kye

Absolutely. I'm exclusively a MBP user because of portability requirements, but as my 2020 Intel-based MBP is able to edit the files I have, lately I've been investing in extras that live outside the MBP and therefore don't need to get re-purchased every time I upgrade.

BM has sample files for download. They're on these pages under the "Generation 5 Color Science" heading (different files are available for download on each page): https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursacine https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro

It would be great to be able to give a straight answer, but there are too many variables. Even something like the SSD option of the Mac model chosen might mean that it can or cannot do something. Going to Resolve, there are literally dozens of variables involved. Even if it's just 12K footage on a 4K timeline with a LUT - will Resolve be using Linear or Tetrahedral interpolation for the LUT? This matters as it's extra processing power required, etc.

Sure, but crucial for what? If it's the difference between being able to play realtime with a LUT for editing purposes or not then it's probably a critical amount, but that will depend on the timeline resolution. If you want to colour grade then some things need to be done at full timeline resolution and some things don't. Grading in front of clients is a specific need that some have and some don't have. If you're only grading with simple adjustments then that is very very different to doing intensive tasks like NR or any of the AI things. So, "critical" really depends on the application. For typing on these forums, I'd say no, but everything else is a question mark....

Further to what @eatstoomuchjam said, I think there are only three types of performance: it can't play ungraded footage realtime (ie, you can't edit with it) it can play footage realtime but can't do it with a heavy grade (ie, you can do some colour grading realtime) it can play footage realtime with a heavy grade (ie, it's reliable and you can colour grade live in front of a client) The spec required for level 2 should be researchable and BM would have made this pretty efficient I would imagine. The spec for level 3 is a "how long is a piece of string" question, depending on a ton of variables including timeline resolution and only you can answer it, but if you're going to be doing lots of heavy things like NR and spatial treatments on a 4K timeline then you're probably well into Ultra / Studio territory.

Further to this, I watched a few past videos from Blaine yesterday and this video (while quite chaotic) gives a bunch of pretty interesting examples of how using a Film Emulation of some kind combined with some of the basic Resolve tools can give quick but very effective results: Perhaps the most interesting thing about it is the way he treats Resolve.. he shows that if you know a few techniques then you can get in, make some good adjustments, get a great result, and get out, and move on with your day. It's sort of a rare counter-example of the impression that Resolve is finicky and takes hours and hours, which almost all other colour grading videos give, but isn't true. At it's most basic, you can just apply a LUT to every clip and then make basic adjustments in a node prior to the LUT on each clip and can get great results in a really quick way. This is the way that film-makers grade when they want a result, rather than the way that colour grading YouTubers grade when they're making a YT video about some nuance or other. The section from 5:00 on with the test shots shows that even if the shots weren't filmed well at all, you can get great results quickly with just a few quick techniques.

Cullen Kelly says that the grain and the halation are nicer than the previous separate OFX plugins, so that's promising if you're a connoisseur / picky 🙂

I recommend FilmConvert or Dehancer if people like the overall film look but don't want to learn to colour grade - it's a quick and effective solution. Resolve 19 has a new plugin called Film Look Creator included in the paid version that is like FilmConvert / Dehancer except it doesn't model specific film stocks but is designed to give a flexible overall film look. For most people it would be better than FilmConvert or Dehancer just for creating a nice look and not having to learn colour management etc.

Yep! Hey - you should look into colour grading! 🙂

Blaine Westropp is also killing it recently.

I think it's just creators responding to the searches people make. I suspect there are far more searches on "A7S3" than there are on "three point lighting" because if there weren't then why is everyone making equipment videos? It makes sense too. I've just gone down a rabbit hole of searching about the ZV-1, despite it only being idle dreaming about having a slightly smaller camera. Obviously I have searched for many things associated with skills, I've done far more searches that were equipment focused, and despite the fact I'm not in the market for a new camera, for those people who made those videos, a watch / subscribe on a video still counts.

Absolutely. Another consideration for some is availability. When I was hanging around reduser.com it became pretty apparent that a common thing was to own a RED (obviously!) and also a set of vintage primes, but to rent modern lenses. The rationale was that often these cinematographers were doing personal projects and having the vintage primes made it so that they had a set on hand for whenever the personal project was able to be scheduled. Quite a few were filming one (or more!) documentaries too, and are essentially on-call so that if something suddenly happens they can grab the camera and go. It was common for these guys to store the camera in a go-bag, often rigged up and sitting next to the front door. Good luck shooting that if you got the call and then had to rent equipment in the middle of the night!! Film-making varies much more person-to-person than most people expect, and logistical factors or aesthetic preferences can easily flip a decision between two different people and their circumstances.

Brady Bessette WanderingDP Crimson Engine Jeven Dovey D4Darious Andyax Lewis Potts Clever Ghost Chili Beyond the game Singularity Film Neal Howland Jimmy on Film Scott Jeschke

Maybe the forum has been taken over by AI and it's become sentient and agreed with your comments so much it wanted everyone to read them several times!!

I watched this video recently about synthesisers and recording equipment magazines (which operate incredibly similarly to cameras) and yeah, print magazines almost make YouTube reviewers look honest by comparison. TLDR: he analysed a magazine from 2002 and out of 188 pages, 79 were full page ads (he didn't even bother to count half-page ads either, so the ad coverage was way higher) all reviews were positive except for the odd little minor comment, and none of the sub-category scores in any review were even below 2.5/5 (except one product which got 1.5/5 for a subcategory, but that was because it had too many ads!!)

LOL, yeah, or self-importance or narcissistic or megalomanianism etc 😂😂😂 I guess in that case they don't have a clear idea of the industry they're in, likely because they're thinking about themselves rather than their audience. Entertainment is very broad and is sort-of a catch-all for the other categories, but I think it's still useful as it firmly defines that the purpose is to engage and entertain. I think that because YT was new and people didn't really understand what it was or how it fit into the world people weren't clear that it still fit the definitions that had been previously established, but (as usual) the pros had figured it out already and there (almost never) isn't anything new under the sun.

Lok just posted a video talking about the S5ii and talks about the new e-stabilisation feature, and it looks like it has completely eliminated the IBIS wobble on wide lenses? He includes examples with him walking with a wide lens, so it looks like a legit test:

With all the discussions recently about YouTubers I've been thinking about this as I watch YT videos and I remembered this comment and wanted to come back to it. I think that perhaps one of the things that would help a YouTuber achieve success on the platform is having a clear idea of what business they are really in. For example, and off the top of my head, YouTubers likely fall into one of the following: Advertising (as has been discussed) Entertainment Education Journalism These are pretty broad, but I would suggest that each has a clear definition and purpose, with clear principles on how it is done, how to make money, and what is to be expected from a good (and dodgy) channel. I'm guessing that if you don't really know which category a YouTuber is in, then perhaps they're drifting into dodgy territory. Did I miss any?

@Parker is right that having too much isn't a problem because you can just turn the lights down or put on more ND etc, but in order to not end up buying $20,000 worth of lights unnecessarily, maybe just do some tests with your own light? Work out what the largest amount of light would be that you would need on a regular basis (you can always rent for the 5% of times that are an exception) and then test your own 150W one and just crank up the ISO to see how many stops brighter a light you would need for that situation. It's work, but in film-making you pay for everything one way or the other.. with money or with time or with experience etc.

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment. I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

Well said. It's also worth pointing out that while manufacturers will do whatever they can to sell you an item again and again, it's hard to get people to buy a $3,000 tripod every year or two, or $4,000 worth of lenses every year or two, etc, but the camera body is one thing they can convince people to buy and re-buy over and over again. I also think there's an element of "hangover" where old ideas live on even after they no longer make sense. In the days of standard definition, wanting more resolution in the image was a sensible request, but since getting 1080p / 4K it is no longer a sensible response. No-one looks at a high-quality uncompressed 1080p / 4K image and thinks "the thing that is limiting my ability as a film-maker to express myself is the lack of detail in the image".... but the idea that "more resolution is more better" lives on, endlessly pushed by people with vested interests in selling you something you already own.

I really don't envy you pros who have to go into who-knows-what situations and have to deliver professional results! Do you at least know what colour the acoustic tiles are? Heaven forbid that you go in there and they're all purple or green or something horrific..

I haven't been following him for very long so haven't seen a change, but I can tell you that I'd much prefer to hear the thoughts of someone as qualified and experienced as he is versus the gaggle / hoarde / confusion / seething-mass of "film-making" YouTubers that only know how to shoot a product review YT video! One thing I find in severe scarcity is people that have worked in professional settings and know how the real pros do things, that also know what it's like to make videos from idea to upload by themselves, and can also communicate it in a way that is clear and concise and doesn't have some sort of off-putting trait (like being an arrogant asshat and talking to the audience like they're morons - yes I am thinking of someone specifically). I also like the fact he's selling courses. The alternatives are that they do YT for a while but get no return and stop doing it, or they go full shill, or they somehow keep the channel going but you have no idea where their revenue or equipment to run it come from and so trust and credibility just erode over time. I wish more people from the industry would create a YT channel where they share their knowledge for free as advertising for their own courses. Imagine if Deakins etc had a YT channel where they did a 5-minute piece to camera per week!

Saying "even the a6700 can look good" is sort-of like saying "even the cheapest Ferrari can go fast".. the a6700 is a very modern camera and high-spec camera. I can understand why you would say something like this though - you've been watching too much "camera YT" and have fallen prey to the two biggest hidden problems: Older cameras are invisible on YT, despite being the majority of what is used People that talk about cameras, or even mention them in the video or description so they're searchable, are using the most recent cameras, or relatively recent cameras. The reason for this is simple - if you shot a video with the Sony a4000 then you're obviously not into the "tech" so it's not something you're thinking about , and putting that in the description isn't going to benefit you because no-one is searching for a4000 anymore. However, the people making videos about anything else other than cameras might be using the a4000, the a3000 or their phone from 5 years ago. I recently discovered a woodworking / renovation channel I like shoots with a C100, which records 24Mbps 1080p but his YT uploads are in 4K and the image is basically flawless. It's over a decade old and you can get entire setups with lenses batteries etc for $500 or so if you snag a deal. The camera body is the most discussed film-making item, but is the least important Go watch almost any video that talks about camera equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera body is less important than the lenses or tripods etc. Watch and video about film-making equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera rig is less important than lighting or cinematography etc. Watch and video about technical film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that equipment is less important than location choice, production design, hair & makeup, etc.. Watch and video about creative film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the technical stuff is important to get right, but is far less important than writing, casting, acting and directing, etc. So... the camera body is the least important item in the least important sub-category of the least important sub-category of film-making.

@fuzzynormal I couldn't agree more! Disclaimer: I'm also an old. I have moved from shooting GH5 and manual F0.95 primes to GX85 and variable aperture zoom as my default setup, despite owning complete setups for GH5, OG BMPCC, OG BMMCC, XC10, and Canon 700D with ML, etc. I much prefer the GX85 to the GH5, but for some reason I cannot fathom, I am drawn to the GF3 whenever I get close to my equipment. I also edit in 1080p (but upres this to 4K for upload to YT). I prefer to downsample in-camera if it's not a significant quality bottleneck. I focus my time and energy on colour grading, editing, sound design and composition, as is evidenced by my many threads on these subjects.