe,
6 times. Each cut is the length of an entire reel of film, which is the only
reason Hitchcock cut."

Another commentor, HSJDesign:
"Fun Fact: The second guy who talks about TOuch of Evil's opening shot in
this movie's first scene, the moment he starts talking this movie breaks the
timelength of Touch of Evil."

I have yet to discover the official "timelength" of the "Touch of Evil"
opening scene.

--
Frank ess

On 10-11-07 11:45 , Alex VI wrote:

In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about ****ing.

Most people who talk about it are not only inept at it but have
inadequate anatomy complemented with very short endurance.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

Alex VI wrote:
Alex VI wrote:

I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
if they had video.

In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about ****ing.

Wow, I won't even put the tip of my rocket blower inside my camera...

On 11/7/10 5:12 PM, in article
m, "Wilba"
wrote:

Alex VI wrote:
Alex VI wrote:

I have an idea what most hot blooded males would do with their cameras
if they had video.

In case you haven't worked it out, I'm talking about ****ing.

Wow, I won't even put the tip of my rocket blower inside my camera...

BFG!