fuzzynormal

I now use Voightlander primes on my MFT cameras. Before I bought 'em I often used vintage Canon FD glass on a cheap speedboster. Also used vintage Pentax and Nikkor speedbosted primes. The whole collection of my vintage glass was a weird hodgepodge of stuff. I kind of like the vintage look, tbh, but it's a different look for sure. You either like it or not. The Voits are great in that I could buy a set of 3 primes --and be good to go with visual consistency.

My initial handheld shooting experiences were with film cameras and electronic tube cameras with outboard 3/4" recorders. Heavy stuff. You can't compensate for mass. As mentioned, that's pretty much the solution. You want a certain look with handheld, make your rig balanced yet heavy.

No. PP adapts display settings automatically based on source video properties.

I just use their default cineform proxy setting. 1020x540. It works across various sizes and frame rates. Now, I'm currently working on a doc with so much footage that the proxy data size is greater than 700GB, so I don't know if you can get a ton of data to be functional across the "cloud," but if it's not a long project, maybe. I've never gone out on the internet looking for .epr presets, but I suspect there's got to be something out there.

Various hybrid camera owner here. Tell me how I can do this with any of my camera's OEM bats. 30-50 is what I typically experience. I think the Black Magic camera is a fine value. You don't want it, don't get. No need to make excuses. All hybrid cameras shooting video are a compromise.

Yeah, I don't know. The basics of editing are so...basic. Never had a big issue with using different NLE's.

I'm hopeful that some sort of internet economy will rise up wherein services, like a video streaming platform, are decidedly privately owned and willing to cater to niche markets. Markets such as small time film makers looking to have an avenue to stream and do sales. A service company that exists wholly for actually doing a good service for eager clients would be great...not some sort of "long-tail" financial commitment to business oriented shareholders. Something more akin to a company that does, say, a craft brewery as a passion business --rather than a corporation that dominates the beer market because they are incredibly large and are always chasing that 2% annual growth. Give me a small company that's looking to make a decent living doing their thing, but also absolutely content on being modest so they can offer a quality product. Can that sort of industry somehow happen in this world?

Oh, I agree and qualified my comment with that exact sentiment. And, as I say, I'm not too wrapped up in the color-science thing, but other people are. Not really saying there's a wrong or right, just giving my anecdotal experiences. Take it with grains of salt. What's okay for me might not be for anyone else. I sure don't spend hours fretting about S-Gamut in post, for instance. I'm very much an "let's eyeball this thing" and then move onto the next shot. Any true colorist watching me work would, I'm sure, begin to weep within a few minutes. (and any average viewer watching my finished product would/should never care)

You make a good argument against "late-stage-capitalism." Preaching to the choir here. When you decimate the working class, there's not going to be enough to prop up the wealthy class. Wealthy can't help it though, they want/need money now over long term interests. To me, it's also touches on the whole supply-side notion of things, which as an economic theory is insane to me.

Modern marketing just straight up stinks. You're right to call it out and be highly skeptical and critical. FWIW, I've personally been using Premiere since 1991 so I have a history with the product. But I've not used it exclusively. Avid, Media100, FinalCut, and Resolve have all been part of my career. WTH, I actually did non linear editing on a ridiculous Amiga Video Toaster product back in the day. Yikes. Still, if we're talking about a "stable" PP, I'd certainly be interested in a highly specific and optimized premiere "PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATION" version. Charge me a flat rate for it, offer tech support, and call it a day. Make a non-bloated PP version that demands an exact itemized list of PC hardware components so they can tightly troubleshoot it and keep it working smooth. Heck, partner with HP and sell 1 single machine if you have to! --Also have software updates that are never released half-baked. Have it be so ridiculously exclusive it's built on their own tightly controlled version of LINUX. Whatever works! Just strip the code down. Hit the reset button and make a solid lean and mean beast of an editing platform. Personally, I like the PP user interface and how it does things. The legacy of that style of editing appeals to me. However, I'm not enamored that the app always feels like it's about to rattle loose and somehow smash into a wall. Adobe is making ridiculous money right now. They could easily afford to develop a special editing machine workstation that's also loss-leader product. Even if they sold zero units to regular consumers it would stand a a shining example of their commitment to the product and to the industry. Meanwhile, get this new hypothetical killer product into film studios and ad agencies and THEN bang the drum how awesome it is for professional work. For those that actually use it, it would be akin to owning a luxury car that everyone admires, while regular people drive around in a base model sedan. A car model that's the pinnacle of engineering and style typically doesn't make profits for a car company, but it increases the prestige of the brand. That said, none of what I just outlined will ever happen. That's not the world we live in. Unless Adobe considered such a product worthy of just being a form of advertising, they'd never do it.

Not a bad take, tbh. Corporate conspiracy notions are fun. Break it all down to rebuild it, eh?

It's a quote from the guy's video. For context: the reasoning I was hearing from him is that if you plan to tweak your stuff for your preferred subjective artistic color then fretting about color science isn't really a big deal, as all models are decent on base color science to begin with. His video ultimately says, with proper white balance, the color science differences between brands are rather miniscule. I happen agree with that take --as my typical workflow involves tweaking to my preferences on almost every single shot anyway. If something looks off to me I change it. It's just my workflow, you know? I also typically work with media from multiple cameras. Making them match has never been a big issue. Maybe because I'm not that hung up about truly accurate color? I dunno, can only speak for myself here. For sure though, if you want something appeals to you straight outta the box and minimize post grading, then you absolutely should evaluate what the brands offer with their color profiles, judge what you like, and let that guide your purchase choices. It's just my opinion that the whole idea of color-science is slightly overblown and a technicality that too many enthusiasts get hung up on --rather than just getting out there and making stuff. I mean, I like playing around with the tech side of things too, but I also have to be holistic in my approach to work because I'm a singular person doing the job from start to finish. If someone has a job (or the personality) where they concentrate on the technical minutia, then by all means embrace those details.

"we adjust the color...anyway. As soon as you do...you invalidate the color science." Yeah, pretty much. Never understood the angst regarding "color" one sees from enthusiasts. If you don't like it, change it. It's not that complicated or difficult.

Proxies make the most sense to me for any big project, regardless of editing app and shooting format. If you're doing short form video, perhaps not. When you have over 100 hours of footage for a doc, making that media easy to cut is a huge priority. Also, media management and storage is a big deal. I built out a PC with a 1080ti 2 years ago. However, on Resolve, I couldn't get their proxy-work-flow to function reliably, so I bailed on it and started using Premiere again. Not a bad decision as it worked well enough to edit numerous docs, but I'm still just not a big fan of Premiere in general. As for Resolve, the build recommendations were all over the map in the Resolve forums back in '16, especially for budget PC's. An interesting angle under consideration for me is the hackintosh builds. Cheap PC running OSX and FCPX? Maybe.

What's the context? Assuming this is some sort of standardized result, but where does it fall on it's scale? edit: never mind. Did an internet search and got info from a 5 year old blog post. https://blog.alex4d.com/2013/10/30/brucex-a-new-fcpx-benchmark/

Looked at the mini for a hot second, but don't think it would be a good fit in the long run. At least not for my main editing chair. My wife does mostly rough cut editing though, so it would work well enough for that. I'm tempted with an alternative that seem a better bet for me: building out a hackintosh. I already have a decent PC with 3 monitors, so all I'd do (if I commit to switching over to FCPX) would be to swap out my current GPU for the AMD brand. All I'm seeing makes the mackintosh install process look rather straightforward...and it's more hardware flexible and affordable to get a good performing computer running OS X in this way. If I don't hop onto FCPX I can forgo the AMD and stick with the NVIDIA GPU, but I'm getting really weary of Premiere these days.

I'm not going to say what this project is about. But, if you watch the clip, does it arouse any curiosity in you? You know how it is, you get deep into the project and it's hard to hold onto objectivity. Thanks in advance for any feedback.

"What gives Vimeo the right to delete not just the DMCA disputed video but YOUR ENTIRE ACCOUNT along with ALL your work, ALL your video, even with licensed soundtracks? What gives Vimeo the right to threaten their OWN PAYING CUSTOMERS with oblivion, based on a DMCA claim which might not even be legitimate? Which might be the result of a faulty automatic takedown process?" The process is so asinine I do wonder if they're under serious legal threat from DMCA.

No, IBIS and AF are not necessary. In fact, I just got done shooting a doc and IBIS screwed me over on a few shots while using a wide angle. My previous doc was shot on a freaking GM1 and GX8, and honestly, that doc film looks fine, imo. I think I'll probably shoot my next one without IBIS again. But, making docs isn't the only thing I do. A lot of my cheap-o corporate work makes good use of IBIS. Still, I can envision me shooting another film on, say, the Olympus EM5III (if/when they ever release it) and turning off the IBIS altogether. This seems completely silly, but I gotta say, decent handheld camera work has it's own nice aesthetic. Sometimes you need to go "classic" and leave the new-fangled stuff behind.

Does the gh5 have a 'shoot without lens' option? Is this what you're asking about?

Work with the pilot before the shoot discussing the shots you want. As with drones, a simple "low and slow" is always a good bet, but that really depends on the location parameters. Show him/her with basic models what you want to do and they'll tell you what you can do during the flight. I've asked pilots to do gentle positive G swoops for me and they've agreed. Positive G's pretty gives you situational stability which helps. I did some volcano filming in a 3rd world country and they pretty much let me lean way outta the heli on a single strap to get clean framing. Pretty sure I wouldn't do that again. Yeah, don't do that. I would not choose to use a consumer gimbal unless you're going to be doing some straight cruising in clean air with no buffeting. Not sure how that would be a realistic assumption, really. Also, any banking during the flight would wreak havoc on the gimbal. BTW, I also just did some plane to plane filming this summer with the GH5 and slow mo. The GH5 IBIS worked good when the flight was decent. Honestly, it's really all about getting smooth air during your flight. --Which is typical on nice days if you're high enough off the ground.

One of the best collection of wedding videos I ever saw was a guy doing his stuff on the EM5II. Nobody would ever claim the EM5II has top-line IQ, but his videos were always amazing. He knew how to shoot fast and pretty, and the EM5II and the IBIS really harmonized with his workflow and skill set. A good shooter can do a great job with an old Rebel Ti. Ultimately, it's about having exceptional people skills and enjoyment of the work. You really have to be gung-ho about getting in there and helping people in a positive gentle way. Rapport with your couple is the absolutely priority, shooting skill second...I don't know where camera selection falls in the priority list, but it's always more than a few notches below everything else.

If that's your goal, I, personally, would take one of the Olympus cameras. Not sure what your'e ultimately going after in your long term goals, but as an example, when I finished shooting my latest doc this summer, I did a debrief session with my wife and we figured that we probably should have shot the film on EM5II's instead of GH5's. Yes, the IQ is wildly better with the LUMIX flagship model, but the EM5II is a much cheaper camera. That would have opened up a few grand for the other MORE IMPORTANT parts of the budget - and that's so, so much more pragmatic than an edge in IQ. Also, the EM5II is just more adept in crazy handheld situations....which 80% of the doc ended up being. The Oly cams have quirks you have to adapt to, but nothing that's sways me enough to avoid them. For instance, you have to set white balance. Auto-WB drifts too much. The image on the EM5II will alias when shooting super sharp modern glass. (newer 4K OLY models are clean) The on-board pre-amps aren't great, but when paired with my Sennheiser ew100 kit, it works well enough. So, I look at your photograph above and think, yeah, I could easily do a decent dolly/so-mo cheat in that situation with my old EM5II. The GH5? Eh, not so much. That's my anecdote anyway. Balance your choice with all you do. So many cams these days are more than capable.

That's what you'd get from these cams. Actually, I think the stabilization system on any brand will get you there. My wife has an X-Pro2 with some cool optical stabilization, but I'm partial to IBIS though because I like to use old primes.

That's right. It's for static shots. But static shots where the subject is stationary, like a building. I tried it a few times on an interview where I was static, but when the subject shifted their feet or leaned in their chair it created problems for the image. If you're taking a shot of a mountain or something like that, it's kinda neat. It's just not something I want, or need to, activate very often.