Cary Knoop

Are you sure it does 4K60p raw?

Not really, most rights holders now simply monetize any video that has their content, but there are exceptions. In fact YouTube now lists the copyright policies of many songs: https://www.youtube.com/music_policies

If you use H.264 I would only encode I-frames (use a Keyframe Distance of 1) otherwise I would think there is not much of a point of having proxies. I do not get the saving space argument as they are obviously temporary files.

The handheld closeups are made with a the Leica/Panasonic 100-400mm lens on the GX85:

I see, so my arguments are not valid because you question if I have experience. So are you claiming that 50 out of 50 of those claims were in fact not from the rights holder but from someone else? Let's ask the poster, was the rights holder identified correctly? It is one thing to be annoyed by having to respond to a content ID claim if you have obtained a license but another thing to claim those Content IDs are bogus and claimed by someone else. I am sure it can happen sometimes but it does not seem to be what the opening poster of this topic is talking about. But since you seem to draw from your vast experience with 50 out of 50 being bogus could you list a couple?

Best is a mater of taste. Check the work from some photographers to get inspiration, people like Alexey Titarenko, Rut Blees Luxemburg and Fan Ho to name a few.

I don't think transcoding to ProRes is going to help but you can always try. ProRes and H.264 pretty much use the same compression technology, but ProRes does not use inter-frame compression. It is hard to scrub the timeline with inter-frame compression because the computer has to calculate the current frame starting from a key frame which may not be nearby so transcoding it often helps. By the way you can encode H.264 without inter-frame compression as well. Lumetri functions use the CPU and GPU and do not depend on the codec because they are processed after internal decoding. You could enable 1/2 or 1/4 playback on the program monitor or use lower resolution proxies.

Much more successful than without light! Play with it, it's a creative process. Reflectors and/or LEDs (with or without gels) will make it look good.

I think the YoungNuo LEDs are cheap but decent lights: https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN600L-wireless-Remote-Control/dp/B00ZFDTM7Y/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1480955522&sr=8-3&keywords=yongnuo+led https://www.amazon.com/YONGNUO-YN360-Adjustable-Temperature-3200K-5500K/dp/B01D2X4A8Y/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1480955464&sr=8-10&keywords=yongnuo

Those are fine, LED technology has improved a lot with respect to CRI values. You need lights (or reflections of light) to have good results, even a million dollar camera looks bad with bad lighting.

Buy (or rent) some nice LED lights or use some reflectors if you have natural light coming through windows and doors and you should be fine!

So how does that work in FCPX, does it reduce contrast linearly to map those values to video levels? (I am not familiar with FCPX). I work with Premiere Pro and in Premiere you do have to bring values into legal range (if applicable of course) otherwise you will clip values.

I would not worry about that.

The GX85 delivers video levels (16-235) but does record "illegal" values as well. That's why it is essential to ensure values are brought within legal range in post otherwise you may actually clip or crush data.

Are they? Are you sure they are not legitimate Content IDs? Just because someone can have a private license that obviously does not mean a rights holder should no longer protect their property because it bothers a person who obtained a license right? Perhaps I do not understand what you mean. Say you write a piece of music and want to make sure it is not used or monetized by others. Then you have the music fingerprinted and every time a file is uploaded to YouTube there is a check. Now suppose you grand me a license for using it. Well then when my upload is Contend ID-ed I obviously have to demonstrate with documentation I have a license. So then what is bogus or do I misunderstand your point?

Same question here! Buying a GH4 right now does not make much sense unless you get it really cheap. In my opinion the quality of the GX85 and G85 already surpassed the quality of the GH4. I would either wait till late spring/summer for the GH5 or buy a G(X) 85 right now.

Love the dwindling snow flocks! One question: Did you try iDynamic? It brings up some of the blacks.

They have been supporting this quite awhile now. I do not believe they support 4k@60 though! YouTube does, here is an example of a restored old NTSC source uploaded at 4k@60:

Vimeo does 4k!

Actually most content is now allowed but monetized by the rights holder (except for Germany). If you upload a video with copyrighted media, most of the time the rights holders allow (but it is revocable at any time) the content but ads may appear and the channel owner cannot monetize the videos.

Then I do not see the problem. How is YouTube supposed to know you have a license to use the audio? The Content ID fingerprints are given to YouTube by the license holder who obviously wants to protect their intellectual property right? Does the license holder release the claim without delay? If so I do not understand what your issue is.

So then what is the problem? Youtube obviously does not know that a certain person has a license. Content ID simply protects the rights holder and passes on disputes to the rights holder and then the rights holder decides what they want to do, up to a takedown request. If the channel owner still disputes it they are open to litigation by the rights holder. YouTube has no blame they are just the middle man. Content ID is great way to protect the rights of content providers.

I you have bought a license then you should dispute the copyright claim and provide documentation you got from the licensor. Or alternatively some licensors have setup a mechanism on their website to get remove the claim removed. Which videos have ads? I could not find any, do you have an example?

May I ask what is the original fps? Is this a 23.976p source packed in a 59.94i video stream?

That is not a proxy by any definition, and by the way this option, which is obviously very useful, is also available in Premiere Pro.