John Matthews

All of my stuff was captured via firewire 400. I believe that was the highest quality I could go for. In QuickTime it says the resolution is 720 × 480 (640 × 480), fps is 29.97 (interlaced), at roughly 3.6mbps. I've got moiré and aliasing all over the place. Colors are wash-out. I'm not really into the AI thing... it always looks weird and unnatural to my brain. Is it empirically better? Probably, but my brain just doesn't associate emotions with it yet- only "wow, that's cool". Yes. This is going to take time, for sure. Most of the footage is stupid stuff like me shaking a friend's had or other banalities. Of my 43 minutes, I might use 4 if I'm lucky. I need to make a story of it first. Putting subtle grades will probably be my best guess too. It could take me a couple of weeks to get more familiar with it. Yes. I'm aware of the contrast trick. I might also go black and white... not sure, but since it was over ten years ago, it might make sense. I'm clearly going to try more of this. It might make it etherial but still look like something I lived. I watched and liked your edit. It almost looked like you shot it that way, making more "believable". I tried that, but I was getting some horrible flickering action. It might be a technical thing, but I'll into more. I think the flickering was due to the footage being interlaced. I'll look into this too. Maybe it's better than the in-your-face AI that I've seen before. Thanks.

Here's the deal: I have 43 minutes of consumer-standard miniDV footage of my wedding. My wife's asking for a nice video, similar to the ones I've offered to others in the family but with much better cameras. Does anyone know of some good examples of decent grades for this? Or, even some examples of interesting looks from low-quality stuff.

I'd believe it. I have the PL9 and an E-M1 ii. Both are great. In terms of bang-for-your-buck, I'm not sure which one is better. The PDAF in the E-M1 ii trumps even the GH5 ii if you're into auto AF. The PL9 is slightly smaller than the E-M10 iii, but lacks 5 axis stab (only 3) and a EVF. The E-M10 iii is getting difficult to find under 300 Euros, but he PL9 is around 200, probably because not many take it seriously. On another note, I got my GH2 for under 100 Euros... when hacked, it looks great at Base ISO... just no 4k, but it gets nice colors and enough detail in camera.

In which case, a Canon R5 would be the better choice.

I'm all for opinions from all different likes, as long as they're genuine; otherwise, it's just propaganda. Sadly, Youtube is seemingly full of that and it's becoming increasingly difficult to discern honest opinions from promotional content. Would you disagree?

All the people you mention seem to be after one thing: our time, which on YouTube means money. Here's my experience: I see a clickbait thumbnail. I click it. I sit through 5 seconds of Adobe slowware, thinking "not that sh*t again" I start watching the video (now they're getting paid by my view), admittedly some nice footage sometimes I watch some BS ad right in the middle of what they're trying to get to in their BS thumbnail. They're selling some BS service that no one needs (yes, they get a cut if you're dumb enough to sign up). I watch to the end. Now, they ask me to like and make a comment (more of my time) about their self-promoting BS video to enrich themselves. "Don't forget to click subscribe and click on the alert bell" so can also get spammed by YouTube. Let's not forget the Amazon affiliate links they so generously added in the description section. Finally, they pinned the the first comment (oh, what a surprise, it's they saying some more BS). Is anyone else tired of this over-produced, time-sucking, self-promoting crap? Is this what google meant when they said "Don't be evil"? At this point, I'm asking myself if I have anything better to do with my limited time on this planet.

It's so easy to fall into the trap of believing what popular figures define as what is "meaningful or beautiful" in art.

I don't watch most of those Canadians anymore. On Youtube, you really need to look for authenticity because you won't find it in almost any of the bigger channels. I've been watching for a long time now to see it go from authentic (and often normal) to shameless self/product promotion. 99% are simply infomercials, nothing more. You can still learn and laugh from them, but that is still the core of what they do. "Still Life - Art and the photographic image" by Justin Jones. He's a British guy who's into all forms of art and has 2.72K followers. He will never be known most likely, but his content is great. He's the type of YouTube I like. Here's a video:

In Britain, why is it possible to make jokes about babies on spikes, yet animals are off-limits? I don't get it.

I remember vividly this epic Canon marketing moment. It must have been so hard for those canon fanboys to accept their beloved camera specs didn't match reality. The potential of a timer and not a real heat sensor making decisions on whether a camera turns off or continues to operate was so unacceptable, even for fanboys. Canon wasn't even acknowledging the problem. The pent-up frustration had to be released. On top of that, Philip Bloom said: "hey look, this guy said something bad about Canon and my cats" - let's go after him! This is probably what it felt like for the king's messenger in the middle ages. Personally, I'm an animal lover and that includes humans too. It would appear some animal "lovers" exclude humans from their love. Instead, they run them over on purpose to make an example of them- Don't f*ck with cat lovers. Anyway, that's how I see it.

Performance is more important than dog-slow features IMO. A "feature" should work well out of the box, not in 10 years (the amount of time it takes for enough people to complain for them to improve it). You only use features that are worth using; otherwise, they're not features, just eternal frustrations. I hope Apple doesn't change now or ever. If they do, I'll be looking elsewhere.

It's important to remember that Adobe's making money hand over fist with their not-so-new business model. Time will tell if this model improves the quality of their software in any way shape or form. Arguably, it hasn't done anything for significant speed improvements (which is what most people want) before new features. It must be so frustrating for some people that pay for this. Personally, I just cannot bring myself to reward them for this model. Also, I'm sure they're looking for ways to "lock" you into it so they can perpetually receive monthly money (even after you're dead?). The seemingly harmless $10/month doesn't seem so harmless anymore. @Andrew Reid, maybe you could make a video on this too. What exactly has Adobe brought us in the past 5 years with this model?

I had a similar problem with a cheap usb-c power plug. All the sudden, buzzing noises. I switched to a usb type a and everything was fine or I could have used a battery with a usb-c PD. This happened on my Olympus e-m1 ii... super frustrating! Funny video. Liking the format.

What the hell is this video, @Andrew Reid? This is not at all how to make a Youtube video. Here's what's wrong: You need to start it with something like: "Hi guys, this is your boy Andrew here with EOSHD" You should have pink and teal background. X-mas lights at a minimum. Shallow depth of field? Everything's in focus! Where's the mic? You should be eating that thing! Think 25-30% of frame. Where's the obligatory Squarespace or Skillshare ad? If you can't get that, you should be at least pimping some software like "Cleanmymac". If you're going to talk trash about Canon, you should at the very least put some links to it on Amazon in case someone accidentally clicks on it. NEVER tell others what you actually think about product(s), certainly not after using them. You're just supposed shamelessly promote them or trash them, regardless of any usage. Focus on the specs primarily. Your thumbnail needs to have some super-inflammatory phrase (in yellow) with your mouth wide open. Here's an idea: "HASSELBLAD GETS DESTROYED? Plus, I lose my SH*T!" Finally, you look far too normal. Can't you shave your head or get a tattoo on your face? I'm sure there are more things wrong with this video. You've got to love Youtube nowadays.

Subscribed.

Cool. I'd also like that e-m5 iii, but it was just way too expensive when it came out. Really, that camera encompasses M43. I also have a GH2 that's exclusively used for live streaming... works great. Got it with a kit lens that is somehow worth more alone than the camera and the kit lens together. Go figure. A kit lens, Oly 45, and a Gh2 can accomplish a lot.

You're probably right @Andrew Reid. However, JIP has set aside money for investing in Olympus and it's still early days, but they don't need to do much in order to make them significantly better for video. Judging from past performance, they have had significant talent on their engineering team, but video wasn't their forte. The LOG they came up with was a bad omen for their video ventures. However, PDAF works really well in video and personally, I'd trade 10 bit or Prores for that... it was the FIRST thing I looked for in a potential GH5 successor. Sadly, PDAF probably won't be coming in a new GH5. Here's a question : what video feature would you trade in a GH5 for a E-M1 iii's PDAF? 10 bit? Seeing luma levels?

I confess to not being a pro, but I still love the system. I tried FF, but just didn't see the value in it for me. If people want to sell their M43 stuff, I'm game. Slowly but surely, I'll be grabbing up all the "reject" M43 stuff until I have the best kit possible in the system. I'm loving all the talk of people moving away from it in hopes the prices will tank, but I doubt it will.

Maybe it'll be unto OM Digital to make a compelling M43 camera... not that I'm not happy enough with the current offering.

Do you know the word humility? Yedlin's not just any old dude on the internet... the guy's an industry insider with butt-loads of films to back it up. I think he might know something on the topic of resolution.

Yes, but I haven't dug deep enough into it, but I will. In particular, I'll probably post something about his color theories. I'm happy he shares so much!

I can try to upwrap this portion of the video for you. Regardless of how much compression was used, his point was to show that, even with a 4k or 8k image, compression plays a significant role in the final image. Just increasing the megapixels isn't enough and would decrease the quality, not increase it. Concretely, a 4k image compressed to 10mbps will not produce a better image than a 1080p image at 10mbps. His point was to show resolution doesn't necessarily mean a quality image; there are many factors, compression being one of them. IMO, the issue of Long GOP and ALL-I is mute with modern encoders, but, if looking for a formula, 50mbps long-gop is equal to 100mbps ALL-I. You'll get significant space savings and 99% the quality in most situations. I cannot comment on working with Raw... I'd never do that for my purposes.

Concerning my previous post, I do think that Rodney Charters and Steve Yedlin differ in their theories about acquisition of the image. It seems Charters looks for the camera that gives the best image where as Yedlin prefers the most neutral image as possible, then add character in the post pipeline.

I remember watching both of these. In a nutshell, up-resing tech was good enough for them in 2014, I imagine it's a little better in 2021. They'd much rather work like that and continue with a speedy 2k pipeline. And once again, audiences cannot tell the difference.

For me, he effectively demonstrates the insignificance of taking professionally prepared 4k+ content, downscaling it to 2k, and upscaling it to 4k again. The resulting images, even when compared A/B style, don't show any difference. I'd love for you to prove otherwise. I really didn't think of it like this until after watching him. Again, his point wasn't necessarily this though- it was to show there are many other considerations BEFORE pixel count that show significant importance as long as the detail threshold is met.