Quirky

One alternative for YouTube and Vimeo is Wistia. It's a bit pricier than Vimeo, though, and aimed more towards business clients. Probably not an ideal alternative for a filmmaker but still, it's one alternative for sharing online videos. Although I don't see how would any of the existing alternatives be able to chance the system. That needs more than just a new service, doesn't it.

So you bought a GH4 for the math? What are you using for photos and video, then? :P

Good job. Carry on moaning. :P

Yes yes, yes, I thought we've established that and moved on at least a day and a page ago. I already agreed with you about that on the previous page, so your bringing it back again was a bit confusing. What we're talking about now is another matter, no longer related to your argument. There has been no argument about why Vimeo are doing what they're doing since page 1. Since then we've also established that their rudimentary efforts involving the online bots are harming the aspiring and pro filmmakers who don't use any copyrighted soundtracks. They get pestered by the bots and bureaucracy for no good reason. Adding insult to injury, getting a sync licence has been made almost impossible for mere mortals. No wonder people get frustrated. The system doesn't seem to work too well, however well intended originally, and that's the problem. The fact that some people copy and use other people's stuff without permission, anyway, no matter what, is another story.

You may not have said crap work literally, but something like that seemed to be implied, and now this topic is drifting even further into off-topic snobbery, isn't it. Those two well known names were just two random examples of filmmakers not considered as demi gods of moviemaking by everyone. That's not to say their work is crap, it just means that the crappiness/genius of their work and their distinctive styles is subjective. The point I was trying to make is that who has access to popular copyrighted music and/or performances depends on the size of one's budget, and who should have access to those depends on one's perspective. Whose work or style is considered crap depends on one's personal taste, and much less on the perceived talent -or opinions- of the artist. Yes, of course both established Hollywood heroes and aspiring filmmakers at Vimeo could and probably should collaborate with emerging musical talents. No one is arguing that, as it's blatantly obvious. But besides the point. As we've established in this thread as well as elsewhere, even if one is writing his/her own soundtrack, let alone collaborating with a composer or paying for a royalty-free licence, one can still get into trouble because of the broken system, which is totally unnecessary. The Vimeo filmmakers who are respecting other people's copyrights may and do get flagged for no good reason and have the burden of proving their innocence to a bunch of lazy bureaucrats because of some dumb bots pestering them online. That is adding insult to injury. So is the notion that we should be worried about publishing our non-profit documentaries recorded outdoors with a few seconds the sound of any copyrighted music audible in the background. All that doesn't even cover the notion of easier access to copyrighted music yet. By common consent, obviously. There could, and probably should be a better, more reasonable way to sort out all those problems. What Vimeo is doing now with their pestering bots is not solving the problem. It may have the opposite effect in the long run. When you take a bow at one direction, you also stick out your behind to another direction. Who has been talking about using other people's work for free without permission in the first place? That's a non sequitur, so let's just skip the self-evident platitudes, shall we. On the other hand, what Bioskop Inc said above is refreshingly relevant and informative regarding the on-topic issue. Thanks for the link.

Besides, "crap work" is highly subjective to begin with. The weight of your opinion depends on the size of your budget. The Vimeo filmmaker doesn't usually have the studio, producer and mafia money to get things rolling, whereas the filmmaker working in Hollywood usually does. If, say, late Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Lynch were both mere Vimeo artists today and looking for some music for their videos, many people would call their work crap, and suggest that they should only play with toys that are in their own league, and that they'd better avoid the hassle altogether and collaborate with folks at their own level.

Sometimes they (small publishers) don't even bother with a reply, let alone a quote. Yes, that's a good point. In fact I did think about that, too. I wouldn't want to see my work associated with anything whatsoever, without having the chance to opt out. Although when people buy the artist's music they can and will use it in ways beyond the artist's control, anyway. They just won't be using it commercially and not too publicly. But still, even though my thinking may have been a bit premature, perhaps there could be a compromise of some sort. A new alternative system of some sort with the chance for the artists to opt out if they so choose. And/or to come up with material/special editions of their work for the aforementioned purposes only, whilst leaving their regular stuff out of the system. Surely there is no harm in playing with new ideas, until something actually useful pops up. Or doesn't. Surely there's room for improvement in the current state of affairs in general. Meanwhile, I have been using sites like The Music Bed and other sources to buy music licences, and I'll carry on doing that, obviously. For that reason the original topic of this thread, the concept of automated muting of videos with copyrighted soundtracks is no big deal. However, the concept of dumb bots and lazy bureaucrats flagging and disabling our videos for no valid reason is a possible and probable PITA. Relax, man. I for one have not advocated such an attitude. Not intentionally, anyway. I did, however, play with an idea of a possible new and more versatile system of some sort. With the chance for artists to opt out, or pick what they wish to release for a broader licensing system, if anything at all. I never said I have it all figured out already. Nor did I imply that any artist should surrender all their work for any use and for anyone, let alone for free. As an artist I wouldn't have any of that, either. Let's all just chill out and change the tune. Peace, Unity, Love & Having Fun. ;)

My thoughts exactly. Although the meme does appear to be a highly efficient nerd trap, even here. Which is somewhat surprising. But still, it's bollocks. Utter waste of everyone's time. Another nerdy meme not worth propagating. Seriously people, no one is 'cheating' you. Forget the jargon and ignore the nerds, just grab your camera and go out to shoot something with it. If the footage or photos you get look good to you, great, that's all that matters. Regardless of the sensor size of your camera, or the F-stop carved on your lens barrel.

Indeed, I find it curious that even on filmmaking sites like this one people seem to have this juvenile sense of entitlement. People should know better. Neverhteless, the actual issue in this thread is twofold; That's the key issue here, isn't it, it's way easier said than done. In fact, in some cases it appears to be literally impossible for an aspiring filmmaker to do just that, at least within a reasonable budget and effort. Many people would do just that, if they could, in any reasonable way. Apparently what we need is a new "Steve Jobs" who's got the bollocks, the connections and commercial leverage to talk some sense into the heads of the music industry moguls. Someone who could come up with a new "iTunes for Syncronisation Fees" system for us. Someone who could make the music industry realise that they are peeing in their own bowl of cereals once again by not allowing filmmakers and other multimedia artists easy and reasonably priced means to buy a legal licence for their videos. If they saw that, they'd realise that allowing it would be a win-win scenario, and allowing such an easy and affordable access to copyrighted music would give them a massive but free marketing boost, too, along with an all new revenue stream via the licence fees. But alas, I'm afraid our rants here will be futile, until the whole music industry kicks off. The other half of the issue is this; Yes, they should. The (other) problem here is just that, the legal imperative is way too one-sided. The users should be considered "innocent until proven guilty." I believe the majority of people publishing videos on Vimeo are using royalty free music licences, anyway, as per the guidelines they've agreed to respect. They don't want to waste time and fight with some dumb bots and bureaucrats with their inevitable false positives. Nor should they have to. Both issues could indeed be easily fixed by fixing the broken system, not by adding dumb bots into it. It's not like (most) people wouldn't be willing to pay for a licence, if only there was a reasonable system to do so. Perhaps the concept of fair use should be less open to interpretation, too. This may be repeating the same talking (ranting) points once again, but so what.

This is by and large a techie forum dedicated on the 'technical bits of filmmaking' as you put it. I'm not saying that Andrew Reid or many of the skilled filmmakers here wouldn't know anything about storytelling. That is quite obviously not the case, but this forum has just profiled into the techie stuff from the beginning, and for the most part people come here for just that. I don't think that is likely to change any time soon. Nothing wrong with that per se, and there aren't too many savvy video-oriented techie sites around in the first place. There are indeed no literal obstacles for adding the more narrative and artistic side of things into the mix, too, and I for one would have no objection to that, but I just doubt a change like that would stick for too long. Horses for courses. Having said that, I do root for your wish for the inspirational stuff on storytelling, so... Well, it could look something like this: Telling A Story With No Words by Matt Allard. I just thought this story might go well with the theme of this thread, including even the lingual aspect implied. I think the linked videos are great examples of documentary storytelling. Worth a watch. In this case, the gear used really is less relevant, even though it does get mentioned in the blog post.

Yes, it is an interesting option, as long as 4K is not a must (as suggested). But please note that suggesting it just to join the acclamation choir was NOT the main point of my comment. I don't think that simply listing our favourite camera models is the 'right' answer to the "absolute" questions presented. I think he/people really should ignore the 'absolutes' and get his/their hands dirty -figuratively- with a few of his/their favourite candidates, and then just pick one that feels right in the hand. The end result, the footage from most of the candidates already mentioned, is likely to look good enough, anyway, at least after a little bit of practising. If I'm not mistaken, the existing (Nikon?) footage doesn't look too shabby to begin with, and the Nikon, together with a suitable lens and a tripod/monopod might be quite sufficient, for now. We all could get better simply with some more practise. I know I would, and I will. Just trying to save other people's money here.... ;)

I don't know the answer to the question in the header, and I don' think anyone here does. Nor do I think it really matters. Everyone has an opinion for sure, but you should keep in mind that the concept of "absolute sharpness," whatever that means in each case, and "the best image quality" aren't the one and the same thing. Nor is it the only feasible reason to choose one camera over another, for any kind of task. There's much more to a good camera and good image quality. Image quality is somewhat subjective to begin with. "Absolute" specs are for measurebators and enginerds, not for people who actually shoot something, even buildings. I believe the main task here is to sort out the not knowing what one wants issue. After that things get much easier, and wasting money becomes less likely. Meanwhile, after reading your comment I couldn't help thinking about one interesting hybrid solution, namely the Sony RX10. It has some nice camcorder features like built in ND-filters, zebras and even power zoom, (if you want to use one), and it has both microphone and headphone jack with adjustable audio levels. It also has some nice dSLR features, too, like the dSLR form factor, large-ish sensor (in camcorder terms), ability to shoot good stills, it has a nice Zeiss lens that begins from 24mm (FF equivalent) wideangle, and so on. It does full pixel readout, it doesn't do line skipping, which results to relatively sharp and nice looking video footage. If your needs or your appetite grow, you can attach both an external recorder and an XLR unit, build all sorts of rigs around it and so on. For about $1200 it offers more than meets the eye at the first glance. A reasonably nice combination of versatility, quality and compact size, without a need for a huge budget or camera bag. Or without having to commit to any lens mount system and lenses. I am not saying that the RX10 would be the "absolute best" option. There is no such thing. But I do say in your case it might be worth a look, anyway. Look it up. Not just inside the EOSHD site, but elsewhere, too. Better yet, look it up IRL, too, and try it in your own hands, like any other option you might be interested in. That's as important as ogling the "absolute" specs. Or submitting to the online forum acclamations, ftm. Have fun playing with the cameras.

Maybe it was a very early beta at that point, and they simply didn't have but one sample unit for demo use. Hence the undisclosed delivery date. I don't think it's really that dramatic IRL, even though the Panasonic fans like to think so. Some people might indeed have gone for the GH4 or something similar, but I believe quite a few of the potential buyers of a Sony FE-mount camera would not 'rush' into the mFT camp just like that, not for the latest upgrade to the GH line. Surely everybody is aware of the fact that the GH4 won't be the only 4K camera around for too long. Surely even Sony will still come up with more 4K options, possibly later on this year. Soon other brands will follow suit. At least I tend to believe that not all people are so ADHD and instant gratification that the first 4K interchangeable lens camera made their heads explode, and turned them into instant mFT converts. They can easily wait a little while longer. Case in point, myself. Among many others. As for forced to advance the announcement, well, suppose it's indeed possible that an early (even premature?) announcement was pressured by some easily intimidated board members and marketing moguls at the Sony marketing dept... even though the boffins at the engineer dept might have wanted to wait a bit longer. Oh well, suppose we'll find out more soon enough. Meanwhile, 4K is not the only reason many people including myself are interested in the A7s. In my case, I'm looking forward to learning about other 4K options, too, in the near future. The most likely candidates being Sony A mount (or some PL/hybrid solution) and Canon EF or M mount, or something with a fixed PL mount, perhaps some fixed lens cameras, too, probably from the usual suspects. But since this is an A7s topic and the A7s is interesting for a number of reasons, well... Yeah, that. :P

Yup, interesting shoots, and indeed quite stimulating. Now we've got little excuse, apart from the weather, which is just an excuse to begin with. Thanks for sharing.

The lack of test shots looks like another indicator towards some production issues we don't know about, doesn't it. Maybe the price point is not about deliberate secrecy, either, maybe they haven't been able to decide/fix it yet. Or maybe the moguls at different departments are still bickering about it. Nevertheless, I'm not too concerned about the lack of test footage online so far, as I'd rather see test results made with actual production models rather than with pre-production models. Whenever the product is 100% ready to be purchased. The typical online test videos alone aren't really that critical, either, as only a few of them are typically of any use, all of them are compressed and none of them tell the whole picture. So perhaps Sony should have kept a lid on the A7s until they're actually ready to deliver, after all. A delay this long starts eating up the hype advantage gained by the NAB coverage. A product without a price tag is mere vapourware, not actual hardware. People will only buy products with a price tag, like the GH4. And even if they told the asking price, surely Sony wouldn't want to "Blackmagic" their latest high profile product launch for too long. But let's hope they will indeed give us the price and the delivery date later this week. Or maybe even start delivering it on the 15th. I'm not in a hurry to buy a new camera at the moment, though. I just wish Sony won't fsck things up, as they've got an interesting thing going with this new product. Different enough from the competition, including both Canikon and Panasonic. PS. With the sheer lack of actual A7s footage so far, surely this topic turning into a regular A7s discussion topic is not actually off-topic, let alone unexpected, right? ;)

Even if the Speed Booster had big enough an image circle to cover a full frame sensor, what would be the point of having one? Using Mamiya or Pentax 67/645 lenses with a GH4 or A7s wouldn't serve any practical purpose, IMO. Using a focal reducer made for crop sensors sounds like an awkward way of getting a vignette, too. One of the main benefits of getting a camera like the A7s instead of a one like the GH4 or the BMPCC is the fact that you won't need a focal reducer between the body and the lenses made for full frame. If the S35 cine lenses work in APS-C mode, that'll be an added bonus. I wish someone came up wit a high quality anamorphic focal squeezer of some sort. That would be cool, especially with the mFT bodies, wouldn't it.

Speaking of the price tag, do we still not know the actual retail pricing and delivery date of the A7s, in 12 May 2014 A.D.? I'm not going to join the Panasonic fanboi/anti-Sony curmudgeon choir but, I do believe that withholding the price point this long is beginning to work against them, and help the competition. Letting the hype machine speculate the price point might have been a workable marketing gimmick for a week or two, but this is getting counter-productive. It tends to confirm the speculation that Sony were in a hurry to release the product at NAB, perhaps slightly prematurely. Or maybe there are some production problems we're not aware of. In any case, the gap between introduction and knowing actual price point with actual delivery date shouldn't be too long. Not without a practical reason, like in the case of the NEX-7 delay. But in that case we did know the price point right after introduction, and it ended up not hurting the NEX-7 sales much. This may be different.

Yup. Samyang, (global), Rokinon (US), Bower (Asia?), Walimex (Germany) and even Vivitar (North America, Asia?) are the one and the same. Different brand names for different markets and delivery chains. Same candy in different wrappers. Looks like there is no significant price difference, either.

Why is it so bad? Umm... how old are you? So in real life it's a non-issue, huh. Sounds like a poorly grounded or cheaply done audio out plug and/or amp on the motherboard. A bummer, but surely not a "serious bug," as someone screamed. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next batch of hardware. Meanwhile, just go out and shoot something. Go and listen to the buzz of a bumblebee or a ladybug to distract you from the headphone buzz. See? An alleged Panasonic hating Sony shooter defending Panasonic, how can that be? :P Yeap, that sounds more like it. Either that, or dodgy electronics/workmanship in general behind the line out plug. Hopefully the better headphones designed for audio monitoring are the ones supported by Panasonic.

Oh but what wouldn't you find in YouTube these days. Do not underestimate the resourcefulness of hipsters and gadget nerds with cameras. ;) Haven't spotted a literal desert scene like that yet, but I have seen a mountain one. At least I think it was a blurred mountain range. Part of the foreground was blurred, too.

'> (in short: Facebook) :P

Well said. I think that's the whole overhyped "filmic look" and "cinematic look" in a nutshell. They're buzzwords that describe an emotional, rather than a technical concept. They no longer have anything to do with actual film stock. Anyway, speaking of shooting skilled stuff with the GH4, and a little bit about the Canon C100 and 5D3, too, I stumbled on yet another "real life test" with rather predictable results in the News Shooter. "Would you recommend the GH4?" Note that he's referring to a out of the box 5D3, not a hacked RAW shooting one.

I saw the rumour(s), too. On the other hand, my nearest dealer has been displaying the A7s in their online store with the pre-order price of 2,999€ (incl. VAT) since the beginning of the month at least. That pre-order price hasn't changed yet, not even after those latest rumour. I do hope the actual price will be under two grand rather than three grand, but apparently we'll find out soon enough. FWIW, to me the difference between those two speculated prices is the difference between probably buying it and never buying it. Actually, I'm sort of miffed about Sony experimenting and speculating with the price and not giving it straight out when the camera was released.

Just to nit-pick a bit... ;) If you put that 85mm lens into a mFT or APS camera, it'll still be exactly the same 85mm lens. You'll just have a smaller peep hole to view the picture projected by the lens, and therefore you see less. In other words, the lens will always stay and behave the same, only the size of the peep hole chances. As for recording sound internally, that's nothing unusual these days, nor is the preamp inside the 5D3 particularly good for that. Not that bad, but certainly not "ultimate," either. But nit-picking aside, not much point in arguing about matters of taste, soI'll zip it. :)

If you live inside an either-or, I/O kind of world, then that may indeed represent reality to you. However, if one is not a Canon luddite, there are plenty of different options. Some other people might even choose to get different cameras for stills and video. Nothing wrong with that, either. Depends on your belief system and your internal wiring. There is indeed a lot of choice, and thanks to that, not everyone has to buy a 5D3. I for one would no longer buy any dSLR, let alone a Canikon dSLR, especially for anything video related, but that's just me. Whatever floats your boat. Your personal preferences, your money, your choice. That's kinda sad. There's always plenty of nice cameras to choose from. Just pick one and get on with it. If someone else chooses another camera, that's perfectly alright. You don't need to feel threatened by his or her different choice in any way, nor should you. What others think about your choice does not matter, and vice versa. Now, off you go to play with your "ultimate"camera, young man. ;)