Category: Techinque Page 9 of 18

 

Hot topic of the moment is the Blackmagic Design Pocket6k, for which it seems that a general love of the filmakers has started and an indispensable need to sell what you already have to move to pocket6k.

It is a common phenomenon that the new product is better than what we have because the period said by psychologists “honeymoon” is over and we see the instrument that we possess as useless or outdated. Basically I would have made a more balanced disanimation between the two cameras, but since they go more the xxx versus yyy, I split it all into two articles 😀

The pocket6k differs for a few things from the 4k version, for the management and support of new resolutions and a s35 format sensor, such as the UMP flagships, but otherwise there are no differences in dynamic range or performance really advantageous on pocket4k .

Now let’s do a practical reasoning on this “old camera” and see 10 reasons why it’s worth buying instead of pocket6k.

1) Economic factor

The pocket4k is available for about 1500 euros to the public, while the pocket6k costs 2500 euros to the public, so for the price of a room you almost take two pocket4k.

2) Storage

Using higher resolution, even with the braw or lighter prores formats the storage demands increase, the speed of the cards and disks to record this information will have to be greater, so you will have to make an additional investment both storage and recording, which not everyone is willing to do and little would make sense to take a 6k and record in 12:1 or in proresProxy (while in h264/h265… ) .

3) Shooting resolution

The pocket 4k has the 4k (of course) DCI, UHD and the FHD with a 16:9 sensor that allows you to record in raw these resolutions, 4kDCI is the full sensor, UHD and FHD are recorded in sensor crop as on Arri, Red, Sony and all other chambers; in Prores all these resolutions without “windowed sensor” or without an additional crop.

The pocket 6k having a larger sensor in both size and resolution, in raw does NOT have the 4k or UHD not even “windowed”, but uses a 5.7k or 3.7K anamorphic windowed format to generate a format close to 4k or UHD. So for those who want to work in native 4k or UHD must take into account that with the pocket6k must scale or up or down the data, which will be very rich as information, but it is an extra stress to which they will submit their NLE.

4) We must have better lenses

There are three reasons why the pocket4k is ahead of the lenses on the 6k, which is the same reason why the 4/3 is ahead of the aps-c and the ff.
When using a lens, designed for a larger format, the maximum visual quality is in the middle, while as you go outside you have a very slight loss, depending on the quality and level of the lens, so using an original or vintage FF lens, a 4/3 cropping more format takes the best of the lens, a s35 with a smaller crop takes more sides and any defects, a FF sensor expects to have a perfect lens, otherwise it makes no sense to have invested in an FF sensor.

The second reason is that with the upper resolution also the connected lenses will have to be better, because otherwise it would not make sense to use a 6k sensor if you then put bottle bottoms in front of the sensor.
Having a Canon EF attack you have access to a good number of Canon, Sigma, Zeiss lenses that will offer excellent performances with such a camera.

The third advantage of Pocket4k is that the mount m4/3 has a short draw and allows the adaptation of almost any type of mechanical lens, vintage, allowing access to thousands of beautiful glasses of the last 100 years also of excellent quality, simply discarded because not autofocus.

5) Larger batteries

A larger, higher-resolution sensor camera also requires more work power, so you have to reason either with the battery pack or with capacious external batteries in order to have a good autonomy. From the first indications it seems that if the Pocket4k absorbs 22w/h the pocket 6k should absorb about 26w/h so the durations should be similar, but… EF lenses have more greedy power stabilizers than m4/3 lenses, so using this different type of lens could drain our batteries quickly.

6) More balanced sensor resolution ratio size 4k, 6k

The sensor resolution and size ratio is more favorable in the Pocke4k than the Pocket6k, where a slightly larger sensor divides the light it receives for more photoreceptors, so it’s more beneficial in cleaning in low light images.

7) Higher resolution, more detail, more possible problems

apart from the craving for resolution, which is often superior to human visual capacity, but that is another discourse already addressed, a greater solver of the 6k sensor without a high-frequency filter, offers the risk of more problems of moires and defects high-frequency sampling on many elements, while the 4k sensor being (in comparison) less resolute has less risk of moires.

8) The camera is new, let’s do the beta testers

As with each camera in each brand, the first wave of cameras is a paid beta, meaning you will test the general public how the room works, and if there are any problems or defects will be corrected in the run during production, while the pocket4k that is shipped from one year now has a verified and coordinated production line.

9) On Pocket4k you can have speedboosters, on the 6k ni

An engineering and technological miracle are the speedboosters of Metabone, an American company that creates lens adapters that contain a lens that concentrates light and offers two advantages : gain a diaphragm stop and crop reduction between FF and aps-c and 4/3,m4/3 formats.

Speedboosters have since been imitated by others, but the optical quality worth having a speedbooster to date has not yet been matched.

Speedboosters can only exist in the case of sensor lens pulls that give way to such a lens, which technically the EF mount does not do.

It seems that the company Lucadapter, which produces a variant to be inserted within the UMP, is thinking of producing the same thing for pocket6k, but for now it is still in the kickstarting phase, while for pocket4k there are both generics and the one dedicated for a long time.

10) Most powerful computers

To handle both the prores and the braw 6k you will need to raise the bar of the power of computers, the speed of the raids to read the data and therefore not enough the simple room, but the investments expand in all the equipment.

Of course my list is related to a purely general discourse, each then has different points of view, personally most of these points do not touch me, used to turn in uncompressed dng or other very expensive raw formats, I used the first Alexa with the firmware 0.85 that recorded fullHd prores, without audio, and I had so many varied experiences for which … I think these two machines are miracles given to the masses.

I’m waiting for you in the next article “Why pocket6k is better than Pocket4k”, so we reverse the situations…

 

It is said that age brings advice, that people of a certain age have a more propensity to complain…

This is the premise of a Genoese, citizen of the world who in the DNA bears the concept of "mugugno", dialectal word that indicates a continuous and low-voice lament, which this time complains of complaints… sometimes age brings experience and you complain less, but you point to the result.

For some years now, among the most useless complaints I find that of the poor battery life, that the rooms can not be used because their power supply is greedy of current, because every 3×2 have to change the battery, etc… normally these kinds of complaints come from filmakers who level up or start from medium-high-level digital cameras and cameras (as quality) at an honest price.

Before we talk about rooms, we make a simple reasoning about a much simpler product (let's say), the smartphone, object that is in everyone's pockets, and those who use mobile phones for longer know that smartphones are greedy objects of current, if you arrive in the evening using it really is a miracle, especially for those who were used to using mobile phones of yes kind, whose battery (1/3 of the mAh of the current ones) lasted by telephones wide from 8
to 10 DAYS. To make a smartphone battery last during the day you often find yourself:

• disable wifi if we are not connected (search consumes a lot of current)
• disable GPS (with gps active and used by the apps on many smartphones we have less than 2 hours of autonomy)
• Disabling BlueTooth (constant searching for devices to mate reduces cellular range)
• in areas with severe electrical disturbances or with field problems it is important to force you to use a slower connection such as 3g or gprs, otherwise the continuous field search could consume the battery at the speed of light.

But without thinking about the stand by, have you ever wondered why the cell phone if you talk so much on the phone heats up? It's all current dispersed in heat, a lot of current…

Because if you play challenging games on your mobile phone, the battery disappears? because it is using the GPU and this causes a very high battery consumption, often for trivial operations, for games with the same graphics that ran on an 8bit processor, with 64k of memory, but here it must all be managed with a 64bit octacore and therefore waste on power waste.

Have you ever wondered why cell phone recordings warm up the device so much, and if you slow down after a tot stops to prevent overheating (although it's actually already hot).

Whether you use a phone with Ios or Android or WP you will have recognized more than one of these situations, but do not complain about it, indeed, you get excited that it has that potential, at most put a powerbank in your pocket.

If you use a camera, the concept that you have to use a proper power battery to use the product is not acceptable… curious analogy, isn't it?

In fact all this is only a recent problem, because the new "mugugnoni" born with phones are convinced that the batteries should last forever, people who have never used amateur cameras with ridiculous batteries (40-50 minutes basic) because the tapes more than one tot had no autonomy, often to get to 60 minutes you had to buy the most capacious batteries.

Operators using more serious rooms are familiar with the 100-200w vmount and gmount batteries that provide a more productive lifespan, or the old belt batteries, which added weight to operators already loaded with 10-15kg of camercorder on their shoulders, but provided more energy.

Having quality, sensitivity, low compression requires energy. It is no coincidence that many cameras and cine cameras generate a lot of heat and consume a lot of energy.

Now if you claim to have a Ferrari or at least a Lamborghini and that you consume like a 50 scooter, do so, but as it does not work in the automotive sector, it does not work in electronics either…

We learn to read between the lines, and if a camera battery allows 350 shots, why should it allow the camera to stay on for hours, with sensor that reads and all other electronic devices running?

If a camera comes with a standard battery (BMD, Sony, Canon), but then there are larger batteries, battery packs, etc. maybe it is because the standard battery serves for a more limited or specific use of the object?

How to calculate the power of a battery

Try to read the battery consumption of your room, do two accounts of the servant and you will understand many things. Often there are so many different acronyms, it is not easy to understand how to understand consumption and duration times.

Normally consumption is indicated in W i.e. Watts per hour of operation, we take a camera for example the BMD Pocket4k, which is highly criticized for the buffer battery, machine that has as consumption indicated 22w.

A professional battery is indicated with the W dispensed for hours, so if we have a 95w Gmount battery it means that 95/22 offers a lifespan of about 4.31 hours of battery life.

Smaller batteries, on the other hand, are indicated the capacity in mAh, so to understand its capacity we have to make a small calculation where :
the Watt expresses the electrical power, Ampere the current, Volt is the voltage delivered.

A Watt corresponds to Ampere x Volt

Ampere x Volt-Wat
tSThen a 1300 mAh x 7.3v battery plus 9.4w
/hMa if the room requires 22w/h the fact that the battery in question lasts 30 minutes is correct, it is not a defect or a design error, it is simply a basic math.

Cameras have batteries that last longer, and cost more

When taking a C100MkII the battery provided is from 4900 mAh or 37W and since the room consumes 10W it is no wonder that almost 4 hours, however it costs 200 euros, not 30-40 as many claim from those bmd… and we think that the suggested one that costs 400 euros is from 7800 mAh or 58w, but since that is a room that costs more we are not surprised that they cost more batteries.

If we take a camera that uses the same battery as the Pocket4k, the 5D Mk IV, we find that without using the display (so using the optical viewfinder to save battery) the camera can only make (from canon manual) only 900 shots. Reading the specifications on the manual, the camera consumes about 14w/h then using it to make videos, without having the mirror mechanism that rises and lowers even she can not reach a shooting duration of hours.

In my experience only with mirrorless Panasonic I was able to do long shots, theatrical performances etc with the standard battery, but no one complains about the BMD as of other rooms, for example the Alfa7S2 has a consumption of 13w/h with batteries from 1020 mAh to 7.2v, this time I leave to the reader the simple calculation on how long the room can last on…

Now in all this article what do we deduce?

Whether Canon or Sony producing cameras and cameras, they are not fools, but simply divide the product categories, so for cameras and cameras there are large and sufficient batteries to do their job, while in the cameras they allow to make short videos, but even if they have strong inclinations to the video, the battery compartment is not designed for real and direct competition to the video department (excluding external batteries , battery packs and similar).

That Blackmagic Design producing a series called CINEMA camera introduces buffer batteries to allow the external battery change without interrupting filming, or for fast run & gun shooting (for which there are actioncams, cameras, mirrorless and dslr more oriented to this) or for use on gimbal where weight and agility are the priority of the product, and a battery from 1500-1600 mAh offers sufficient autonomy to work.

Then you have to check:

• the consumption of a room and adjust us accordingly
• consumption and capacity of a room and/or battery before purchase, downloading the user manual and/or using google
• the lens for which that given camera or battery was created: quality or capacity, flexibility or verticality, durability or lightness.

There will be fewer surprises, but above all less useless "moguls" on the web and directed 😀

 

The umpteenth product that dies, and not for lack of funds, since the company that bought it from its creator to carry on its development is one of the richest in the world.

In the past before developing software you thought about it, they were investments and time, while in the internet generation you shoot in the pile, hoping that something will work, or, enough, you close shack and puppets and who you saw you saw, who invested time and money (little in this case) in their product is seen abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything in this case is seen abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything in this case is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (since 2016) will disappear.

In my computer life (since 1982) I have seen many software, many software houses born and die, for bad choices, for lack of users and therefore funds, for obsolescence, but the most embarrassing thing is the ease today in which you create products, you collect hundreds of thousands of users and then… everything closes because it was an experiment, because they were not able to manage the investment income relationship, because a manager leaves and who happens decides in spite of closing and canceling what he has achieved, I wrote spite, that word that usually associates with children, but that I have encountered as behavior in fifty years from the board of directors , because age does not mature, unfortunately….

Today the creation of so many Renting systems involve such damage, because in reality the moment you accept the rental of the limited-time software (the purchase of the license was unlimited at the discretion of the manufacturer, there is no unlimited purchase without clauses), you are agreeing to put a loop around your neck much narrower than you imagine, you are taking your files hostage to people who do not care about your work , nor that you can deliver or complete your work, and above all they have no interest that you can keep those files over time.

I explain better, if you try to open a project 5 years ago, depending on whether you work in the 3D, 2d, video etc you could have great surprises, I have projects 25 years ago, which at the time I stored with copies of the software to make sure that I reopened in the same way, and today archive also with a virtual image of the operating system , because that can be a problem too.

Today legally it is not possible because if they close the server that activated the software (from cs4 onwards) technically you can no longer use, you have to resort to illegal techniques to return to use or convert files that we created.

I know someone might say I can open them with new versions of the software… not always… for example all the projects of premiere pro – premiere pro cs3 I can not open them, this because the gentlemen only developed under Windows the program, and the modern mac version by error in opening that type of file… a text file, an xml whose handling and parsing is a third week of programming (I taught it in early 2000), but especially if that part of the project import code is present in the win version, it should only be added to the mac version, not even created from scratch. 
Not only that, opening it from the new version will give several errors, while opening "in stages" from intermediate versions (cs3-cs6-cc2014-cc2019) will not by errors. The acronyms mentioned are not random but are turning points of package development, where they have changed certain components and structures in the program that cause errors in reading the structure, which as I wrote before remains an XML structure, a text… something very trivial to manage for a programmer.

Or… this is the error given by 2020, and I can only open it with a 2014, which officially I can not have installed, as from mining emails sent by Adobe because they do not want to pay Dolby licenses… error that I solved by installing as a demo the cc2014, too bad that if I had not had the installer, that almost no one has because Adobe hid the download of such installers I would have stuck, and the company that asked me to update the old project (in the documentary is normal even after 15 years) would not have commissioned me the work.

Do we give some examples of forced obsolescence?

In the field of 3D many software change the rendering engines, change the parameters as they act in combined, so even if I open on Maya, Max a scene 5 years ago I could have some big problem, I mention these that were licensed an engine (Mental ray) that now no longer have, because the license is back in Nvidia, and now they use Arnold Arnold , and having both switched to subscription-only models, it becomes very difficult to open the old scenes… And you can't buy or rent the old version… the only solution is the illegal route, which is embarrassing since it is software that paid you thousands of euros per license.

Let's go into the field of 2D animation, I open a project made with the 2014 of AfterEffects, it's slow and I do the conversion of the project in 2019, the save, check that it's in place and everything works, too bad that the scene on the old computer took 35 minutes, on the new takes 17 hours to render and they are disaffected all colors because they changed somewhere the management of the color space

Let's go into the video montage, I have already talked about the debachè on the Dolby codec, I open a scene two years ago and I find myself without audio, because the camera was running with codec dolby AC3, and despite Adobe flagging the fact that with the subscription we could install all the versions we wanted until the CS5, actually now it is restricted everything to 2018 without codec dolby because they do not want to get in agreement with Dolby that rightly having seen yeast in the way sales of the suite, they wanted to re-negotiate the economic agreements.

Let's go within the web, how many software has changed from the current Animate, which comes from the ashes of the second Flash, the first was an animation program, the second purely for programmers, alienating so many people from the program, eliminated for mile reasons and reborn as a phoenix from the ashes again as an animation program.

Opening old projects or files is not a wish but a real necessity, some example :

• Remastering products, from sd to FHD or 4k, having 3D sources is better to rerender in quality than to do a brutal scaling of the material
• Repertory material acquired in the codecs of the time and often lost the original masters, much of the documentary filmmaker's work is based on that
• "I often have to fish for products 4-6 years ago to modify and distribute them on other country markets," he says.
• creating new products from the old, and starting from scratch when you've already made libraries is silly

Unfortunately, today's world is superficial and limited, things are done to make them last, but those who produce content would rather do something that remains, otherwise that they produce to do?

Of course I imagine from the choir to hear the voices of those who say… "It is your responsibility to keep files and projects open" "in large companies… "

I stop all these rumors citing big companies like Dreamworks, that to make the 3D version of Shreck have converted the renderings and did not re-render them because they could not properly reopen the scenes from new machines and new software, while doing a lot of work at home, and the costs of reopening the old scenes, redoing the compositing etc exceeded the 18 million dollar cost of the conversion from 2d to 3D.

However, if those who develop codecs stop developing them or are acquired by another company (main concept from adobe), if the operating systems change support for external codecs (both Apple and Microsoft) by closing the installation of external codecs, if a company decides to no longer support versions of old projects (not because it is difficult to read them but only translate structures and effects/ plugins from the old to the new) we content creators can do little.

In the new millennium there are new professional figures who deal precisely with the migrations of projects and products from one century to the next and will become increasingly important to save the past.

 

The umpteenth product that dies, and not for lack of funds, since the company that bought it from its creator to carry on its development is one of the richest in the world.

In the past before developing software you thought about it, they were investments and time, while in the internet generation you shoot in the pile, hoping that something will work, or, enough, you close shack and puppets and who you saw you saw, who invested time and money (little in this case) in their product is seen abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything in this case is seen abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything in this case is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (since 2016) will disappear.

In my computer life (since 1982) I have seen many software, many software houses born and die, for bad choices, for lack of users and therefore funds, for obsolescence, but the most embarrassing thing is the ease today in which you create products, you collect hundreds of thousands of users and then… everything closes because it was an experiment, because they were not able to manage the investment income relationship, because a manager leaves and who happens decides in spite of closing and canceling what he has achieved, I wrote spite, that word that usually associates with children, but that I have encountered as behavior in fifty years from the board of directors , because age does not mature, unfortunately….

Today the creation of so many Renting systems involve such damage, because in reality the moment you accept the rental of the limited-time software (the purchase of the license was unlimited at the discretion of the manufacturer, there is no unlimited purchase without clauses), you are agreeing to put a loop around your neck much narrower than you imagine, you are taking your files hostage to people who do not care about your work , nor that you can deliver or complete your work, and above all they have no interest that you can keep those files over time.

I explain better, if you try to open a project 5 years ago, depending on whether you work in the 3D, 2d, video etc you could have great surprises, I have projects 25 years ago, which at the time I stored with copies of the software to make sure that I reopened in the same way, and today archive also with a virtual image of the operating system , because that can be a problem too.

Today legally it is not possible because if they close the server that activated the software (from cs4 onwards) technically you can no longer use, you have to resort to illegal techniques to return to use or convert files that we created.

I know someone might say I can open them with new versions of the software… not always… for example all the projects of premiere pro – premiere pro cs3 I can not open them, this because the gentlemen only developed under Windows the program, and the modern mac version by error in opening that type of file… a text file, an xml whose handling and parsing is a third week of programming (I taught it in early 2000), but especially if that part of the project import code is present in the win version, it should only be added to the mac version, not even created from scratch. 
Not only that, opening it from the new version will give several errors, while opening "in stages" from intermediate versions (cs3-cs6-cc2014-cc2019) will not by errors. The acronyms mentioned are not random but are turning points of package development, where they have changed certain components and structures in the program that cause errors in reading the structure, which as I wrote before remains an XML structure, a text… something very trivial to manage for a programmer.

Or… this is the error given by 2020, and I can only open it with a 2014, which officially I can not have installed, as from mining emails sent by Adobe because they do not want to pay Dolby licenses… error that I solved by installing as a demo the cc2014, too bad that if I had not had the installer, that almost no one has because Adobe hid the download of such installers I would have stuck, and the company that asked me to update the old project (in the documentary is normal even after 15 years) would not have commissioned me the work.
But it doesn't stop there… Official responses from the Adobe site.

 

Do we give some examples of forced obsolescence?

In the field of 3D many software change the rendering engines, change the parameters as they act in combined, so even if I open on Maya, Max a scene 5 years ago I could have some big problem, I mention these that were licensed an engine (Mental ray) that now no longer have, because the license is back in Nvidia, and now they use Arnold Arnold , and having both switched to subscription-only models, it becomes very difficult to open the old scenes… And you can't buy or rent the old version… the only solution is the illegal route, which is embarrassing since it is software that paid you thousands of euros per license.

Let's go into the field of 2D animation, I open a project made with the 2014 of AfterEffects, it's slow and I do the conversion of the project in 2019, the save, check that it's in place and everything works, too bad that the scene on the old computer took 35 minutes, on the new takes 17 hours to render and they are disaffected all colors because they changed somewhere the management of the color space

Let's go into the video montage, I have already talked about the debachè on the Dolby codec, I open a scene two years ago and I find myself without audio, because the camera was running with codec dolby AC3, and despite Adobe flagging the fact that with the subscription we could install all the versions we wanted until the CS5, actually now it is restricted everything to 2018 without codec dolby because they do not want to get in agreement with Dolby that rightly having seen yeast in the way sales of the suite, they wanted to re-negotiate the economic agreements.

Let's go within the web, how many software has changed from the current Animate, which comes from the ashes of the second Flash, the first was an animation program, the second purely for programmers, alienating so many people from the program, eliminated for mile reasons and reborn as a phoenix from the ashes again as an animation program.

Opening old projects or files is not a wish but a real necessity, some example :

• Remastering products, from sd to FHD or 4k, having 3D sources is better to rerender in quality than to do a brutal scaling of the material
• Repertory material acquired in the codecs of the time and often lost the original masters, much of the documentary filmmaker's work is based on that
• "I often have to fish for products 4-6 years ago to modify and distribute them on other country markets," he says.
• creating new products from the old, and starting from scratch when you've already made libraries is silly

Unfortunately, today's world is superficial and limited, things are done to make them last, but those who produce content would rather do something that remains, otherwise that they produce to do?

Of course I imagine from the choir to hear the voices of those who say… "It is your responsibility to keep files and projects open" "in large companies… "

I stop all these rumors citing big companies like Dreamworks, that to make the 3D version of Shreck have converted the renderings and did not re-render them because they could not properly reopen the scenes from new machines and new software, while doing a lot of work at home, and the costs of reopening the old scenes, redoing the compositing etc exceeded the 18 million dollar cost of the conversion from 2d to 3D.

However, if those who develop codecs stop developing them or are acquired by another company (main concept from adobe), if the operating systems change support for external codecs (both Apple and Microsoft) by closing the installation of external codecs, if a company decides to no longer support versions of old projects (not because it is difficult to read them but only translate structures and effects/ plugins from the old to the new) we content creators can do little.

In the new millennium there are new professional figures who deal precisely with the migrations of projects and products from one century to the next and will become increasingly important to save the past.

 

The umpteenth product that dies, and not for lack of funds, since the company that bought it from its creator to carry on its development is one of the richest in the world.

In the past before developing software you thought about it, they were investments and time, while in the internet generation you shoot in the pile, hoping that something will work, or, enough, you close shack and puppets and who you saw you saw, who invested time and money (little in this case) in their product is seen abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything in this case is seen abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything in this case is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (already from 2016) and today is indicated first by email and then on the site that must be requested a definitive key because everything is abandoned (since 2016) will disappear.

In my computer life (since 1982) I have seen many software, many software houses born and die, for bad choices, for lack of users and therefore funds, for obsolescence, but the most embarrassing thing is the ease today in which you create products, you collect hundreds of thousands of users and then… everything closes because it was an experiment, because they were not able to manage the investment income relationship, because a manager leaves and who happens decides in spite of closing and canceling what he has achieved, I wrote spite, that word that usually associates with children, but that I have encountered as behavior in fifty years from the board of directors , because age does not mature, unfortunately….

Today the creation of so many Renting systems involve such damage, because in reality the moment you accept the rental of the limited-time software (the purchase of the license was unlimited at the discretion of the manufacturer, there is no unlimited purchase without clauses), you are agreeing to put a loop around your neck much narrower than you imagine, you are taking your files hostage to people who do not care about your work , nor that you can deliver or complete your work, and above all they have no interest that you can keep those files over time.

I explain better, if you try to open a project 5 years ago, depending on whether you work in the 3D, 2d, video etc you could have great surprises, I have projects 25 years ago, which at the time I stored with copies of the software to make sure that I reopened in the same way, and today archive also with a virtual image of the operating system , because that can be a problem too.

Today legally it is not possible because if they close the server that activated the software (from cs4 onwards) technically you can no longer use, you have to resort to illegal techniques to return to use or convert files that we created.

I know someone might say I can open them with new versions of the software… not always… for example all the projects of premiere pro – premiere pro cs3 I can not open them, this because the gentlemen only developed under Windows the program, and the modern mac version by error in opening that type of file… a text file, an xml whose handling and parsing is a third week of programming (I taught it in early 2000), but especially if that part of the project import code is present in the win version, it should only be added to the mac version, not even created from scratch. 
Not only that, opening it from the new version will give several errors, while opening "in stages" from intermediate versions (cs3-cs6-cc2014-cc2019) will not by errors. The acronyms mentioned are not random but are turning points of package development, where they have changed certain components and structures in the program that cause errors in reading the structure, which as I wrote before remains an XML structure, a text… something very trivial to manage for a programmer.

Or… this is the error given by 2020, and I can only open it with an old version, which officially I can not have installed, as from mining emails sent by Adobe because they do not want to pay Dolby licenses… error that I solved by installing as a demo the cc2014, too bad that if I had not had the installer, that almost no one has because Adobe hid the download of such installers I would have stuck, and the company that asked me to update the old project (in the documentary is normal even after 15 years) would not have commissioned me the work.
But it doesn't stop there… Official responses from the Adobe site.

 

Do we give some examples of forced obsolescence?

In the field of 3D many software change the rendering engines, change the parameters as they act in combined, so even if I open on Maya, Max a scene 5 years ago I could have some big problem, I mention these that were licensed an engine (Mental ray) that now no longer have, because the license is back in Nvidia, and now they use Arnold Arnold , and having both switched to subscription-only models, it becomes very difficult to open the old scenes… And you can't buy or rent the old version… the only solution is the illegal route, which is embarrassing since it is software that paid you thousands of euros per license.

Let's go into the field of 2D animation, I open a project made with the 2014 of AfterEffects, it's slow and I do the conversion of the project in 2019, the save, check that it's in place and everything works, too bad that the scene on the old computer took 35 minutes, on the new takes 17 hours to render and they are disaffected all colors because they changed somewhere the management of the color space

Let's go into the video montage, I have already talked about the debachè on the Dolby codec, I open a scene two years ago and I find myself without audio, because the camera was running with codec dolby AC3, and despite Adobe flagging the fact that with the subscription we could install all the versions we wanted until the CS5, actually now it is restricted everything to 2018 without codec dolby because they do not want to get in agreement with Dolby that rightly having seen yeast in the way sales of the suite, they wanted to re-negotiate the economic agreements.

Let's go within the web, how many software has changed from the current Animate, which comes from the ashes of the second Flash, the first was an animation program, the second purely for programmers, alienating so many people from the program, eliminated for mile reasons and reborn as a phoenix from the ashes again as an animation program.

Opening old projects or files is not a wish but a real necessity, some example :

• Remastering products, from sd to FHD or 4k, having 3D sources is better to rerender in quality than to do a brutal scaling of the material
• Repertory material acquired in the codecs of the time and often lost the original masters, much of the documentary filmmaker's work is based on that
• "I often have to fish for products 4-6 years ago to modify and distribute them on other country markets," he says.
• creating new products from the old, and starting from scratch when you've already made libraries is silly

Unfortunately, today's world is superficial and limited, things are done to make them last, but those who produce content would rather do something that remains, otherwise that they produce to do?

Of course I imagine from the choir to hear the voices of those who say… "It is your responsibility to keep files and projects open" "in large companies… "

I stop all these rumors citing big companies like Dreamworks, that to make the 3D version of Shreck have converted the renderings and did not re-render them because they could not properly reopen the scenes from new machines and new software, while doing a lot of work at home, and the costs of reopening the old scenes, redoing the compositing etc exceeded the 18 million dollar cost of the conversion from 2d to 3D.

However, if those who develop codecs stop developing them or are acquired by another company (main concept from adobe), if the operating systems change support for external codecs (both Apple and Microsoft) by closing the installation of external codecs, if a company decides to no longer support versions of old projects (not because it is difficult to read them but only translate structures and effects/ plugins from the old to the new) we content creators can do little.

In the new millennium there are new professional figures who deal precisely with the migrations of projects and products from one century to the next and will become increasingly important to save the past.