tugela
-
Posts
840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by tugela
-
-
30 minutes ago, Jonesy Jones said:
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.
Make compelling content for youtube and make it often enough to generate sustainable income.
Depending on people to pay you individually for specific content without some sort of marketing service doing the selling for you is not going to fly.
-
20 hours ago, noone said:
I am not so sure about that as I see more and more Pro photographers and former pros uploading phone pics to Instagram and Face Book.
There are also a LOT more people taking photos now who would not have previously too. People who would never have purchased a stand alone camera that will use the one that comes with their phone.
Even pros carried small pocketable cameras when not working, so nothing has changed in that respect. All that has happened is those small pocketable cameras can now be used as cell phones. That is what has really happened, not the other way around.
People like to say that cell phones have taken over the camera market, but you could equally well say the reverse, that cameras have taken over the cell phone market. Just because the cameras in question are being made by companies other than the traditional manufacturers does not make it less true.
This is the problem when people put blinkers on, they get so stuck in conventional wisdom that they don't see what is really going on. In reality not a whole lot has changed, except that many more people take pictures now than in the old days, and to those who wear blinkers it seems to them that demographics have changed and/or that something has been "lost", when nothing is further from the truth.
-
On 7/11/2017 at 2:14 AM, Arikhan said:
My generation (16-20 years old) has ZERO interest in using proper video/photo cameras. ZERO...All people use extensively their smartphones, they want it "as simple as possible" and aim to post as fast as possible the results on social media. Facebook is for many young people BS, Instagram and SnapChat are nowadays king...An own website/blog? Muahaha....It has to be quick and dirty...NO EFFORTS (saving for buy, handling, shooting, editing, education, etc.), please...
"Winning back smartphone users"? This would be really hard (and costly) to do, as young users are generally lazy and don't want to spend any time with fiddling and properly operating a camera. The formula simply is: "As simple and automated as possible to shoot and share".
And never forget the costs: Most of my colleagues spend 30-50 EUR / month for "all net flat" mobile calling/internet fees, including a smartphone usage for 2 years....So no cash needed to buy a smartphone. This business model for "selling" smartphones is impossible to do for a camera manufacturer.
In my school there are about 1.500 scholars. I know very many people, but only FOUR scholars owning/operating a DSLR/MILC camera.
Camera stores?
It's hard for them (not for the big electronic discounters, but for smaller, specialized camera stores)...Generally diminished camera sales, very small margins and customers expecting top advice, but then going home and ordering online for cheapest price...For 95% of stores it's even impossible to get in the costs for rental...
The people who use cell phones today previously used small compacts to take pictures, that has nothing to do with higher end cameras, which are largely unaffected by cellphones. What does affect higher end cameras however is the overall maturation of camera ability. Cameras today are for the most part close to optimal performance, so new iterations offer minimal improvement over models a few years old. As a result the replacement cycle has become (and is becoming even more so) longer. Longer replacement cycles = fewer annual sales = harder for retailers to make net revenue selling them = placing cameras in less optimal locations or shuttering the operation altogether. As the trend continues the chilling effect on sales will become deeper and deeper.
Computers are in much the same boat. With every generation the improvements are less and less compelling, which means the effective life of the hardware you own is extended.
-
On 7/10/2017 at 11:51 AM, cantsin said:
Yes, one can. Unless one believes that real life beats physics. (A bigger sensor lets in more light, just like an F1.4 lens lets in more light than an F2 lens.)
They do have better ISO, but other factors (like DoF - as you pointed out - or quality of denoising/signal processing) can even out the physical ISO advantage.
Not if you stick a telecompressor between the lens and the smaller sensor, then the smaller sensor receives exactly the same amount of light as the larger sensor would with the same lens.
-
9 hours ago, IronFilm said:
Seriously?? Do you not understand how a focal reducer works?
Do you? Apparently not.
-
53 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:
The best buy I used to work at has a couple A9s in stock right now. I'm sure they'd take it out of the box for me to try if I asked real nice.
Not in Vancouver....the Best Buys here you are lucky to find the latest model of ANY high end camera. Even the a7 models they have on display are the original generation. It takes them ages to get current models on the floor, even with many consumer cameras.
-
6 hours ago, jcs said:
Thanks for the physics lesson, tugela. Sounds like you're an expert on warp drives and gravity shielding. Maybe you can explain yourself in more detail how what you propose is possible? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/
Response algorithm: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2011/04/01/matchers-and-mismatchers-how-to-work-with-impossib
If something was warping space so that it was inbetween reality it would not be visible since it would occupy effectively an infinitesimal point in real space. If it did occupy real space and worked by forcing matter that existed already apart, the extreme pressures generated outside the object as it did so would result in a fireball and sonic boom in the sorts of velocities commonly shown in extreme UFO video. So whatever is shown in those videos, they are not "warping space". You might be able to get away with that in a vacuum with minimal consequences, but in a planetary atmosphere there absolutely would be consequences.
Videos of objects apparently at some far distance showing extreme movement are fake. They are actually much closer and much smaller than that, but are presented as something else. Alternatively, you could get the same apparent behavior by projecting a narrow beam of light on to some sort of reflective surface to fool people who otherwise might think it was a real object at distance.
And then there is the logical question, what would be the point of a "craft" making maneuvers like that in the first place? It would serve no purpose and would require extreme engineering that otherwise is not required.
-
4 hours ago, jcs said:
I've seen older footage of UFO 'swarms' that look compelling, especially when they are moving around, from before there were drones and so many UFO hoaxers. I've seen enough footage to believe there is advanced technology flying around, e.g. mass reduction / antigrav / electrogravitics, however there's no evidence these vehicles are extraterrestrial. That said, there is pretty compelling evidence that there have been advanced vehicles flying in the sky before modern history. Who made them and where they are from remain big mysteries.
Most of those "UFOs" feature movement that is not going to happen physically due to the tremendous forces involved. If there really were extraterrestrials they would be subject to the same limitations as us and there is no reason to fly with such extreme movement changes in any case.
The rest of your musing are nonsense. Even if there was some special technology to protect the occupants from the consequences of such extreme maneuvers, the effects outside due to displacement would still be there.
-
On 7/9/2017 at 0:50 AM, dbp said:
I think it depends. The thought started when people said a full frame sensor is larger and can take in more light, which is true. But light gathering is just part of the equation. How it's processed down the chain matters a lot, too.
The A7S is head and shoulders above a 5D in low light performance, despite the similar sensor size.
It doesn't matter how big the sensor is, the amount of light received will be determined by the lens arrangement in front of the sensor. If you stick a speedbooster inbetween a crop sensor and a FF lens for example, both crop and FF sensors will receive the same amount of light even though the sensor sizes are different.
-
On 7/7/2017 at 9:31 AM, Window_Frame said:
I want to test out an a9 at my local Best Buy, but I'm afraid they might yell at me for putting my own card into the camera for testing. Did you have any issues with that at the Sony store Andrew?
Chances are the store won't have any in stock and not on the display shelves if they do. Best buy tend to sell older models mostly (at least the stores around where I live).
-
8 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:
No making shit up is your thing.. sigh.
I meant your youtube videos from the NX1. You know for example the one of the digger that where demolishing a house.
Granted it had almost half the image lost in blown out highlights but one could still see it wasn't exactly crystal clear. My guess an operator related issue or a potato lens.That was taken on the first week I had the camera, and was shot handheld because I just happened to be passing and thought it was interesting. The lighting was what it was. It is not a house btw, it is an office block. The video is also YouTubed after transcoding, not native video. There was no editing other than stitching, so correction for lighting. The original footage is much better than that. Video after the hack is even better. None of my HD cameras come even vaguely close, including all of the Canons I have. As soon as you show any of that stuff on a big screen 4K TV the differences become pretty obvious.
The videos I posted on Youtube were for specific people to see for specific reasons. None of them have been taken down by me. So you were flat out lying.
-
On 7/1/2017 at 0:40 PM, Trek of Joy said:
My TV numbers were from 2016, the most recent year available, forecasts for 2017 are flat - about 1/3rd UHD vs HD. Smart TV are outpacing 4k tv's, people want connectivity, not 4k. That is crystal clear, don't know why some refuse to see it.
I suggest going to Best Buy and look at what is being sold in the 60-65" range (the current goto screen size for average buyers). Pretty much all models in that segment are 4K, except for a few old open boxes and refurbished sets. And the reason they are all 4K is because that is what is selling, not the HD sets. To see significant HD sales you need to go down to the old standard size (40"). For those sets there are still a lot of HD models, but that size is being replaced by the larger screens as best affordable option to average buyers.
Looking at what happened in 2016 is misleading, because the market is currently in the process of change. When people with disposable income go out to buy a new set they are going to be mostly looking at something better than the old set they already have (which would be 32-40"). That "better" will be a larger screen, which is where the $2k sweet spot currently is, namely 60-65". Those are all 4K. So, when you start looking at the 2018 numbers for example, you are going to see a very different sales profile compared to even a few years back.
-
On 7/1/2017 at 0:48 AM, Mattias Burling said:
"When I first got my 4K TV set and had friends come around, and showed them stuff I had shot on my NX1 which I already had at the time, they were all going "OMG! It is so clear!" without exception."
They weren't very clear imo. To bad they have been removed.
I don't recall you ever coming around to my house.
And what has been removed? Or you making stuff up again?
-
On 7/1/2017 at 0:32 AM, Trek of Joy said:
Most don't care about 4k because there's almost nothing being produced in 4k, globally there are very few 1080p broadcasts, much less in 4k. Why would anyone buy a 4k set only to have virtually nothing to watch in 4k? As others mentioned 4k is being pushed by Sony and Panasonic because they have 4k TV's to sell, not because of overwhelming consumer demand.
Most don't care about 4k, because a vast majority of TV owners don't own a 4k set (the number of HD LED/LCD/Plasma sets sold in the last 15 years globally is many, many times higher than UHD) and have no plans to upgrade when it does nothing but drain your bank account since there's virtually no 4k content to watch.
Most don't care about 4k because a vast majority of people shoot photos and videos and never do any editing or anything beyond sharing and filling up phones and hard drives. 1080p looks great on their 1080p TV.
And finally most don't care because a majority of web video content is being viewed on portable devices - phones and tablets - 4k really doesn't do much on a 5" screen.
Its not BS - TV sales tell you everything, HD still accounts for two-thirds of all TV's sold despite the fact that 4k prices have plummeted - people are still buying similarly priced 1080p sets in far greater numbers - and TV sales have flatlined after the flat-panel boom in the mid-2000's. Canon's camera sales, that people here continually bitch about, tell you everything. 4k is great for content producers and I personally love it to death, but for the rest of the world - which makes up a vast majority of camera purchases - 1080p is good enough.
And I'm pretty sure Canon's market research goes a little deeper than "they're too dumb to know 1080p sucks, no 4k for the 6d2"
SMH
Lots of people have Netflix, and there is plenty of content there in 4K.
Most mid to high end TVs currently being sold are 4K sets. Whenever someone needs to replace their current TV, or are in the market to get a new set, they will very likely buy a 4K set. Which, coincidently, also happens to be the right resolution to display any home video they might shoot, which again will probably be 4K (because that is what most mid to high end cell phones and cameras shoot). So there is convergence of what is being shot and the display devices for what is being shot. Also, don't underestimate viewing devices. Most of the high volume "common man" viewing devices are cell phones, and for the most part those are already higher resolution than HD.
If someone has a camera that shoots 4K, and also has a TV that shows 4K, why the hell would they decide to shoot HD instead, just because you think it looks "good enough"? Get real dude. Most people with modern cell phones already have 4K cameras. What do you think they are shooting with those cameras? It is already happening
The reason Canon don't have 4K on their consumer cameras is because the processors they have can't shoot it without using codecs that require very high bit rates. Consumer cameras need to record to media that consumers would be willing to buy, and that is SD. Hence no 4K. That is not going to change until such time as Canon gets processors that are thermally efficient enough to record to consumer media. They are not making some kind of strategic choice because everyone "wants HD only", they are FORCED to do it because of the limitations of the technology available to them.
-
On 7/5/2017 at 4:13 PM, Andrew Reid said:
Small thing, but I thought I'd put out a warning to prevent £120 being flushed down the toilet
Why would someone need to flush $120 down the toilet after buying a new keyboard?
I use a Corsair K95 Platinum, which I am pretty sure kicks the crap out of any keyboard Apple makes.
-
No. I am a research scientist. The chance of a robot taking my job is roughly zero.
-
3 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:
I went to an 8k demo in Tokyo from NHK Broadcasting, while awesome and a preview of the 2020 Olympic broadcasts - other camera geeks were the only people in awe. Nobody else really cared.
How do you know that no one else really cared? You are assuming that those in awe are camera geeks because they were in awe. Maybe they are not.
When I first got my 4K TV set and had friends come around, and showed them stuff I had shot on my NX1 which I already had at the time, they were all going "OMG! It is so clear!" without exception.
This idea that ordinary people don't care about 4K is BS. They main reason they "don't care" is because they have not really been exposed to it in a normal home situation. And those are the sorts of people who don't spend any time at all looking at store displays of TVs either (until they need to buy a new one for some reason), so they really don't know for the most part. What bugs me the most about forums like this is certain individuals conflating that ignorance with indifference. They are not the same things. Canon relies on indifference, but the level of ignorance is slowly changing and when that happens the hammer is going to come down hard on them.
-
On 6/22/2016 at 10:55 AM, jasonmillard81 said:
The following conversation gave me pause and I am hoping to get a few questions answered by more knowledgeable individuals:
One of the topics discussed was how these DPs feel that are sort of forced to use digital and many long for the days of film. In addition they seem to acknowledge the necessity to keep up with the 4K, 6K, and 8K race but that sometimes the preferable image is of a much lower resolution and they spend time trying to achieve that by softening the image up etc. as they (maybe Deakins) feel that the audience finds the optimal image to not be so "realistic".
I'm curious on what everyone's opinions are. If one isn't doing paid work and 4K+ aren't demanded then you still get away with investing in a new product that is 1080P if the image is currently seen as not only acceptable but desirable?
A bunch of old guys who like film because that is what they grew up with. Just like most old people who are not comfortable with the modern world "it was better in the old days". That is what I see. And I am saying that as someone who is approaching 60 himself. Until that generation dies off we are going to be stuck with this outdated paradigm. And even after they are dead, the wannabe acolytes of these guys will still be pushing the last century as the way to go for some time to come. But eventually digital will leave them in the dust.
People like that group around the table hold us back.
3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:Fujis profit comes from Instax.
Im not sure Sony and Panasonics interchangeable lens cameras are profitable. I think not.
At least Sony never dares to show the numbers. They always bake it in to the total company. My guess is no way they make money from the A7 and A6xx line.We know Nikon is in trouble.
Canon on the other hand is in the green. HD seems profitable for them
Don't know about Panasonic, but Sony's camera division makes money, considering that Sonys are among the top three you see people carrying around.
I'm pretty sure that Canon has lots of lemon cameras in terms of revenue. Most of their profit comes from divisions outside of cameras. I imagine that most of Canon's profit in the camera market comes from the pro cameras, with the lower end products not being competitive or losing money. Which would explain why they put relatively little investment in tech on those products, and why the specs on them are always behind the competition. The profit in those markets is being made by other companies.
-
15 hours ago, gelaxstudio said:
I wonder why no one says spec does not means everything ~
BTW，it has canon colour！That is all you need
I doubt that too many people are going to be shooting video with this thing.
-
18 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
We've waited 5 years and have got...
Swivel screen
Dual Pixel AF
....
....
Probably no moire fix.
Erm, that's it!
The HDR footage in the side by side non-HDR/HDR footage posted by Canon on YouTube shows horrible blotching. They are going to need to patch that I think, or the HDR mode will be of minimal use.
16 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:I understand what you mean, your point and why you are upset. But to many still photographers the above line simply isn't true.
What they got is,- New 26.2-megapixel CMOS sensor
- DIGIC 7 image processor
- ISO 40,000 from 32,000
- Dual Pixel autofocusing system
- 45 cross-type autofocus points at its disposal, a step up from the 6D’s paltry 11.
- 6.5 frames per second, but there’s a short runway there: the maximum burst is 21 frames for RAW photos, and 150 for JPEGs.
- Touchscreen
- Swivel
- Weather resistant
- Wi-Fi, NFC, Bluetooth, and GPS radios.
- And Canon’s done all this while only adding a few grams to the original weight of the 6D.
I can name 5 pro photographers just among my closest friends that would choose a simple thing as weather sealing over 4K any day of the week.
This isn't the next video marvel. It never was. It never wanted to.
The 6D wasn't anything to write home about regarding video, so why would this?
Its like being upset about the lack of video features in a X100f or Leica M9.
Its not supposed to have that.The 6D2 is not weather sealed. It is intended to appeal to people who want to look like they have a 5D4, but can't afford one, and are willing to give up the bells and whistles for that appearance.
A lot of pro photographers shoot video as well as stills, so this camera will be a fail for them. Not that any pro would choose a 6D over a 5D anyway, it is pretty much a camera for amateurs.
The Sony engineers developing the a7III series must be high fiving over the champers bottles right now!!
Just doesn't cut it.
-
The higher bit rates do seem to help with macroblocking, especially in portions of images trailing objects in motion where you would typically see image breakup with the native bit rates.. It doesn't remove all of it of course, but the more bandwidth you have the better it should be since fewer compromises have to be made to fit the image into the available data.
-
On 6/26/2017 at 8:40 PM, PeterB said:
You don't patch in 4k if the hardware isn't capable. but I suspect it will be using much the same (or updated) internals as the 5d. chances are the 6d mkii is more than capable of 4k but canon will choose to limit it software wise (and not for the first time). I currently own the a7sii and blackmagic pocket camera (I've been aware of the jvc 300 for some time, it still lacks auto-focus like the c200. I would sooner buy a secondhand 4.6k ursa mini). For gimbal and glidecam shots I don't always have a 1st ac and wireless follow focus on set, so I'll often end up using the sony for it's 1080p face detect auto-focus (even though I prefer the look of the blackmagic).
Very few people are buying 5dmk iv for video, it's mainly photographers. putting 4k in the 6d will have very little effect on 5d sales as most people buying the 5d are photographers (video people like myself ended up picking up the sony a7sii in the same price range). saying including the same 4k in the 6d as the 5d would cut 2/3 the buyers off the 5d is suggesting that 2/3 the people buying the 5dmk iv are doing so for video, which seems unlikely. however canons cheaper cameras like the 80d have a very large video user base and a 1.6x crop 4k on the 6d mkii could extend that user base.
No, it will be using SD slots apparently, and those won't be able to handle the bandwidth required for the software implementation used in the 5D4. The 6D2 will apparently use the digic 7 processor, which should have a 4K encoder on board, but without a fan to cool it it would get too hot. So no 4K hardware encoding either.
There is no 4K in the 6D2 because the hardware in the camera can't cope with the demands necessary to implement it.
-
6 hours ago, jhnkng said:
True, but h.264 is also compressed, and the raw data from the sensor has to be debayered as well. But I take your point that it isn't as straightforward as I had said.
The desktop computer analogy doesn't really hold water, since desktop CPUs are general purpose, and has to be good at everything, while specialist processors like the DIGIC series is purpose built for a select few things only. I mean beefy a computer do you need to playback 4K 60p CinemaDNG at 60fps? If we could take that kind of computing power and shrink it to a chip that fits inside a camera, we'd be editing RAW on our phones.
But I agree with your second point, Canon hasn't got production ready code to implement a higher bitrate codec. They've said as much really. But it's just engineering time, whatever problems they have implementing an 8/10bit 422 codec they can solve given enough time. The only real question is whether they will work to implement a beefier codec for the C200 or leave it for the C200 mkII.H.264 would be using dedicate processor logic, but the RAW encoding would just be using the generic computational ability of the processor. RAW (and anything similar, such as MJPEG) are implemented through software. Efficient compression formats, such as H.264 and H.265, are implemented using hardware encoders, and once you have those you are pretty much limited to whatever the encoder is set up to handle.
The "middle" codecs would have to use the dedicate encoder in the processor, and if that has been optimized for thermal efficiency so it can be used in product applications such as consumer cameras, then the processor would not necessarily have the hardware inside to do what the DV5 cameras can do. That can't be corrected by firmware, either the encoder can do it or it can't. If the DV6 had the same encoder inside as the DV5, then those middle codecs would already be in the camera spec and you would not need to wait for anything - they would be there from the start. The fact that they are not implies that the encoder is different and suggests that it has been designed primarily for consumer applications. But, the computational power of the DV6 enables RAW recording, and that is likely the reason they used them rather than the DV5s, event though it results in the loss of the middle codecs. From Canon's point of view that would be convenient since it would allow legitimate product differentiation that is based on the hardware compromises made, not as a result of some arbitrary "crippling". In that scenario the C500, C300, C200 and C100 families would each have their own niche based on the type of footage they are capable of producing. So, depending on what exactly your needs were, you would select one camera or the other.
All of that means while they might be able to implement higher bit rates later on, you are probably not going to get H.264 encoded 10 bit 4:2:2.
-
They still make memory for oem users, they are just not going to bother with the retail market any more. Probably the margins are too small to be worth while.
Cinematic quality Tamron 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD + Nikon camera
In: Cameras
Posted
Almost all modern Nikon lenses will outresolve the 4K Nikon cameras shoot, so don't worry about the lens resolution.