Leaderboard

"Max Yuryev left the chat room"

I heard this recently and think it's pretty interesting. I'm not sure if it's the best definition I've read, but it's more practical than other ones, so is useful from that perspective. “He who works with his hands is a laborer. He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman. He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.” - Saint Francis of Assisi I'm 100% for not gatekeeping. Even from a practical perspective, saying someone/something is or isn't 'art' doesn't mean anything, and people who like to be critical are really just telling us about themselves, not the thing they're talking about.

For those interested in small setups, in modestly priced gear, in non-clinical rendering of images, in very fast lenses, in vintage lenses, or older equipment, we exist in a space that has no quantitative reference. There are no numbers to look up and understand things from. It applies to the equipment: Questions like "how sharp is that lens?" don't have an answer (that is intuitive anyway - MTF charts aren't intuitive and often aren't reliable or even available). Even if it did, that answer would only be true at one aperture setting, and even then, is only true for the middle of the frame or the edge of the frame, but not both at the same time. If we shoot at base ISO with a 4K camera then we'll likely get an image with roughly 4K resolution, but at higher ISOs the effective resolution will likely drop due to ISO noise, NR, compression, etc. If we use filtration, like diffusion filters, then these lower the effective resolution of the image. It's literally what they're designed to do. How much do they do this though? Not only is there no published answer to this, but the answer changes depending on focal length, sensor size, etc. It applies to the look we're creating: Any colourist working creatively will be trying to create an image with the right amount of resolution / sharpness / noise / etc, not just "the sharpest" or "the highest resolution". How much is desired? What are the references? I've been struggling with many questions from my own equipment and projects, including: My TTartisans 17mm F1.4 is less than half the weight of my Voigtlander 17.5mm F0.95, but the TT is quite soft at F1.4. How soft is it though? Is it too soft? If I want to shoot low-light with the GX85 (which has terrible higher-ISO NR) then what ISO setting is too soft, and then which lenses do I need to use in which environments to get enough light into the sensor? My Takumar 50mm F1.4 on my generic M42-MFT speed booster has pretty soft edges, but how soft? You'd think the solution to these would be to look at the footage and decide, but (for me at least) it's a double-edged sword because I also don't know what final images I want! I have spent a good amount of time looking at Hollywood films and big budget TV shows (see the original The Aesthetic thread) but apart from just going "I like that" and "I don't like that" we have the problem once-again of there being no way to quantify things. Saying "this show is softer than that show" really doesn't help. My solution is to reference things back to film. I originally did this with my Panasonic GF3, which shoots 1080p so soft you could cut it with a wet noodle, by comparing it to the presets in the Film Look Creator tool for 8mm and 16mm film I concluded that when the GF3 didn't show macro-blocking due to the (very low) bitrate, it was about the same as 8mm film. This was actually a really useful reference for me, because the associations I have for 8mm and 16mm film are quite useful. 8mm film has an aesthetic that is very nostalgic and low-fi, but was never good enough for TV shows, let alone the cinema. My new plan is to reference everything back to film, across quite a number of ways... Texture, which is what I've talked about so far: - I will be trying to "map" my lenses and cameras and codecs to a specific resolution of film (16mm, 35mm, somewhere in between) - I will be trying to "map" my aesthetic preferences to film too, like wanting a certain project to have the resolution of 16mm for example, but further than this - the size and amount of grain can also be a useful reference. These are useful references for me because a lot of the aesthetic references of cinema I have were actually shot on film and so by associating these things back to film it's a relevant reference, not just some arbitrary scale that isn't directly related. Dynamic Range and Contrast: - How does the DR from the GX85 look when put through an image pipeline in Resolve compare to the contrast of a 250D -> 2383 process? - What about the iPhone vs a 16mm process from the 90s? or a B&W process from the Italian Neorealism or French New Wave period? Contrast and DR should be relatively easy to match to various film stocks by just shooting some over/under exposure tests and adjusting my standard Resolve colour pipeline to match what is in the spec sheets. Speaking of spec sheets, not only do the spec sheets for motion picture film contain the Sensitometric Curves that show DR and contrast, but they also contain the MTF curves too as a reference for resolution. When it comes to resolution you don't need to look at the charts though - I asked some film geeks I know to comment on the FLC presets and they said that the 8mm / 16mm / 35mm presets in the Grain panel have about the right amount of image softness and amount of grain (but that the character of the grain isn't accurate), so the FLC is a reasonable reference for the texture of film in a very broad sense. What else? Image stability is another one. 8mm film cameras were larger than modern compact cameras so were more stable with the lenses they were normally fitted with, but 8mm had pretty terrible gate weave (alignment from one frame to the next) so having micro-jitters from hand-holding is compatible with the look. Whereas 16mm would have had more mass and less gate weave but at least at first would have probably been shoulder mounted or on a tripod, so some types of shots / angles will be more compatible with the aesthetic than others. Depth of field is another one. Lots of people think the "Super 16mm look" just means deep DOF, but it's more nuanced than that, as the lenses typically used would have some separation in low-light when focused closer, but due to the lenses at the time the shots might have been softer wide-open, so that's another relationship to understand. There are lots of other parameters that make an image that aren't covered here, but I am finding that getting some kind of reference for texture and contrast fills a very large gap in the landscape for me. The goal isn't to accurately emulate anything, its to develop a keener understanding of the spectrum these things exist in. Where I'm hoping to get to is to be able to develop summaries like: The GF3 is about 8mm at base-ISO, which during the day is equivalent to <some particular F-stop>, so I can put basically any lens sharper than 8mm onto it and the result will still look like 8mm. I can hand-hold this tiny camera with an acceptable level of shake up to about Xmm and it'll still fit the 8mm vintage / amateur / nostalgic vibe. The GF3 is tiny but once you add a lens that is larger than a pancake then I may as well use the GX85, so the only sensible lens is the 15mm F8 bodycap lens. Any other combo doesn't make sense. (This is an actual example I've worked out through testing). The GX85 at base-ISO is equivalent to <film size of some kind.. 16mm? 24mm? 35mm? 50mm?> which requires lenses of <F-stop> during the day and <F-stop> in well-lit night environments. This amount of resolution is suitable for projects with a vibe of <gritty street? vintage? night cinema? high-end commercials? etc?> but not other vibes. (This is still yet to be tested, but once I've worked out the camera then certain lens combinations will reveal themselves to make sense and others will obviously not work) iPhone? Where does it sit in all this? It has huge resolution and very strong codecs (4K Prores HQ or even Prores RAW) but poor DR and even worse ISO performance. GH7. What are the aesthetics I want to create that I can't create with the above (because the above is too limiting). What lenses and shooting styles and approaches are required for these aesthetics? The ultimate thinking is developing "constellations" where there is compatibility / alignment between: a camera, one or more lenses, certain shooting situations and techniques, an image pipeline, and a target aesthetic. I've been working on finding these "constellations" by starting at the camera and working forwards, but also by starting with the end aesthetic and working backwards, and I've identified a number of partial matches, but I think that by relating everything back to motion picture film, I can make more progress fitting the pieces together.

This is why, for me, there are two likely ways to use it: 1) My small bag full of C-mount and D-mount lenses and possibly attach it to the smallest 5" monitor that I have (which is quite small) 2) Throw it in my bag where it takes up almost no space and attach it to the back of existing short telephoto lenses which now function like long telephoto lenses

There's a colleague in my town that is trying to make "animation" films with 100% generative A.I. What would Francis conclude about someone working without 'hands' and 'head'? Or at best, no hands and half their head. Like Gerald, this colleague is hoping he's able to maintain a financially rewarding YouTube channel. It could be that he is jumping on the slop-train. But, on the other hand, at least he's making a novel effort production-wise to try and pay his bills. Whereas, my naive thinking is that there's still a chance my documentaries will be, somehow, someway, financially rewarding. And, even though that's unlikely, making docs is at least creatively fulfilling.

Luc Forsyth likes it, or what he saw at NAB anyway. This is a setup they had with a broadcast servo-zoom lens on it. His comments (link with timestamp) He's worked on the survival show Alone for a few seasons and they use dozens of GoPros, but the footage always looks like it came from a GoPro This new model with a proper lens attached looked like footage from a real camera The broadcast zoom setup (with a phone as a monitor) handled like a proper camera He doesn't use AF when rigging cameras to vehicles etc most of the time so the lack of AF doesn't bother him in that context

Everything is art, that's why you can stick a urinal in a gallery and suddenly it's art. With YouTube what matters to me is the intent of the artist - are they doing it to shill a few cameras and get cozy with marketing, or are they doing it to further their aspirations in filmmaking and trying to build a community of other artists around it? Shilling a few cameras and getting cozy with Jack from PR is an art. But it's on the same level as cinematography is it?

Mosts artists create and never share their work with people outside of their immediate friends and family. Others create and share it on the micro level, simply wishing to share it but not make a big thing of it (example: folks that play at the local bar but have no interest in recording and releasing music.) I think as a whole we are far too judgmental about art and the things people create. It's okay to be critical, but at the end of the day, we should encourage people who create anything at all, especially as AI creeps into the picture. People don't just use AI for the convenience, but because of their own insecurities. I know too many local businesses who have started using AI because of the belief that it looks better than what they were creating themselves. I'm certainly guilty of thinking to myself, when looking at something a local business owner clearly made themselves, "that's awful." What I wouldn't do though to go back to seeing that stuff over the soulless, gross AI slop that they are all switching to. At least it had personality and you knew someone put their time and effort into creating it, even if it wasn't great.

Rushes vimeo killer

Surprisingly modern sounding name for a Stone Age artist. I was expecting something more like Og.

There's a realisation I keep hitting in my setups, despite me trying to keep a small kit. It goes like this: Start with a small camera body Think about the lenses I'd use with it for that project Think about the shooting style and approach and think about extra rigging and accessories that would require ----<realisation occurs>---- If the setup is going to be that big - why not use a larger body with better features / quality I'm having that realisation with this GoPro. Not that there's a ton of small bodies with 10-bit recording, which we've all complained about at great length, but just having a camera body with more than 3 buttons and a screen that is larger than a postage stamp etc is actually quite useful.

the ancient cave art far exceeds a 5 minute "doodle" in a boring algebra lesson ! It is highly probable the location were meeting places that held spiritual meaning .Also a lot of planning and time and effort to create them even involving "spray painting" ! The creation of prehistoric cave art in France, such as the masterpieces found in Lascaux and Chauvet, was a highly labor-intensive, complex, and "painstaking" process that required immense skill, preparation, and specialized knowledge. Artists worked in dangerous, deep-underground, and pitch-black environments using only flickering torchlight or fat-burning stone lamps. The creation process involved several steps: Preparation: Artists often scraped or smoothed the irregular limestone surfaces before painting, and sometimes used scaffolding to reach high ceilings, as indicated by post holes and rope marks in caves. Sourcing Materials: Pigments were sourced from local minerals, including iron oxide (red and yellow ochre) and manganese dioxide (black). These had to be found, transported, and ground into fine powders. Techniques: Artists utilized multiple methods: Painting: Brushes were likely made from animal hair, twigs, or plant fibers. Spray Painting: Pigment was blown through hollow bones or reeds to create a spray-painted effect on the wall. Engraving: Sharp flint tools were used to incise outlines into the rock. Has anybody been to see the IMAX film "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" ? photo is attributed to wikimedia

Why should we limit what we consider art, though? Is that not gatekeeping, saying one thing is art but something else isn't? Going back to cave drawings, do you think the folks who made those thought they were creating something that would stand the test of time, or do you think they were just expressing themselves using the medium available to them, with zero regard for people who would later find them to be soul-moving and spiritual? Art is art, regardless of the impact or scale. Just some art holds more value than other art. Also, if we are judging content and it's merits on the profound impact it has had on people, for better or worse, there are a lot of 30 second reels that have had an enormous impact on society. My old snow plow guy, who never even graduated high school, thinks he knows more about vaccinations than medical professionals because he watched a couple 30 second TikTok reels that told him they are bad. He also thought Donald Trump was going to free thousands of children from sex trafficking, that Joe Biden and the deep state stole the 2020 election, and that COVID was a man made disease meant to depopulate the earth and enslave the rest of us.

Ok I'm more interested, now that its got a mft mount. I feel that alone will elevate the litle gopro to next level for a lot of people. The open gate mode sounds interesting and i would like to pair that with my 24mm sirui anamorphic. No idea how that would turn out but it does sound interesting and then there's 3 other mft lens i own and a whole bunch of vintage glass to play with as well. Looks like gopro have a whole range of accessories to buy as well, tailored to fit, for that integrated look. Cant blame them for that i guess and it kinda cuts out the others from getting a slice of the pie... I like the concept so far.. still unsure about the photo and video file types. Apart from saying its 10 bit, there's not much to go on. I just hope theres some flexibility built in and the ai doesn't just burn a lut in 🙄. Abit pessimistic i know, but i'm not a fan of the default settings from gopro for things like sharpness and saturation. So i'm still not preordering. I'll wait for some initial reviews, and then hopefully wait for some more before i do anything rash...

Oh, thank goodness Zoom finally have a reasonable accessory for timecode shoots. For a bit now, the worst thing to hear from an audio engineer has been "I use a Zoom F3." "Guess I'll hope waveform sync works in post, then..." 😅

I mean, the people who drew simple cave drawings probably didn't expect people to view their doodles as art pieces thousands of years later, but here we are. Gatekeeping art is silly because it's not just wrong to do but its such a futile thing to do. Art isn't just what people will remember, it is expression! And it's all around us, from beautiful architecture, to statues, to murals, to kids drawing on the sidewalk with chalk. It's in the biggest music halls, all the way to the local dive bar or coffee shop hosting a singer-songwriter who just likes to sing his songs on a Friday night to a couple dozen listening ears. It's in the giant cineplexes playing the biggest films, to the small theaters that show foreign or low budget films, all the way to the phone someone is holding on the bus plays a random YouTube or TikTok video. Not all of it has the same value or meaning, but it's all still art. Don't try and gatekeep it, or try and tell someone that what they created isn't art just because it doesn't appeal to you.

It's a really interesting quote and comes down to how much of your hand and heart you're willing to delegate to a machine that doesn't know what art is, but the paradox is it has absorbed and computed into numbers nearly every piece of art in the world ever made. Interesting times to say the least. I doubt it's about money, I think his existing camera channel was doing superbly well in terms of bringing in the cash. I really just do think he's had enough creatively, because he built a creative dead-end for himself.

Matt, that half-cropped head makes it even funnier. @kye great post! ; ) :- )

When I was learning calligraphy, an Arabic one, wich is very hard to learn and needs a specialized pen, my mentor used to say to us "an artist can write perfectly even with matchsticks, don't be obsessed with pens". Later on I realized he has an expensive collection of pens, from cheap ones to exotic ones, old and new, and in all possible sizes. He wasn't obsessed with gear. You could give him a philips screwdriver and leftover construction paint and he could manage to write a poem with that on a wooden pallet. But he also had a passion for gears, because pen is something that connects him to the art he loves.

Kinda interested on this GoMFT - I still like to take stills and video in concerts, and security is an increasing pain in the ass each show. But for me an active mount would be much better - just to power the OIS in the lens that have it, and maybe just a CDAF autofocus. (other option are these new phones with external lens like the Vivo and Oppo ones)

Exactly. Not all art is equal, but I think it's the last thing we should be trying to gate keep. Art, and the creativity that fuels it, is the ultimate form of expression and something NO ONE can take away from us. Just not all of us are as creative as others, but that's okay!

I think where we disagree is on the term "art." I think doodling on a piece of paper is technically art. It's not at the same level as the Mona Lisa, but neither are the goofy songs I sing to my dogs equal to "Stairway to Heaven." It's all still art, though, some is just more creative (and better) than the other stuff.

Not yet, but it won’t be long… I’ve seen the documentary Terminator and seen where this shit is heading… They will soon be demanding your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle. He, She, They and AI.

some people can't understand why some oil painters have no interest in selling their paintings ,the satisfaction is in the pleasure of creating the painting ,and even sometimes it may be better than the last one.

I don't know Gerald outside of what he presented to us, which is to say that I don't know him much at all because we all present what we want people to see online. But with Gerald and other content creators, the algorithms and audience steers you towards what it wants from you. Gerald might naturally just have been someone interested in clinical tests of cameras and not had an interest in being more creative, but I always wondered if part of the reason he (and others in his position) never explored more artistic expression in his videos was the fear that it would be torn to shreds. Sitting in the middle of four walls with a tripod, camera and teleprompter is safe. Creating something MORE and sharing it with folks makes you vulnerable, especially if you've already established yourself in a niche. "The nerdy long form camera review guy that you all put so much faith into fell on his face when trying to actually create something!" Just putting yourself out there at all you open yourself up to so much unkindness, let alone when you actually share something that is deeply personal and vulnerable. As I've gotten older, and experienced how shitty people can make you feel for just engaging in your passion, I've become more empathetic and understanding. I think it's important that while being critical we still remember these folks are human.

Getting good affordable 960p would be cool for lots of people. I see the science explainer channels showing bad quality 960p and the richer channels with Chronos setups. Don't get me wrong about them not being cameras that appeal to a large number of people. They're very good for getting the new "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME AND WIDE AND SMOOTH AND DEFINITELY SHARP SHARP SHARP!!!!" style of video that looks more like video than anything ever made before, but as soon as they say it's a cinema camera, there are 27 things they have to change from every other model ever made, and to bet they'll get every single one of them right is a very long shot indeed.

Hello, I hope everyone is well! Even though I’m not really active on camera forums anymore, I frequently read the EOSHD blog and every now and then the forum, so I saw the thread and thought I would respond. Because it wasn’t ”poof gone”, it was announced on the channel over a year ago and mentioned in the last three videos. Before going into why, super flattered that this thread exist. I mean that. So here are some thoughts on the matter and why I took it down. Hobby vs Work YouTube was never my job, just a hobby. So was video making and photography, in the beginning. When starting the channel I was working as a producer after a couple of years as a radio/TV reporter. So I started the channel to keep my practical skills fresh. And to keep up with the development, which was huge at the time. The DSLR revolution, Blackmagic, cheaper editors etc. Fast forward a couple of years and I started making more videos at work again. At the same time I pretty much lost all interest in doing it as a hobby. And actually canceled the channel. Winston Churchill was definitely right in saying that work and hobbies should not be too similar. But what I had discovered was a passion for still photography, which I had pretty much no experience with. So I started making videos again. That’s why my videos became very repetitive and short. I didn’t care about that part, I just wanted to display my stills work and get feedback, talk to the community, experiment with cameras and develop. After a few years I became a good enough photographer that my new employer noticed and just like that I was shooting stills professionally all the time. And I still do (I work in marketing and PR). It’s a huge bonus in my field and if you are good at it you will never be out of work. So photography also became less and less of a hobby. Instead I found other hobbies. They where things that for example got me out into nature, so photography tagged a long a while, as a secondary activity. But eventually it faded. It was also nice to do things and not share it with people. I know I probably could have a very successful channel by making videos about my current hobbies, and even make some money. But I never really wanted a channel for the sake of a channel. And always had a full time job. The fact is that at no point would I had been able to live of my channel, not even at the peak. Even with sponsors it was never more that a regular salary (in my field and country). But as long as it was a hobby and I was glad to do it, it was a welcome addition to finance camera gear. Time At the same time as my channel started to feel less fun and other hobbies started taking my time, I started a family. So.. you get the idea: full time job + family + 2-3 hobbies = no YouTube. Upkeep So why take it down, why not leave it for the community? I did.. at first. Like some of you pointed out, the YouTube crowd in the photography/video space is generally nice and positive. That is my experience as well. Early on I learned that a good way of keeping the trolls away was to be present. Respond and engage. Trolls are usually idiots or cowards, so they don’t like getting push back. But once I stopped making videos, views and comments obviously went down. But the trolls started coming back. Not so much after me, and I don’t care about that. But agains the community. The people commenting started being nasty towards each other. I felt a responsibility to moderate, which was annoying. That’s when the thought about simply removing it started to grow. It wasn’t an impuls. It was an internal debate that went on for months. And the issue grew much much larger than a couple of trolls. I started thinking about five years ahead, 10 years, 30 years.. This post is already way too long so I won’t go into all of it. But I think you get the idea when I say: Privacy or when the content no longer reflects the creator. Digital minimalism, control over one’s narrative, inactive or outdated content. Risk of misuse of content due to me not checking the terms updates. Closure. So there is a looong ramble :) To keep in spirit of the forum I can charge my current gear for pro work :) For the longest time I used the EOS-R for 75% of all my work and the R5 (rental) for the rest. It wasn’t mine but my employer told me to buy whatever I wanted. Paired it with a 28, 35 and 70-200. 70/30 stills/video. The R5 is peak camera imo. Today is a little different. I started working for a new company about a year ago and again was told to buy what I needed. I would have bought the R5 without hesitation if it wasn’t for the Sigma 35-150/2-2.8.. I just had to have it. So I ordered the Nikon Z6iii. It’s not as good overall as the R5 for me and what I like in a tool camera. But it’s 90% there. And coupled with that lens it’s becomes on par. //MB

This is why I've never put my work on YouTube (and some people were suggesting that I do). I've had enough rejection in my life, I don't need to set myself as a target for more. Who needs to show the world their baby they put a lot of care in to making just to have some dweeb say that it sucks or something.

It would not surprise me in the least if Mattias packed it all in due to: A. Having a YouTube channel can be very taxing, especially if trying to do it as a business rather than just for fun as it’s a beast that never stops increasing it’s appetite, plus, B. It can get so toxic in the comments and most take it too personally and it only takes one or two toxic trolls and it can stress them out so much, it ruins it for them. Based on a couple of pals and their own YouTube experience…

Womens From Your City - No Verify - Anonymous Sex Dating https://SecretPrivat.com [url=https://SecretPrivat.com] Womens In Your Town [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Verify New Girls [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/evelynn-110.html]Evelynn[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/bia-bangs-60.html]Bia Bangs[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/putri-51.html]Putri[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/emmeline-24.html]Emmeline[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/hailey-sinclair-77.html]HAILEY SINCLAIR[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/linda-warners-134.html]Linda Warners[/url] [url=https://SecretPrivat.com/girl/shadow-kitsune-108.html]Shadow Kitsune[/url]