m43forme

Just from a lot of research I've done. Too low and you don't get engagement, too high and people start tuning out. Obviously it doesn't mean you can't monetize a 4 minute video or a 29 minute one. But to YouTube, somewhere in that 7 min range is their sweet spot for most of their content.

Your point about being based on watch time is important. I've got a YouTube channel that's fairly successful in its space and found subscribers really isn't the main driver (though there's usually a correlation). Here's some considerations that matter more than subscriber count: Type of content (this impacts your CPM rate. Are you in a segment that is very defined that can be specifically targeted? The more defined, the higher the rate. The broader the audience, the lower the rate. Mine is males 24-60 and my CPM is around $8 - after the YT cut) Length of content. It's a double-edged sword. YT wants ~7 minute videos. It's the maximum engagement number. Longer videos with great engagement can do multiple ad breaks and still retain the user, which goes against the 7 minute rule. Click through rate: how many views per 1,000 impressions? How this performs impacts how much YT will recommend your video. This is why thumbnails are so important Retention rate Trending topics. Most of my content expires pretty quickly, so it'll be a hot burn. I only have ~23k subs, but when I release a video, It'll do 1000 videos per hour for the first two days. This builds on itself and has YT push your content everywhere. This is where large sub numbers help because you get an initial bump. Sponsorships. Getting a real sponsor for a video changes the revenue calculus entirely - and it's why so many people do product/gear based channels. Ultimately, if you make good content, you'll get the subs. But you get paid on views and viewer engagement, irrespective of how many subs you have. @rdouthit as someone who subscribes to RedLine, StraightPipes, SavageGeese, etc and consumes a ton of car content, I can't believe I've never been recommended your channel. Your work is excellent. Subscribed

Oh that's crazy. Looks like I've found you a nice little arbitrage business. If you need a US importer, I can help haha! Also, I love your channel, have been a subscriber for some time.

Can you explain the original problem you were having? I've been able to use h265 files directly in Premiere for years without any interstitial step of conversion and publish in h264.

$540 is low, but not that far out of the norm. Bokeh Market has it trending at $611 http://bokehmarket.com/product/430/Samsung-Samsung-NX1-282-MP-Digital-Camera I have an X-T3, NX1, and an a6400. The NX1 stomps them for bang for buck on video. An X-T30 + 16-55 is almost double the price of what you can get the Samsung kit all day long. And Sony really doesn't have APS-C glass good for video. Still all good options, I just bristle a bit at the thought that getting an NX1 now is some ridiculous notion. NX gear pricing held up in the US for a good few years, and the 50-150 is still crazy expensive. But overall the prices have fallen pretty hard and are pushing really good bargain right now. In Europe, NX gear is still ridiculously over-priced.

This depends, really. A super clean NX1 sold yesterday on eBay for $540. B&H had an NX1 + 16-50S kit for $1150 (used) last week. There's nothing on the face of this earth for $1100 that can touch that combo for video. Many people starting out don't have a ton of money. I'd feel better telling someone who is starting out to invest $1100 on that combo (assuming that setup fits their needs) than I would telling them to buy a GH5 for $1500, a $400 speedbooster, and a $600 Sigma 18-35mm. Unless budget didn't matter. Don't even get me started on used NX500 prices, which are around $350.

Right but the previous poster noted he was using an A7III + an FS7. I'd imagine a Z6 + an external monitor is a more manageable kit. And a Z6 with no external when 8 bit will do. I feel like saying "I need a good hybrid because I also shoot a lot of stills, but when I need 10 bit 422 for significant color grades, I have to record externally...so instead I'll buy a huge $7000 cine camera" is missing the point a little bit.

If the Nikon Z6 gets their AF sorted in the upcoming firmware update, wouldn't it be the best hybrid camera on the market? Same sensor as the A7III but with a higher ceiling on video capabilities, bitrates, etc.

Do you think they are holding back a pro model because it would seriously undercut R sales? It seems to be Canon's MO lately.

If rolling shutter is a concern, then I absolutely would avoid the a6400. But as a stills camera, the a6400 walks the Fuji, especially when you consider the full ecosystem. The sensor is better/sharper/cleaner in low light. The Sigma trinity is 1/3 the price - and the 56mm 1.4 Sigma is a better lens than the 56mm 1.2 except for distortion. I never miss a shot with my a6400, I miss shots with my X-H1. But to be fair, we're splitting hairs at this point because everything is so good.

For some, yes, that's why I said I'd take the 1080p from an EOS R over a G7's 4k all day long. Same with the G85 and the GH4. But the X-T3's 4k is clean, high bitrate, and is far more detailed without looking digital/over sharpened. Canon's video has always been soft in their consumer oriented cameras. Their 4K in the C200 and the 10 bit 4k from the R on an external recorder look very nice. So there is a difference. Even Canon's own 1080p has come a long way, where it lagged behind others for ages.

You and I are fellow NX1 brothers in arms, and I normally agree with you on everything. But the a6400 is a cracking good camera for the money. Especially as a hybrid. It's a better stills camera than the NX1 or any Fuji camera. I own a X-T3, X-H1 and they have far better ergonomics, but the Sony sensor is better and the Sigma trinity of primes is on par with Fuji's wildly expensive 1.4/1.2s for half or 1/3rd the cost. I still prefer the NX1/500 for video, and both are great stills cameras. But the a6400 for $900 absolutely wipes the mat with anything Canon or Nikon is doing right now.

One thing not mentioned in Matti's clip is that he's likely using his EOS R - which has soft 4k with the in camera 8 bit recording. It shows pretty starkly if you watch his EOS R review where he shows a face shot of A7III->X-T3->EOS R. The R looks like 1080p. Now, this speaks to a different point that people don't think about - 4k isn't all created equal and some 1080p is better than other camera's 4k. I'd take the EOS R's 1080p over the Panasonic G7's 4k. Another issue is the double edge sword of YouTube compression. Yes, 4k gets compressed on YouTube that may bring it closer to 1080p. But if you only upload in 1080p, you don't get the higher bitrate tranche that YouTube affords you for uploading in 4k. A camera with great 1080p like the BMPCC upscaled to 4k in post and published to YouTube may be the best of all worlds.

I know, I know, make fun of me all you want for buying an RP. But I don't need autofocus in 4k ? RP doesn't record in CLog, and I doubt that'll be coming in a firmware update, Canon ain't Fuji. Is there a way I can get close to log that has some actual benefit? Will the EOSHD C-Log and film profiles work on a mirrorless Canon? Any thoughts on how to get the best possible picture out of the RP?

Yeah, it's a pain for me because I post about 2 hours worth of content every week during football season (and it's just a hobby). Editing all that in 4k and uploading it is no joke. But the difference is stark.