Jonesy Jones

First of all, yes. Thank you jcs for sharing this. I find info like this, even though it is not a solution per se, helps me to see reality. And if you treat a film like a business, one needs to live in the real world. And that article was great and extremely helpful. However, I don't know that it necessarily addresses the problem. The problem is that people don't really want to buy content anymore. Most consumers still go to the movies. Most consumers rent from Redbox. Most consumers have Netflix or Prime or both. Most, or at least many, still watch content on broadcast. But who buys anymore? Does anyone? And honestly, it is the indie filmmaker who is most affected by this because all or most of those other outlets are not really available for the indie. Buying is our bread and butter. Even if my viral coefficient is huge, at least in the sense that my first customers tell everyone else about my film, if no one really buys anymore, if that's not how people consume content anymore, then it doesn't matter. I think most people just say, "meh, I'll just watch it when it comes on Netflix." On a side note, have you looked at Netflix's streaming offerings lately... it's pretty meager. Not too long ago I could find a rich mixture of older classic films and newer ones, as well as some great shows old and new. I was just fishing there yesterday and the pickings are slim. Amazon Prime too. I wonder if studios are realizing that streaming content is killing the industry.

I had never heard of Patreon before. This is another great option and very interesting. Thank you for posting this. This is exactly why I started the thread. Any other services that offer a way to monetize? This is the draw of Amazon Prime isn't it. This is very attractive.... until you do the math. If one were to make a 90 minute film, you'd need 44,444 people to watch the ENTIRE movie to clear $10K, and $10K is not even close to sustainable. Maybe tier it off so that for a time your film can be watched only for purchase. Then after a while, only for rent. And then much later go the Amazon Prime route. There's also an ad model in the Prime options, not sure how effective that would be.

Let me clarify. I have been a learning, improving, growing semi-professional videographer/filmmaker for the past decade. I lost my day job a little over a year ago and have been a full time freelance filmmaker since. This was based mostly on 2 clients who have sustained me for the past year. One of those just ended. The other will last several more months and then be done. I understand that sustainable freelancing is possible, I've done it, but honestly I don't want to do this forever. Clients can be frustrating and unpredictable. Hustling gets old. I don't mind freelancing some, but at some point soon I would like to create an income based on original content that I produce. And hopefully, slowly grow that to the point where it can altogether replace my freelance income. Let me also say that I have zero nada zilch no interest in the Hollywood path, or really the festival path either. Waiting/hoping to get a green light or producing something with a lotteries' chance at getting a large enough distribution deal is not attractive to me. I want to create projects and self distribute them and monetize well enough that I could sustainably do it again, and again. Now there are plenty of services out there that allow me to monetize on my content, but I just don't really know if it works. Do people even buy/rent digital content these days? My assumption is that these days the vast majority of long form consumers 1) watch movies at the theater, 2) rent movies from Redbox, 3) watch shows/movies on Netflix or Amazon Prime, or 4) watch shows right from traditional broadcast. Of those, #1 (theaters) is not really a sustainable practice at my level. I think I can actually make a few buck here, but not nearly enough. #2 (Redbox) is not possible. #3 (Netflix) can also bring a small income, but again, not nearly enough. And #4 (broadcast) is out of the question. So again, the real question boils down to, can a filmmaker independently get enough digital/physical sales to sustain more projects? Vimeo has some very attractive monetizing services. These are easy to use and very doable on my end. But will enough typical consumers sign up and pay for content on Vimeo? Amazon is attractive because consumers are already here (unlike Vimeo). However, their freemium model pays so little to filmmakers that in itself it is unreasonable to expect sustainability. And their profit share on buys/rentals is 50/50, which is a pretty substantial chunk from the filmmakers income. If Amazon brings along enough foot traffic all on it's own or makes the paywall way easier for the consumer, then the profit share setback is equaled out. But does that work? Bottomline: if a filmmaker chooses strategically marketable projects, executes production well and ends up with a professional product, and implements the marketing plan well, can a filmmaker be sustainable? Do people buy long form content anymore? If you have any experience with this or have done research on this and may have info I do not, I would really really love your input. Thanks guys.

I spoke with one of the Atamos higher ups at NAB. What he told me is that due to physics or whatever a recorder without a screen ends up hardly smaller than one with the screen. So it just didn't make sense to them to make it. I can hardly believe this is true though.

Here's my experience and opinion. I have a GH5 and Sigma 18-35 Nikon mount. I have a Metabones adapter that is not a Speedbooster. My Sigma does not communicate to the GH5 electronically. This is important because each time I turn on the GH5 or change focal lengths I have to change the focal length setting on the GH5 for IBIS to function properly. This is massively annoying. On a controlled shoot it would still be annoying, but I could deal. For shoots like weddings, this would be impossible to handle because IBIS is awesome for weddings but the constant settings change would kill the shoot. What I don't know, and would love to learn, is if with the proper adapter the 18-35 could communicate with the GH5 to avoid this hassle. This is critical. Also, the Sigmas are not light. We're not talking URSA heavy, but there is a noticeable difference in weight with those lenses on there. Lastly, I just got the Lumix 12-35. I didn't think the additional stabilization would be a big deal, but dang. I've only had it one day so my experience is limited, but so far I am very impressed. It is a light lens that makes pretty images. If I were shooting weddings this would be a definite. Hope this helps.

Personal I really like your grade. I really need to improve on my skills. I was going for something bolder since I've noticed that's very much the trend. But personally I tend to like subtle and flatter myself. Your's seems like a great all-around. Would be great if you could share your recipe. I think the 400 mb/s codec is going to be interesting to see and could correct shortcomings. 400 mb/s is equivalent to Prores LT btw from a data rate standpoint. We'll see. The doc I will be shooting is a travel/adventure doc... kind of. Just loads of handheld. As much as I love the UMP, the GH5 just makes way more sense. The cams I will be shooting with are the GH5, GoPro 5, Phantom 4, and iPhone 7.

Thanks Mercer. I still have the UMPro, but not for long. I am starting a feature doc in a couple weeks and the GH5 is the perfect cam for this project. Thanks to @Andrew Reid's recent thread I have really embraced smaller lighter faster. I think the GH5 will be my cam for the foreseeable future.

Yah, the IBIS works great. I mean it's not a gimbal or anything. But with my Sigma 18-35 I can hold it in my hands and shoot a short interview with very little and very smooth motion. At the wide end I can walk around without distracting jerking motion, or if I'm careful even the long end. The only issue I don't like is that with a non native m43 lens you have to set the lens/IBIS focal length every time you turn on the camera or change the focal length. With a prime it's not really an issue but with a zoom it's a pain. I wonder if the Veydra's can communicate with the GH5?

One thing I've learned recently is that a good colorist can overcome nearly any camera's color flaws. Met this kid at NAB who could make nearly everything look super pro status, even Sony stills cams. This is why I am going to be focussing on learning CC. But also, if you really know the workflow with your cam then it doesn't really matter which cam you have. Philip Bloom shoots pretty much all Sony and his stuff looks great. My decision making is more philosophical. Most manufacturers are not going to give us what we want at prices that make sense for most of us. What can Sony really give us with the FS5 ii that won't eat into FS7 territory? Every camera from those manufacturers is strategically handicapped. This is poor philosophy. They are not thinking about us. They are not thinking win/win. It's a failing strategy. And strangely this is one of the few industries where this happens. Most products are designed strictly with cost and physics in mind. What BM and ML have shown us is that camera manufacturers are intentionally holding back. The 2 companies that do this the least are BM and Panny. And the GH5 is the fist time Panny's lower end model just sings right out of the box... Imo. And at the moment it sits in the perfect medium of size, features, and cost. You should probably just keep what you have if it's working for you. Personally I'm happy to not be in the Sony/Canon camp. Natural

Well, for what it's worth, here's what I'd do.... and doing. I'd switch to the GH5. We all know Canon will NEVER give you what you/we want for a reasonable and sustainable price. Sony will continue to deliver paper tigers but their awful color, rolling shutter, skinny codecs, and heating issues will plague your workflow. The GH5 really is a terrific camera. Honestly the footage is super solid, and we still haven't seen the 400 mb/s stuff yet. Great colors. You know as well as I do that clients can't tell the difference between an FS5 and a rigged up GH5. In fact, the rigged up GH5 will look cooler. Have a quick release plate on there and you are back to light and small. Or better yet, have a second GH5. Once you sell your current cams you'll easily be able to buy 2 GH5's. Get ready for the EVA1. I know we haven't seen footage yet, but I am pretty sure this is going to be an amazing camera. And your soon to be bought GH5 will make an amazing b cam. Here's a before and after still from my GH5 last night.

Curious to me that you're not interested in EVA1. That camera has the potential to be a massive game changer. I mean, until we see images from the cam we can't make any conclusions. But on paper there is virtually no weakness to this camera with perhaps the best colorimetry available if it inherits Varicam's.

It's a decision based on your project(s) really, but as an overall camera, I think the GH5 is an amazing camera. Right now I have the GH5 and UMPro. 10bit 4K and 4K 60 fps are what lead me to the GH5 over similar models. This is the first camera I've owned or used with IBIS and it's so great. And despite what others have said, I find the colors and look extremely cinematic, and I don't even have v-log yet. Again, your projects should determine your gear. For me it's the GH5. Hope my input is at all helpful.

Aren't these the reasons we are all here to begin with? Obviously we don't want to live in the past, but reflecting on these moments during leaner times is very helpful. I would love to hear yours. Don't worry about being braggy, that's perfectly acceptable for this thread. However, maybe your greatest moment wasn't an impressive thing. Perhaps it was a subtle moment like filming an amazing scene, working with a terrific team, or being in an amazing place. Here's mine. As some of you know, I finished my first feature film (and only feature to date) a couple years ago. I rented a small vintage theater for the premiere and we filled that thing up. The audience had a great time. There was an amazing buzz. It was a magical night. I'll never forget it. The journey to even just complete that film was a long and difficult one. That evening was like a trophy. However, looking back, I think of the many days being on set. Long nights. Freezing mornings. Blistering hot days. It was super rough, but I cherished every second of it. It was special. And it took us well over a year to wrap production. And one evening shortly after production had ended, I sat at home, with some cinematic music playing in the background, looking at the amazing footage we had compiled. "We did it." That was my moment. Just thinking about that experience again is getting me motivated. Please. Share yours.

Hey guys, I happen to be in this same predicament right now. Trying to choose between these 2 lenses for my GH5. Has there been any development on the micro jitters issue? Newer/better firmware? I honestly don't know that I need the additional stabilization of the Lumix unless it really is "that much better." Also, does the Oly natively communicate focal length with the GH5? It's a pain having to change that in the camera. Is the auto focus of one better than the other? I would lean toward the Oly due to the extra focal length and better focussing ring. I am going to be shooting a feature length doc with lots of handheld, so if that extra stability is that much better and there are no issues with micro jitter then I'd go that way. Otherwise I think I'd go with the Olympus. Thanks in advance.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the value of familiarity. My first real camera was a Sony FX1. Used that thing for years. I knew it so well. I was super efficient with that thing. Then I moved to the Canon 7D. I used that for even longer. I was so familiar with that camera. My hands and mind and camera were like 1. Then I sold the 7D, and have had a long series of cameras that have never stuck with me for long. I don't blame those cameras. I blame me on my quest for the greatest image, never realizing it was perhaps killing my productivity and creativity. Here I sit with an URSA Mini Pro, and a GH5. I've had both for a very short time. The UMPro gives me an image that is simply breathtaking (aside from some manufacturer defects that BM is going to repair). The GH5 is much closer in size to my 7D. Definitely leaning toward the GH5. But can I maintain restraint and stick with this for years? The UMPro isn't huge, but it's also not small. GH5 is probably the better choice. But then what if I want XLR's? I know Panasonic has that attachment thing. But with that, a better preamp, and cables, it's no longer the GH5. Leaning toward the GH5 and finding some other solution to the audio issues.

Just want to say that I really appreciate this thread. Thank you Andrew. It's hitting close to home for me right now. Several years ago I started a feature film. Before I began I took a close friend out to the location and shot the following teaser to help raise support. By the time we got there, the sun was going down and I knew I wouldn't have time to shoot audio and video simultaneously. We shot the teaser on my humble 7D in less than 45 minutes from arrival to wrap. My crew was me alone. Then the sun went down and I recorded audio of him reenacting. So an hour and a half tops. The remainder of the film was still shot on that lone 7D. But it was strange, the more crew I had with me the less we finished each day. At some point I started to realize this and started asking crew not to come. Even with only an audio guy, I never was able to replicate the efficiency and creative freedom that I experienced when my crew was only me, just me and the 7D.

They enjoy a good beard apparently.

Adding the BM viewfinder makes this true. Currently I do not have the vf and wouldn't use it much if I had it. It depends on how you shoot. But yes, this addition makes them roughly the same. And there's also the C200B. Would that be a good B cam for the C200? One thing I failed to mention about the UMPro is interchangeable mounts. Pretty big deal. I owned the original URSA and got the UMPro at the reduced price. I couldn't be happier. Stellar image. The C200 has DPAF and that's a huge advantage over the UMPro. I think the UMPro is going to see a price drop just around the release of the C200. The lack of a stout codec makes the C200 DOA. Looking forward to that addition. If my filmmaking business continues to grow I could see getting C200 and using it alongside the UMPro. I think I still prefer the look and features of the UMPro, but DPAF, what I assume is better lowlight, in a smaller body makes me want the C200 as well. Too much for me at the moment though.

Oliver, one more consideration. This is off topic but I think worth considering if you haven't already. The URSA mini Pro is an outstanding camera with an outstanding image. I currently own this camera and just love it. It not only does internal RAW (in fact 3 different versions), but every flavor of prores you can think of. It does greater than 4K (even in prores which is pretty unique). 120 fps at HD and 60 fps up to 4.6K. They have not promoted this, but I think the sensor and processing are improved over the original 4.6K cam. No magenta corners or crosshatching. Obviously it has the internal ND's now. And the one achelles heel that everyone gripes about, lowlight, is not nearly as bad as rumored. Not to mention, it comes with the full version of Resolve which packs an amazing noise reduction feature. I've not yet tested myself but I've been told you can lift several stops and still have useable footage using Resolves noise reduction. Again, I realize this is totally off the topic of Canon. Yet again, it would make an incredible shooting buddy to the C200 and would intercut brilliantly, at less the cost. EDIT: Hold off on the magenta corners as a non issue. Just running some tests now with potentially unsatisfactory results.

Other options are Fujifilm XT-2 and Olympus E-M1. I have a feeling the Fujifilm will intercut with the C200 super well. Don't know about the Olympus, but I've been impressed with it's colors too.

I think Oliver is looking for a 4K B cam. I have an out of the box B cam idea, and that is the BMPC 4K, or URSA mini 4K. This sensor matches EXTREMELY well with Canon. Like amazingly well. I've owned and used the BMPC 4K and big URSA. I've never had trouble with FPN. They were rock solid with never a glitch. You can pick up any of the above for next to nothing these days. I guess if you're looking for a stills/video combo B cam then that wouldn't work, but these would be an inexpensive and solid 4K B cam for a Canon.

Liam, she has an advantage and is using it. Any good business plan or venture is going to recognize any advantages they may have over another and capitalize upon them. Everyone, including you and I, have an advantage. When we are clever enough to recognize them and utilize them we suddenly have a different frame of mind. Additionally, it would be frustrating to me if I worked very very very hard to build an audience/platform as well as other personnel and connected resources, only to have people poo poo on me when I go to use them. Thoughts?

I'm a Twit bot. Would make a great t-shirt too. That or deplorable. The answer really boils down to what you want to do as a filmmaker, or who are you trying to sell to. If you are selling your skills to corporations or other filmmakers, the presence may or may not be helpful. If you are selling to consumers I would say a presence is Yuge.

Pretty much exactly where I figured I'd land. Thanks Ed. Not same cost, but if you're being paid for both, some clients just want to know the bottom line.

So it sounds like charging a full day for a travel day is not uncommon, nor is giving a discount on travel days. Probably depends on the scope of the project and my interest. Definitely will bid the project as a whole and adding the notations is a solid idea I hadn't realized. Thanks guys.