Sony a7 III discussion

[mercer]

It’s not the lowest common denominator when the majority of people watch YT on their phones and I assume it’s by a HUGE margin. 

Either way, I was just curious. Oliver made some great points.

I’m just a hobbyist making some short films for fun... obviously I’m not as serious as most of the pros on here... carry on.

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

It’s not the lowest common denominator when the majority of people watch YT on their phones and I assume it’s by a HUGE margin. 

2. countable noun [usually singular]

If you say that something is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, you are critical of it because it is designed to be liked by the majority of people.

[disapproval]

source

[mercer]

18 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:

General viewers just think “4K is better”, even if it perceives to have little difference to 1080. 

Up until 2016, I barely got asked about recording in 4K. Now it’s one of the first thing EVERYONE asks. 

So for Dave, yeah 4k is a plus because “4k is better”, isn’t it? ?

Yup, that makes sense, but also out of curiosity, at what point do you decide, when the option is yours, to shoot at a lesser resolution for cost effectiveness?

I imagine a 1080p production through post is more time consuming than a 1080p production, so are there some jobs that you will shoot in 1080p to maximize your profits?

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, jonpais said:

2. countable noun [usually singular]

If you say that something is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, you are critical of it because it is designed to be liked by the majority of people.

[disapproval]

source

Sorry, but that’s just silly. I am getting way too OT, so this will be my last comment on it...

YouTube videos are a business for some and in any business you want to maximize profits. In any creative endeavor you must know your audience... so if the majority of your audience watches YT videos on their phones and they will gain barely any benefit in 4K over 1080p, why spend the money on a 4K camera when you can spend a quarter of the cost for a 1080p image?

When you add the extra time for post production, it hardly seems like a solid business decision.

Now of course, this isn’t my time or money, so any excuse is good enough... even if it is “I want to.” But “lowest common denominator” is probably not the smartest way to describe your primary audience... good thing you’re just a hobbyist too I guess.

Sorry for the OT.

[jonpais]

On 8/10/2018 at 11:09 PM, Mark Romero 2 said:

But why???

Not trolling, just STILL trying to decide between them (and yes, I know that by the time I make a decision on whether to buy the GH5 or a7 III, the GH6 and a7 IV will probably be out...)

If you’re shooting real estate, the a7 III is practically a no-brainer cf. to the GH5. Superior low light performance, great dynamic range, brilliant AF, and small enough to fly on the least expensive gimbals. But most importantly, you’ve got options for ultra wide angle lenses that are simply not available in m43. Not to mention it should be less painless than switching to an entirely new system.

8 minutes ago, mercer said:

Sorry, but that’s just silly. I am getting way too OT, so this will be my last comment on it...

YouTube videos are a business for some and in any business you want to maximize profits. In any creative endeavor you must know your audience... so if the majority of your audience watches YT videos on their phones and they will gain barely any benefit in 4K over 1080p, why spend the money on a 4K camera when you can spend a quarter of the cost for a 1080p image?

When you add the extra time for post production, it hardly seems like a solid business decision.

But IT ISN’T 4X CHEAPER to shoot 1080p. 4K cameras DO NOT COST 4X MORE than those dinosaurs that shoot 1080p. And NOT ALL YOUTUBERS exist solely to maximize profits. Many take great pains with lighting and recording audio; edit and view videos on 5K displays. YouTube videos uploaded in 4K are higher quality. And at the risk of repeating myself, 4K is really just clean 2K.

[Mark Romero 2]

15 minutes ago, jonpais said:

If you’re shooting real estate, the a7 III is practically a no-brainer cf. to the GH5. Superior low light performance, great dynamic range, brilliant AF, and small enough to fly on the least expensive gimbals. But most importantly, you’ve got options for ultra wide angle lenses that are simply not available in m43. Not to mention it should be less painless than switching to an entirely new system.

Thanks for the input.

Yes, and for shooting RE, since the majority of my work (90%) is shooting stills and only 10% video, the a7 III is better in that regard. Not to knock the GH5 for stills, but great dynamic range is real important to my stills workflow.

[Dave Maze]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Out of curiosity, why do you need 4K as a YouTuber? Good AF, yeah I get it. But 4K? Most people are watching on their phones... what’s the benefit of having good 4K?

Post cropping. And also "being the best". I cant tell you how many comments I get when we don't shoot 4k. People say "WHY DONT YOU SHOOOT 4k YOU IDIOT!".

[jonpais]

1 minute ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Thanks for the input.

Yes, and for shooting RE, since the majority of my work (90%) is shooting stills and only 10% video, the a7 III is better in that regard. Not to knock the GH5 for stills, but great dynamic range is real important to my stills workflow.

When stills enter the equation, the A7 III is the hands-down winner in my book.

[Dave Maze]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Most vloggers shoot themselves in a medium close up... so where’s the need for reframing?

Idk, I think 8k or 16K could be the norm but you’re only getting so much from a 3-5” screen being held 12-24” from your face.

60% of my audience watches on a Desktop. Many of those desktops are probably 5K iMacs. Making assumptions like this are only an overall assumption. When your audience is a bunch of video and photo pros, resolution matters. Also, shooting at 16mm focal length in full frame 4k gives me a wide, medium, and tight zoom in option. 

I still edit on a 4k timeline and zoom in on the 4k actually. Nobody cares about the resolution loss on the zoom ins. for me personally I like the zooms for comedy. 

As far as post production, shooting 4k in 8bit on a sony is as easy to edit with as 1080p .... at least on my base model 13" MBP in FCPX

[webrunner5]

5 minutes ago, DaveAltizer said:

Post cropping. And also "being the best". I cant tell you how many comments I get when we don't shoot 4k. People say "WHY DONT YOU SHOOOT 4k YOU IDIOT!".

Yeah I follow Casey Neistat for lack of anything else to do LoL. And he is not doing 4K now, and to be honest it looks like shit. "WHY DONT YOU SHOOOT 4k YOU IDIOT!" applies to him also in my opinion. It Ain't like he can't afford the stuff to do it!

[Mark Romero 2]

24 minutes ago, mercer said:

Sorry, but that’s just silly. I am getting way too OT, so this will be my last comment on it...

YouTube videos are a business for some and in any business you want to maximize profits. In any creative endeavor you must know your audience... so if the majority of your audience watches YT videos on their phones and they will gain barely any benefit in 4K over 1080p, why spend the money on a 4K camera when you can spend a quarter of the cost for a 1080p image?

When you add the extra time for post production, it hardly seems like a solid business decision.

Now of course, this isn’t my time or money, so any excuse is good enough... even if it is “I want to.” But “lowest common denominator” is probably not the smartest way to describe your primary audience... good thing you’re just a hobbyist too I guess.

Sorry for the OT.

Yes, I think that is why a few youtubers have switched back from Sony / Panasonic to Canon, either for the M50, the 6D II, or the 1DX II. (Probably more than a few, I just don't follow that many.)

I would say if your business model allows for it, the image from 4K rendered at 1080p is really, really nice. My a6000 has pretty nice 1080p (sharper than my D750, lots of people say it is better than, say, an 80D), but it doesn't compare to the 1080p I get from shooting in 4K on the a6500 and rendering to 1080p.

But... I haven't tested out whether there is much of a difference when viewing on my phone at, say, 480p, which is what most youtube videos seem to default to on my phone.

[webrunner5]

4 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I follow Casey Neistat for lack of anything else to do LoL. And he is not doing 4K now, and to be honest it looks like shit. "WHY DONT YOU SHOOOT 4k YOU IDIOT!" applies to him also in my opinion. It Ain't like he can't afford the stuff to do it!

Well to be honest Casey uses Canon stuff again and they Really don't have a Good 4K Vlogging option. How stupid is that when you think about it in this day and age. I guess he switched for the DPAF? ☹️

[jonpais]

2 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

480p, which is what most youtube videos seem to default to on my phone.

??

[Mark Romero 2]

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

So for Dave, yeah 4k is a plus because “4k is better”, isn’t it? ?

Of course it is better!!! More is ALWAYS better.

 

 

[jonpais]

36 minutes ago, mercer said:

But “lowest common denominator” is probably not the smartest way to describe your primary audience... good thing you’re just a hobbyist too I guess.

You’re gaslighting. I never described my audience as the LCD. wtf?

[mercer]

31 minutes ago, jonpais said:

You’re gaslighting. I never described my audience as the LCD. wtf?

How is that gaslighting? You’re not a professional YouTuber so you don’t have an audience... but you were referring to people who watch YouTube videos on their phone as the lowest common denominator.

[jonpais]

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

How is that gaslighting? You’re not a professional YouTuber so you don’t have an audience... 

I do not monetize my videos, but I certainly have an audience, however small. Why don’t you shut up, Glenn?

[mercer]

53 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah I follow Casey Neistat for lack of anything else to do LoL. And he is not doing 4K now, and to be honest it looks like shit. "WHY DONT YOU SHOOOT 4k YOU IDIOT!" applies to him also in my opinion. It Ain't like he can't afford the stuff to do it!

Watch him on a phone like everybody else... it looks great. It looks great on my 40” 1080p TV as well. 

4 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I do not monetize my videos, but I certainly have an audience, however small. Why don’t you shut up, Glenn?

Jesus Jon, I wasn’t making fun of your audience or anything about you. I was just curious about the need for 4K vs. 1080p for YT videos. I wasn’t aware that the majority of Dave’s audience watches his channel on a desktop...

Obviously, I’m the lowest common denominator here, so relax... you win.

[webrunner5]

20 minutes ago, mercer said:

Watch him on a phone like everybody else... it looks great. It looks great on my 40” 1080p TV as well. 

Jesus Jon, I wasn’t making fun of your audience or anything about you. I was just curious about the need for 4K vs. 1080p for YT videos. I wasn’t aware that the majority of Dave’s audience watches his channel on a desktop...

Obviously, I’m the lowest common denominator here, so relax... you win.

I am too old to see much of anything on a phone! Why you think I use a 30" 2K monitor and look at Big signs!! Only in Texas LoL.

 

[Mark Romero 2]

59 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I am too old to see much of anything on a phone! Why you think I use a 30" 2K monitor and look at Big signs!! Only in Texas LoL.

Isn't that like a viscous cycle? You eat nachos as big as your ass. Your ass gets bigger. you get bigger nachos, which in turn makes your ass bigger...