kye

That's a cool edit too @Al Dolega. Nice pacing, good rhythms, nice use of the non-trick shots to break things up, etc. These more 'percussive' styles of editing remind me of programming break-beats in music production. You need the right amount of things happening on the rhythm to keep it going, but enough things that are off to keep it interesting and fresh, and enough variety in the whole thing to separate it from everyone else's work.

Nice images @gt3rs!

It might be testable. Record equivalent clips of motion in 120p and in 24p, then put them both on a low-resolution timeline like SD (which will smooth over any codec / bitrate advantage of the 24p) and see how they compare. Obviously you'll need to use a short shutter speed so it won't be the nicest images ever, but you should get something comparable with RS as the only significant difference. I've done extensive tests on both 60p OS monitors and on dedicated controlled monitors and 24p wins over 30p in all situations by a significant margin. The fact that 24p has jerky pans isn't ideal, but I only find it visible in the odd shot here and there, whereas the slippery sensation from 30p completely saturates the images and looks awful the whole time. I raised the idea of setting the display to 48 or 120Hz because I'd like to eliminate the jitter of 24p on my 60Hz OS display, but I'm a million miles away from switching to 30p, even if my display was fixed at 60p forever. Perhaps the whole point of the 24p thread was that one person shouldn't tell another person what is good or not good to see or prefer in an image. I suspect that some codecs contribute to this as well. For example if you have an IPB codec with a low bitrate then in moments with high motion the codec won't have enough bits to describe all the parts of the image that have changed, so there will still be remnants of the previous frame that are included in the current one. I've seen this in real examples and things like low-contrast textures on a wall can remain in place while the camera pans, making it look like the wall is moving but the surface of it is staying in place, like the wall is a portal to another dimension, etc. I'm not sure where the motion cadence magic comes from, but my suspicions agree with you that it's likely a combination of a number of factors. One thing that I suspect plays a part is the tripling of some of these codec/compression effects: you shoot on a camera that processes the image (potentially emphasising these with sharpening, NR etc) the camera then compresses in a codec which creates a number of false motion artefacts in the footage you edit and process the image (potentially emphasising the artefacts with sharpening, NR etc) the NLE then compresses in a delivery codec which creates a number of false motion artefacts in the footage then this footage is uploaded to a streaming service where it processes the image (potentially emphasising these with sharpening, NR etc) the streaming service then compresses in a very low-bitrate streaming codec which creates a number of false motion artefacts in the footage There are likely to be artefacts that get 'seen' by the processing / compression algorithms and further emphasised. For example in a panning shot anything that doesn't move might be deliberately left alone as a compression optimisation, so by the time that you're watching it on YT the image has deviated significantly from the source.

Since that 24p argument discussion I've been thinking about frame rates and motion a lot and shot a few tests etc, and eventually got around to thinking about how to view content on the computer properly. I finally realised that the solution is to set your display to 48Hz (or 120Hz / 240Hz if you can do it) and that will give you proper 24p playback. I do all my streaming and YT viewing on my computer via a display that the OS controls, so currently with a 60Hz refresh rate I'm perfectly recreating the 30p (yuk) and 60p videos (double yuk!) but the 24p is jittery. My current MBP can't do 48Hz but the newest ones from Apple can do 48Hz and 120Hz / 240Hz, so it's on my radar. I currently edit in Resolve through a UltraStudio 3G box that drives the display directly with whatever the timeline resolution and frame rate is, but that's only for my videos, not for watching anything else unfortunately.

With all the digital standards out there it's unfortunate that no consumer camera manufacturer developed the hot shoe as a modular communication standard. We could have had add-on EVFs, microphones and audio adapters, monitors, timecode boxes, etc. The argument that they wouldn't have sold becomes quite different if you think of the potential sales of accessories over 10 or 20 years of cameras that supported them. Imagine if you could buy an adapter that mounted into the hot-shoe and gave two or three hot-shoes across the top of the camera (maybe only to the left to avoid the dials) and you could put whatever you wanted in there. USB was released in 1996, almost 30 years ago with 12Mbps, and by 2008 it had 5Gbps, so it's not like the technology in, say, 2004 wasn't there yet.

I've been watching the TV show M*A*S*H (1972-1983) and I'm finding it really interesting: The storytelling trumps the image quality, and it only takes a few seconds to stop looking at the image and start paying attention to the content It was shot on 35mm film, but was before colour grading, so the image is about as pure as you get The image is rather drab in comparison to any image that has been colour graded Whenever they cut to a shot that fades out or does a freeze frame the image degrades significantly in resolution and the colours and contrast shift significantly, presumably because it had to go through another generation to add the effect, so the quality and resolution limits are no joke However, having said that, the skin-tones and the high-DR external shots filmed in full direct sun are world class, even compared to the flagship cameras of today from ARRI. It makes it obvious that ARRI are in the business of making cameras with as many film-quality pixels as possible, and everyone else is in the business of making cameras with as many pixels as possible and letting quality fall where it may.

Meanwhile, wedding videographers are getting pinged for having audio that's too clean due to AI processing.. linked to timestamp: How on earth did we get here....

AI generated cartoon aired in China. It's a 26 episode series of 7 minute episodes about classical Chinese poems, so is sort of a cultural education thing. It took 6 months to do using AI text-to-video and the studio that developed it released the series to coincide with the opening of their new AI studio.

Just thinking about this more, and I recall that testing the GoPro on that little outing was actually really illuminating. I have always shot video in uncontrolled conditions, so never seriously studied coverage or blocking or sequences etc. What I found was: I shot everything I could see (which was really fun because I didn't have to wait for the camera) Not being able to see (the GoPro I had didn't have a screen) eliminated all aspects of chimping Pulling everything into the edit, I realised that I had so many different options, and make it a more whimsical edit with little sequences of fast-cuts like when getting seated at the cafe, and then again for standing up and walking out The success of those fast-cut transitions made me realise the value in having lots of shots to cut up, but also made me realise things like you can cut faster if you keep the compositions similar between shots so that the subject doesn't move, etc I made several videos with it, essentially going through a learning process each time, understanding more about how you can push the edit pretty hard without it seeming odd, realising where the barriers were in the edit and how I might solve them when shooting, shooting with that in mind, pushing further in the edit, etc I highly recommend shooting a few test videos like this, literally of anything, just to get a sense of the possibilities. Also, it's good to specifically test: How long it takes from hitting the button to the first frame, and how much it chops the ends off clips (the clip may end before you hit the stop button) How far off-centre you can put a subject before the wide-angle lens starts becoming unflattering or straight-up odd How active you can be in shooting and how much motion that creates in the frame (knowing you can run and get usable footage for example might open up possibilities) How far you can go in low-light before it's no good (for example, it might be ok indoors during the day in rooms with windows but not ok if there aren't any, etc) You probably know all this, but in case you don't, or the lurkers don't, this stuff is invaluable. Unfortunately, despite me shooting little tests quite frequently, I always learn things on trips that I wish I'd learned before and come away basically thinking I've screwed up each one.

The only reason you might not be able to is if the optics in the speed booster protrude too much and will interfere with the lenses you're planning on using. I have a vague recollection this was the case for some of those BM-specific speed boosters, but couldn't tell you which ones.

Definitely agree about the bulk of an external monitor. I've been bouncing between my OG BMPCC (P2K) and BMMCC (M2K!) for years now, and one of the biggest challenges of the M2K is how large the screen makes the rig, even though I have the Ikan 3.5" monitor: it requires a separate battery the mounting isn't slimline at all and so the monitor is quite far from a camera (compared to a flip or tilt screen) the HDMI cable takes it a very large step into "we are the Borg" territory I've used camcorders in the past, and also have the XC10 which is a camcorder in all but body-design, but my GX85 + 12-35/2.8 setup is what I use as my main camera now and I use it like a camcorder, so I get most of the benefits: It looks like a little P&S (because it is) so I invoke the dorky Dad vibe I'm planning to also get the 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 lens to pair with it which will give it a similar all-in-one lens The Dual IS gives it equivalent levels of stabilisation It's limited to 8-bit 709 style images, but these look pretty good in reality, so has a similar limitation but also strength in that regard too It lets me stop thinking about the camera and start thinking about what is in front of it

I shoot family travel videos, where you shoot what is happening and you have to shoot quickly to keep up, and I ran into the issue that I wasn't capturing establishing shots or getting any shots of moving between locations, so in the footage we'd just sort of teleport from one location to the next, starting with when we'd gotten into the venue and I could then take out the 'big camera' and start shooting again. I resolved to try and get a setup that I could shoot with while we were getting in and out of vehicles, walking to and from venues, buying tickets on entry, etc. I had an old GoPro and did a test of shooting a random outing when my wife and I went to get coffee by the beach. Predictably, I found that it was super easy and fast to shoot while walking down stairs, thinking about other things like navigating and reading signs, getting selfies, etc. What I didn't expect was that it was actually really easy and fun to get a large variety of shots too. High-angles, low-angles, detail shots (while remembering the fixed focus has a minimum distance) etc, and these were both fun to shoot and super useful in the edit. I personally like to shoot when I'm out doing things, I find it adds to the experience both in terms of giving me a toy to play with and a challenge of finding creative compositions but also training me to really look at the world and appreciate the beauty of everyday things. Now I have mostly replaced that role with my phone or a smaller camera like my GX85, but if I could only shoot something with an action camera then I think it's a really useful tool to make you focus on the creative aspects of film-making like subject and composition and movement and variety and sequences and editing style and sound design etc, rather than the technicalities of the image.

Lots of people are using NLE's to colour still images, but if you want to get picky then just substitute "NLE" for "post workflow" and then it's format agnostic 🙂 Social media sites with their low resolution and high compression formats will likely have a reduction in grain to a significant enough effect to make the choice of grain relatively inconsequential, especially considering that the character of still grain is less obvious than moving grain.

Obviously it depends on how you deliver your videos, but if you're delivering via a streaming service, the compression has such a devastating effect on grain that there's practically no benefit in applying one type of grain over any other, so you may as well just use a grain plugin in your NLE and be done with it.

Not an informed opinion, but I would have thought that the Osmo Pocket would be a bit physically vulnerable for this situation. It would suck if you veered into a snow bank (or 1000 other ways to crash) and killed the gimbal mechanism. I'd suggest watching "how to" videos for each of the action camera and looking specifically for a setting that enables easy on / off / recording / stop functionality. IIRC early GoPro models had a feature where you could press (or hold?) the power button and it would turn on and start recording straight away. I'd be surprised if the competitors didn't have an equivalent mode too, as operating a camera in gloves while being "busy" with other things is pretty much the situation they're designed for.

What aspects of the Fuji do you think will make it different to the Sony? What subjects and style will you shoot with it? Video or stills? Some equipment just has a magnetism that makes you want to pick it up and use it, and other equipment just doesn't, it's a strange thing but a large factor that we don't talk about enough I think.

Nice compositions. What lenses did you use?

What was the reasoning, if it was before AI? Aftereffects of COVID? or the changing media landscape with streaming etc? Something else?

@MrSMW Why on earth would you teach a course of "How to shoot hybrid weddings in France for English speakers"??? You're only a few steps off "How to shoot hybrid weddings in France for English speakers named Freddie and Susan" which has a market size of either 1 or 0 weddings a year. Why not ""How to shoot hybrid weddings"? Cameras still operate the same way in France, right?

News flash.... Critical thinking is a good idea, and you should remember the end goal of making a final edit that [gets likes / looks awesome / gets the client to pay you / gets you hired / etc]. I'd say it's not that hard, but evidence says otherwise!

I would imagine the easiest thing to do would be to go through a training organisation that already runs courses to photographers and would already have a mailing list and let them do the marketing and handle payments etc, and for you to just write your bio and then deliver the actual training. Obviously they'd take a cut, but sales and marketing isn't easy so they've earned a split. I wouldn't underestimate the number of stills photographers who haven't transitioned to video yet either, but as you say, hybrid is a whole thing so your market is potentially both photo-only folks, video only folks, and hybrid people who want to learn and get better. In terms of the random people asking you for free info, for every topic where people get paid well for providing training there will be people who want the info for free too, so I would suggest that your dataset might not be sufficient to draw any conclusions... I don't know what effect it would have to provide training to your competitors, but being able to say that you not only do hybrid but teach it to other pros might give you an advantage as well. Not to mention the advantage of getting them to give you some of their money 🙂

I don't think that's true actually. If you wanted to get into training then I'd encourage you to do it, especially if you have downtime during the off-season to try new things. I have bought several colour grading courses, probably totalling over $1K, and they always have dozens of people attending and who knows how many buying the recordings afterwards like I do (timezones between here and LA always suck). Many of the folks attending are solo operators who are upping their colour game, so might be a similar target audience to your skillset. Obviously training is a whole other skill and it's a business so there's a lot of prep work, but the rates can be pretty good, especially if you wouldn't otherwise be earning anything.

I think that's the logical conclusion, I'm sort of just letting that concept percolate from my brain through the rest of my innards. Something deep inside has a need to feel useful, like it would be very unhappy if you paid me to do some task like writing a document or something, but knowing that no-one would ever read it, and art that is never viewed by anyone else seems to trigger that same (or a very similar) mechanism. In a lot of the corporate work I've done we've found that there is a big difference between knowing something theoretically and having experienced it. If you explain a concept to someone they can claim to understand it, and you can test them later and they'll remember it, but it won't change how they act when they return to normal duties. If you run them through an exercise where they experience the very same thing, then something different happens and it's like it "sinks in" and they are then changed so when they go back to their normal duties they put their new understanding to work. Since seeing this happen dozens of times in many different situations, I've come to realise that this process for something to go from my brain to the other bits of my being is a process that matters, and although I have no idea how to do it reliably, often it will happen over time if I gradually ponder the concept and give it time. It might also require some experimentation, of giving it a go and seeing what happens. There's a saying that "it's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking than to think your way into a new way of acting". So it's probably a case that I have to give it a go. I've just been a bit out of my routine since the holiday break and haven't gotten back to my routines completely yet. I'm mostly back there, but I've got to add this part back in. I would normally work, exercise, relax for a bit listening to music (sort-of a meditation), and then do some film-making by jumping into Resolve and do some editing or colour grading practice, or watching a course, etc. I'm back to most of that, but haven't quite gotten the daily film-making part added yet, although I am working my way through the latest masterclass from Hector Berrebi on beauty and skin retouching, which is fascinating and deep into the professional colourist realm, but is super-useful and I've been waiting for it since it was announced.

Agreed. and let's face it, AI probably isn't that far off being better than the designed-by-committee dross that the studios are just pumping out these days. I keep posting this video, but it keeps being relevant: Why? Because it's easier to make a movie with explosions and cheap laughs than for the writer and director and actors to make characters the audience actually cares about. I heard something the other day that I suspect is incredibly profound.. that the sense of emptiness that humans are prone to having (that we try all sorts of things to fill, like excessive consumption) can only be filled by creativity. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, considering that my film-making is extremely niche and may date extremely quickly and any music-making that I am contemplating returning to is unlikely to find an audience unless I engage in an open-ended part-time marketing campaign to promote it. So the question is how many people need to view/listen for me to think that it's 'worth it'.

It will depend on the processing in-camera. Linear is Linear, so no dramas there, but getting the 3x3 matrix right to define the primaries requires a calibrated setup, and might be non-linear or some other thing normally inside the camera and hidden from us. Don't the BM cameras have a defined gamma and colour space? Wouldn't they be BM Film Gen 1?