fuzzynormal

I always encourage proxy editing simply because there's less processing stress on the computer. The less the computer has to work the less likely it is to crash or lag. At least that's my reasoning. Doing native format editing is okay for really short form projects, but even then I tend to go the proxy route simply because it allows the editing GUI to function more cleanly. FCP was always breezy with ProRes, but I'm not on FCP at the moment, so...

Rumor sez it may have a built in electronic variable ND filter. Okay then. I'm listening Olympus. That's useful real world stuff right there. I'm beyond pixel peeping at my age. All these modern sensors do enough for me. Now, show me pragmatic features and you got my attention. Built in variable ND is exactly that. Allow me to lock in my SS, ISO, Iris, and Frame Rate... then control exposure with built in ND? Man 'o Man. That's a video shooter's dream. (at least this particular shooter)

Stuttering (maybe 5fps) playback of PROXY media to the point audio dropping out during said playback. These are 1024x540 res PROXY files that were created by the default PROXY settings in PP and created in Adobe Media Encoder. Bottom line, the new software couldn't playback those clips. My issues were happening on an older machine, but the older machine could handle the exact same project just fine in 2017. Once that project was loaded into 2019, nada. All settings were identical from the project in 2017 to the project in 2019, including all preferences. My conclusion after internet sleuthing was that 2019 just demands more processing overhead for some reason. Don't really care why this is, it just does. That's my experience and it caused workflow issues. So....that and some random unrecoverable crashes that I hadn't seen before made me nope right on outta 2019. I got better things to do than trouble shoot beta-level software. Couple of nice features that come with 2019, but without a certain level of workflow stability, just no no no. Yes and no. When I'm pulling and pushing the grade it's usually during the coloring stage --and proxies are turned off at that point anyway so you're seeing a pretty accurate rendition of what you're gonna get from your source footage+grade. Sometimes I'll quick color grade a proxy too as I'm editing; it holds together enough to do the basics. And, as mentioned, all fine tuning I do with the source footage anyway. Basically I'm saying that, for me, working with proxies doesn't really affect the coloring workflow. It does, however, make the basic editing so much more pleasant. Just scrolling footage in the thumbnails with no lag is such a blessing.

I am editing my current doc with PP and I'm getting it done. My anecdotal experience says it can handle large projects (100hr+ of footage) such as a feature length documentary, but with caveats. 1) You should use proxies 2) don't do any complicated compositing 3) use an old version (I went backwards and am using CC 2017.1.2) 2019 just about killed me for a week before I did a XML export and took my project to an earlier version of Premiere. Premiere Pro crashes, but I can't say more or less than my FCP used to. Still, PP just never feels "solid." There's no objective way to qualify that assertion, you just need to use it to get a gut-level feeling about it. That feeling has never been reassuring for me. Also, the way PP demands media to be loaded into a project in order to migrate sequences is, augh, such a pita! That mundane detail might seem trivial to the uninitiated, but to those of us trying to move edits across different editing seats it's absolutely horrendous.

Yeah, if you're transcoding the source video to a different format you can expect it to slog along a bit. Regardless of what the ultimate issue is, you really need to know if your editing sequence and export settings are appropriate for whatever work you're doing. If you have any doubt about what's "appropriate", the safest assumption to make is that you're doing it wrong and it needs to be changed...to...something else...

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?