Jump to content

Phil Holland

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Phil Holland

  • Rank
    New member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. BMD makes a considerable profit from the support hardware that drives much of the broadcast, filmmaking, and streaming industry. Though their cameras sell very well, it's the other products that actually truly drive their business. I have two fist fulls of Decklink products, I have no idea how many little converter boxes, and about to pull a trigger on one of their newer boxes. Good products with a handsome markup, sometimes very, very handsome. But this allows for the continued ecosystem of low priced, decent value cameras while also keeping Resolve "free" or extremely cheap to purchase. BMD couldn't just be a camera company without those other products, the profits from their other activities is what actually led to them being a camera company. Don't know about licensing REDCODE or anything, but rather publicly there's been some sort of interactions between Sony and Atomos along the way, we just don't know the details or even results from whatever transpired. There would likely be a cost/value assessment for licensing any tech, but if you've got something good that makes you unique, it would be tough to fork that over to a competitor without a kings ransom I imagine even if you were to entertain the concept at all. To be profitable on YouTube, and I mean actually making decent money, it requires building a brand and presence. Figuring out your genre, angle, and executing it well is key. Sticking to the tech side of things when you look at a guy like MKBHD for instance, he started out making fairly amateurish looking content. He had the energy and talent, but not the polish and experience. He kept at it, grew, and locked in on what made his content good, invested in areas of production value, and is now a well oiled machine of content generation and in turn has become a brand all his own. Same for Pewdiepie (though it's certainly sometimes quantity over quality with some of that content), Neistat, etc. Those are all personality channels that have led to individuals as a brand. There's other entities who have really popular channels with variety content and all that. Buzzfeed comes to mind and they are full studio producing content at this point. It is at the end of the day about making good content if you want to gain an audience, gaining that momentum, and keeping at it is pretty hard if you are doing weekly or even daily work. Keeping the quality of the content consistent is another hurdle for sure. At whatever point, there's a saturation level where your videos from past to present have lots of views and will continue to do so forever, so you in essence are building a library of material that can make you income for a long time, which adds to the monthly payout. That's outside of any sponsorship or side gigs any of these peeps might have. Neistat is a filmmaker and occasionally does jobs for instance outside of the bazillion other things he's up to. And he's kept his energy up and even opened up about that struggle and pressure from time to time. It ain't easy once you've got some traction.
  2. The best I can say regarding that concept. Open source is rad and it works in some circumstances. Specifically some companies who have provided open source code that has become popular are funded by profits of their other endeavors or occasionally funded by "the people" or a horde of individuals involved. When it comes to codec development, optimization, broad adoption, and deployment you are looking at things that take a fair bit of time, effort, and money. Making a bulletproof codec isn't that easy, same for the SDK required. It's not as easy to make something "free" when all of it costs something to produce. Good programmers are $$$,$$$ a year, a few great ones higher than that. You can get it done on the cheap for sure, but it would be a real hard sale despite being free if there's no deep support behind it. The first several years of a codec being out there are really days of sink or swim. Case in point. Whatever was the case and journey with BRAW on the BMD side of things, one thing a lot of people forget is nobody on the software side was truly supporting or funding hardcore development to keep CDNG relevant even outside of patent concerns that were hinted at. Adobe removed it from the LAB in 2017 as well as general support in their own software due to performance issues and perhaps even due to BMD competing in the NLE space now. Really won't ever now the full story there. At least with partially debayered BRAW they have an ecosystem they can control, update, and innovate towards at their own pace. So many were grumpy about BRAW taking over, but every post house I've ever been involved with had very negative things to say about CDNG in terms of workflow along the way. FFMPEG is indeed unofficial ProRes, it's one of those things. There's been several paid for plugins that no longer exist even that tapped into that because whoever went after them. I'm sure a few pennies from a monthly Adobe subscription these days goes towards an Apple ProRes license now that it's supported fully on Windows via CC. But it costs coin to do it right. ProRes was actually done well. DNxHR, though a bit late to the party, similar. It became easy to deploy via SDK and everybody had hardware that can support decent playback.
  3. Thanks for the kind words guys. This was a fun and sort of insane shoot. I've written up a few words on lens selection, lighting, and post workflow with some BTS stills here: http://phfx.com/articles/forgedIn8K/ To answer a few questions. @Dan Wake - Editing native REDCODE RAW is something I've been doing for a while. This shoot was done this way using Adobe Premiere Pro CC which has GPU acceleration and adaptive resolution settings while editing. I even ran some of these files through my laptop and was able to "work" effectively. While this is not the only way of working, especially on longer projections with more content and assets, it's certainly something that doable not on a NASA supercomputer @araucaria - 8K is interesting. For display purposes I would prefer 8K to hit theatrical and exhibition use before it hits home. At the moment and for a long time, like a decade plus, UHD 4K is going to be the focused format for home use. Especially since every major studio has now come to an agreement on a UHD Premium Standard via the UHD Alliance. The resolution itself can be down sampled of course and that provides certain advantages as you mentioned to the debayering process. However, 8K will indeed land on screens and screens smaller than you think. I wrote up a paper titled "The Window Effect" that explains much about resolution and optimum viewing distances not too long ago. Here's a link to it: http://www.phfx.com/articles/theWindowEffect/ @Jimmy - Thank you Jimmy. IMAX theatrical presentation is one area I'd like to see this camera used the most. @DPStewart - Thanks Stewart. Resolution is all about "what type" of resolution it is. I have a great deal of experience in the world of motion picture film scanning and film's resolving power purely comes down to what format you are shooting, what stock you are using, and the glass you are shooting with. Super 35mm for instance resolves about 4K-5K worth of detail. Typically we scan it in at 6K and over sample to down sample to yield better quality results. At 6K resolution Super 35mm film's grain is globular and larger than a pixel. It isn't exactly sharp, but it's rather smooth. Most higher end digital cinema cameras that are using Bayer Pattern sensor tech are somewhat emulating that effect to a degree. When we get to larger film formats like VistaVision 8-perf, 65mm 5-perf, and 70mm IMAX 15-perf the resolution increases based on the negative size. If you've seen a full optical release of a properly shot IMAX film, it's still a tremendous visual treat. @Mattias Burling - Much of what I'm after with my images is due to my film background. I'd say not until fairly recently, like around 2013 did we actually get into the true potential of digital film alternatives when it comes to motion picture production. Film still has that magical quality to it that's something hard to truly define, but at this point there's certainly quality alternatives for those who choose the crazy world of digital capture. And it's a very controlled yet flexible format at that. Much of my earlier work before RED hit the scene and even before the PV Genesis was making digital cameras look more like film. Adding grain was one aspect of that, but I'll tell you 10+ years ago it was much harder to do than with today's cameras. Especially if you are using high resolution scans of actual film grain. @Goose - Thank you. Seems like 20000 people like it and about 3 don't so far But boy do those negative comments sting. @AaronChicago - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 has already begun filming on the first batch of 8K Weapons and it's going to be interesting to see how that translates to VFX and post workflow for sure. I think they are aiming for a 4K finish if I'm not mistaken. The standard in 2020 will still be mostly 4K, but 8K broadcast trials start this year and in 2020 NHK is hoping to broadcast the Olympics in 8K "somewhere". As for the next 10-15 years, yep, a lot of UHD 4K with a growing trend of 8K for productions that are looking to explore that world. HDR is going to be the next big thing that comes home it seems. @richg101 - You hit the nail on the head when it comes to glass Richard. That's the main reason I went with the Otus primes. However! I did also use a few several decades old Olympus OM lenses in there as well as a Leica-R and Canon 200mm (so I didn't set myself on fire). I have a feeling the Otus trio will be something I'll be shooting a lot of content with on the 8K. And much of this was f/2, with a few f/1.4-f/2.8 shots in there. There's something truly seductive about this format size and focusing on nuanced detail in my opinion. @Dan Wake - That flicker doesn't show in my ProRes masters here. It appears it's a YouTube encoding artifact. Had to watch both a few times to make sure I wasn't crazy. Seems to be minimized when watching full screen on a 4K display, but it's certainly weird.
×
×
  • Create New...