Eric Calabros

This h.265 "same quality for half file size" slogan is just true about ridiculously low bitrates, above 100Mbps you gain nothing over h.264 quality wise. 
Kaby Lake encodes/decodes it with full-hardware acceleration, but we don't know yet how efficient it performs the job compared to doing the same with h.264. and just because hardwares are ready, doesn't mean softwares are also ready to use them to their full potential.  
I think 400Mbps is not enough for 48fps. since its ALL-I, for every frame there is only 1MB room. Its a bit low for a 9 megapixel image. 

Software support is obviously required and this often lags hardware by years. E.g, Intel's Quick Sync hardware-assisted H264 encoder was introduced with Sandy Bridge in 2011. To my knowledge Premiere Pro only recently started supporting that -- and for Windows only, not Mac. That was roughly a six-year gap.
Skylake's Quick Sync has HEVC/H265 support for 8-bits per color channel but Kaby Lake will be required for HEVC at 10-bits per color channel. Hopefully it won't take Adobe six more years to add support for that.
I think nVidia's NVENC has HEVC hardware support starting with Pascal and AMD's VCE with Polaris, but the software development kits, APIs and drivers must be available and stable for application developers to use. So there is a difference between raw hardware availability (in silicon) vs being able to harness that from the application layer, which can require stable and tested SDK and driver support. 
Traditionally there has been concern over image quality of hardware-assisted encoding, but FCPX has used Quick Sync for for years (single pass only) and it looks OK to me. But I don't think it has H265 hardware support yet.
Lots of people want H265 because the file sizes are smaller, but you don't get something for nothing. H265 requires vastly greater computational complexity which means the CPU burden to encode/decode is much greater. In this paper, VP9 was 2,000x slower to encode than x264, and H265 was 3x slower than VP9 (or 6,000x slower than x264). So it took thousands of times more computation to save at most about 50% in size. This is just a single paper and algorithms and efficiencies are improving but it illustrates the basic principle.
iphome.hhi.de/marpe/.../Comp_LD_HEVC_VP9_X264_SPIE_2014-preprint.pdf
If that computation is done in hardware (IOW you essentially get it for free) then it may be a worthwhile penalty. But if only software encode/decode is used for H265, it may be impractically slow. Also if full and high quality software support at the SDK level is not available, the fancy silicon doesn't help much.
For the iPhone it is affordable for Apple to use H265 for Facetime. They completely control both hardware and software, and quantities of scale mean any design or fabrication cost is amortized over 50 million phones per year. If it costs a little more to add H265 logic to a corner of a SoC (System on a Chip) that already has 3 billion transistors, it's no problem.
For a software developer like Adobe, they must deal with three basic H265 hardware acceleration schemes, NVENC, VCE and Quick Sync, some of which have multiple versions, each having varying capability and features. So maybe that explains the delay on Quick Sync in Premiere Pro.
H265/HEVC has also been hampered for years by disputes over royalties and intellectual property, which is one reason Google is pushing VP9 which has roughly similar capability but is open source and royalty free. However VP9 itself will probably be replaced by the similar but improved royalty-free AV1: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-.../What-is-AV1-111497.aspx

This h.265 "same quality for half file size" slogan is just true about ridiculously low bitrates, above 100Mbps you gain nothing over h.264 quality wise. 
Kaby Lake encodes/decodes it with full-hardware acceleration, but we don't know yet how efficient it performs the job compared to doing the same with h.264. and just because hardwares are ready, doesn't mean softwares are also ready to use them to their full potential.  
I think 400Mbps is not enough for 48fps. since its ALL-I, for every frame there is only 1MB room. Its a bit low for a 9 megapixel image. 

I average $1 per 1000 views and have yet to earn $250 in two years lol. It is good to be monetised, though, just in case you film something extraordinary that gets a few hundred million views in a short time whereby advertisers fall over themselves to pay the top rate for a few months.
My biggest gripe are the spammy companies offering to license your video and offer you 60% - how generous of them.
To be a top earner on YouTube you generally have to appeal to the lowest common denominator; which is to have wild hair, a whacky disposition, be stunningly good looking, have a knack for tapping into the brains of the near dead, master the art of false humility and get people to feel sorry for you, be a big fat show off or any combination of those listed. There are many seriously talented folk on YouTube who get nowhere in terms of hitting a million subscribers (or even a thousand in many cases) but then that is not why they are there in the first place.
Philip Bloom has around 125,000 subscribers
Casey Neistat has around 6,125,000 subscribers
That tells you all you need to know about this world.

I totally agree. It's a bare faced lie in the video, all an act.
Have we come to the point now where manufacturers have to lie to us to sell us a camera?
The line between PR and editorial and advert has not just been blurred, they have brought the suspension of disbelief from the advertising world into some kind of 'reality' piece - which attempts to fool us even more.
All this is severely backfiring on Canon, to the point where I may even consider selling my 1D X Mark II. I don't want to deal with unethical companies and it isn't the first time Canon has lied either. They did so to me via an official manager, when the 5D Mark III was originally released it only shot 720p via HDMI... they said the hardware wasn't capable of 1080p then 2 years later updated the firmware to enable it.
Honesty is important.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space.
That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country.
Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it.
I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

Hey Scott.
This sums up quite well what I loved about DPReview's editorial and why I was so proud to be contributor for those years. I looked upon DPR as something of a leading light, the most respected review site for digital cameras, one of the first, and that's why I hold it to a higher standard than others. I care passionately enough about it to get upset and to shout about it when it goes wrong and I think it's in danger.
DPR did go in-depth, especially on the technical side and still does.
If the new advertising in the form of sponsored content also did this to the same standard, then the quality would remain and not hurt the brand as much but even then there's a problem, because it would only work as long as it was impartial, which advertising never is and never can be.
Flick through an old fashion magazine from the 1970's and it is almost ALL advertising yet readers still bought it in droves.... you'll see a lot of high quality advertising, fantastic photos (David Bailey, Helmut Newton) and minimal words, minimal editorial pieces! I am not against advertising culture entirely or with zero tolerance of ads and I'm not a communist although I do live in Berlin
The problem I have is that more and more the manufacturers seem to be the boss, the paymaster and the editors, if not directly then certainly in subliminally controlling ways like with the PR organised events and it is wrong that this appears to be our only choice as reviewers if we want to get our hands on new gear at the earliest opportunity.
We join the hype train by doing this and we trade our credibility, or at least it looks that way for the readers.
I am open for a civilised debate on what we can do in the industry to recover some integrity in what we do. There needs to be some collective action.
So the PR companies and manufacturers are after our jobs Scott.
And we are going to just let them take over on the content side?
But their purpose, if sponsored, is to sell a camera.
For me that is not the purpose of what we do.
I hate this insidious influence.
If we for example are to put out educational content for instance and it is paid for by Canon, then whichever manufacturer sponsors us the most or pays the most, the more content on that particular brand there will be, and there's yet another form of bias. Even if the content itself had zero bias, the money still control the agenda.
It's our job to create excellent content that's worth watching, not Intel's.
By taking their money, you are trading your position as a content creator with them and one day you will be without a job.
Of course! I understand that and always have.
That's because it's being traded in bit by bit.
Your voice replaced by somebody else's.
If it's only a 3% increase in ad revenue and you're owned by Amazon, why do it at all? Why take such a big risk with the brand for the sake of bowing to the manufacturers and 0.001% of their overall ad spend budget? Tell them to fuck off!
Thanks for the message on here Scott, I do appreciate it.
If I can ever mend my relationship with DPReview I would.
I have friends there and the only bad words exchanged were with Barney and Simon Joinson.
In the end the buck stops with them.
If they are going to take the site in this direction, they know my opinion on how wrong this is and why it won't turn out the way they hoped.
They have a responsibility as the senior figures to change tac.
Their responsibility to the readers should come before their financial obligations to advertisers anyway, because without any readers there won't be any advertisers!

I think this is the situation for most people today.

If you saw 90% of liberal MSM was hoaxing, shamelessly make up stories, obviously lie, constantly fear mongering, and silencing any opposition with racist and sexist labels, and you realized we need to revolution just after seeing one single wrong headline in an alt-right website, you're part of the problem. 
Btw, did you know even Scandinavian industries are supporting Saudia Arabia military? seems not much less-ignorant nations to me. 

If you saw 90% of liberal MSM was hoaxing, shamelessly make up stories, obviously lie, constantly fear mongering, and silencing any opposition with racist and sexist labels, and you realized we need to revolution just after seeing one single wrong headline in an alt-right website, you're part of the problem. 
Btw, did you know even Scandinavian industries are supporting Saudia Arabia military? seems not much less-ignorant nations to me. 

If you saw 90% of liberal MSM was hoaxing, shamelessly make up stories, obviously lie, constantly fear mongering, and silencing any opposition with racist and sexist labels, and you realized we need to revolution just after seeing one single wrong headline in an alt-right website, you're part of the problem. 
Btw, did you know even Scandinavian industries are supporting Saudia Arabia military? seems not much less-ignorant nations to me. 

I did get an invite to the FS7 II event but couldn't go to Barcelona in the end due to getting ill.
This is not about disliking one company or liking another. It is about liking one camera over another.
You are free to have a different opinion about your cameras but it's a bit questionable attacking someone for being against your favourite brand. Is this the kind of hyper consumerist world we're living in now? Post-fact?

Doc fimmakers can't fill the serious exponentially widening culture gap. few days ago I was reading a debate in a comment section somewhere, one of them asked: "How you explain 11 million illegals working in the country, go to college for free, and even vote!?" The other one replied: "we shouldn't be like Canada, protecting needy people is more important that protecting laws and standards!" 
They're certainly living in definitely two separate worlds. 

Look I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but your assumption about border walls is wrong. Israel made a huge one, and its unbelievably effective. Even Palestinians admitted its very effective, and they are master of tunnel making. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

Look I'm not saying its a good or bad idea, but your assumption about border walls is wrong. Israel made a huge one, and its unbelievably effective. Even Palestinians admitted its very effective, and they are master of tunnel making. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client. 

now only needs a sim card, we can easily dial phone numbers with these buttons, and talk with our client.