kye

On 5/6/2024 at 10:09 PM, zuri said:

Hi everyone, i have a lot of terabytes for a project im working on, and i wonder if i render a timeline and delete the original files, the rendered one will preserve the quality and stand up for post procesing?

Im working on davinci resolve and doing some render test but i can't see an image diference between the original and the rendered file.
What is your experience with this? You always kept the originals?

I definitely always keep the originals, but it depends on what work you're doing and what you export.

If you really want to reduce the amount of storage your footage takes up, one way is to use the (excellent) Media Management tool and use the Copy Only Used Media Files option to create a backup of only the files that you actually used in the project.  If your source files are large RAW files then you could transcode them to a Prores file as a lower resolution source and delete the RAW files.  Or you could even export a Prores HQ copy of your completed timeline to have a high quality copy of it, rather than an 8-bit h264/5 export only.

Of course, all these things take time, and if time is money to you then it might just be easier to buy more hard drives!

6 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

The only way to upgrade the GPU on a MBP is to buy a new MBP for another $4k.  Not the best plan unless you're independently wealthy - and if so, then you might as well just spend the extra $300 for the better chip now.  😃

Absolutely.

I'm exclusively a MBP user because of portability requirements, but as my 2020 Intel-based MBP is able to edit the files I have, lately I've been investing in extras that live outside the MBP and therefore don't need to get re-purchased every time I upgrade.

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Since the UM12K has been out for a long time, I'm sure some nice reviewer/youtuber has put some raw files online for you to download.

BM has sample files for download.  They're on these pages under the "Generation 5 Color Science" heading (different files are available for download on each page):

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursacine
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro

28 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

True.

I think the point is to exactly realise what such difference actually means... in resolution numbers, as for instance : )

What one allows and the other one instead :- )

It would be great to be able to give a straight answer, but there are too many variables.

Even something like the SSD option of the Mac model chosen might mean that it can or cannot do something.

Going to Resolve, there are literally dozens of variables involved.  Even if it's just 12K footage on a 4K timeline with a LUT - will Resolve be using Linear or Tetrahedral interpolation for the LUT?  This matters as it's extra processing power required, etc.

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

I think the intention of the OP wondering is about how crucial 33% of an increase of the number of GPU cores is, though... Just sayin' :- )

Sure, but crucial for what?

If it's the difference between being able to play realtime with a LUT for editing purposes or not then it's probably a critical amount, but that will depend on the timeline resolution.

If you want to colour grade then some things need to be done at full timeline resolution and some things don't.  Grading in front of clients is a specific need that some have and some don't have.  If you're only grading with simple adjustments then that is very very different to doing intensive tasks like NR or any of the AI things.

So, "critical" really depends on the application.

For typing on these forums, I'd say no, but everything else is a question mark....

Further to what @eatstoomuchjam said, I think there are only three types of performance:

1. it can't play ungraded footage realtime (ie, you can't edit with it)
2. it can play footage realtime but can't do it with a heavy grade (ie, you can do some colour grading realtime)
3. it can play footage realtime with a heavy grade (ie, it's reliable and you can colour grade live in front of a client)

The spec required for level 2 should be researchable and BM would have made this pretty efficient I would imagine.  The spec for level 3 is a "how long is a piece of string" question, depending on a ton of variables including timeline resolution and only you can answer it, but if you're going to be doing lots of heavy things like NR and spatial treatments on a 4K timeline then you're probably well into Ultra / Studio territory.

Further to this, I watched a few past videos from Blaine yesterday and this video (while quite chaotic) gives a bunch of pretty interesting examples of how using a Film Emulation of some kind combined with some of the basic Resolve tools can give quick but very effective results:

Perhaps the most interesting thing about it is the way he treats Resolve..  he shows that if you know a few techniques then you can get in, make some good adjustments, get a great result, and get out, and move on with your day.

It's sort of a rare counter-example of the impression that Resolve is finicky and takes hours and hours, which almost all other colour grading videos give, but isn't true.

At it's most basic, you can just apply a LUT to every clip and then make basic adjustments in a node prior to the LUT on each clip and can get great results in a really quick way.  This is the way that film-makers grade when they want a result, rather than the way that colour grading YouTubers grade when they're making a YT video about some nuance or other.

The section from 5:00 on with the test shots shows that even if the shots weren't filmed well at all, you can get great results quickly with just a few quick techniques.

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

From the videos I've seen on Film Look Creator, I think subtractive saturation and split toning are the things that stuck at to me as most interesting - that and I'm going to need to spend a bit of time with their grain generator to see if I like the output.

Cullen Kelly says that the grain and the halation are nicer than the previous separate OFX plugins, so that's promising if you're a connoisseur / picky 🙂 

7 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Uhhh I know! Maybe this summer when I have more time! The advent of internal LUTs I think will help me on that journey. Seeing what folks have done with Dehancer has been motivating as well. 

I recommend FilmConvert or Dehancer if people like the overall film look but don't want to learn to colour grade - it's a quick and effective solution.

Resolve 19 has a new plugin called Film Look Creator included in the paid version that is like FilmConvert / Dehancer except it doesn't model specific film stocks but is designed to give a flexible overall film look.  For most people it would be better than FilmConvert or Dehancer just for creating a nice look and not having to learn colour management etc.

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Ive seen him make fx3 and c70 look like Arri

Yep!

Hey - you should look into colour grading! 🙂 

Blaine Westropp is also killing it recently.

4 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

Right. I find it odd when the camera is in the subject line. Unless it's specifically a camera test, then it should be in the description along with the other information about the shoot.

I think it's just creators responding to the searches people make.  I suspect there are far more searches on "A7S3" than there are on "three point lighting" because if there weren't then why is everyone making equipment videos?

It makes sense too.  I've just gone down a rabbit hole of searching about the ZV-1, despite it only being idle dreaming about having a slightly smaller camera.  Obviously I have searched for many things associated with skills, I've done far more searches that were equipment focused, and despite the fact I'm not in the market for a new camera, for those people who made those videos, a watch / subscribe on a video still counts.

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

So the point, once  again, is that if you actually use the gear on any sort of regular basis, it costs less to own it than to rent it - even before you factor in the cost of your time to keep driving to and from the post office or rental house.

Absolutely.

Another consideration for some is availability.

When I was hanging around reduser.com it became pretty apparent that a common thing was to own a RED (obviously!) and also a set of vintage primes, but to rent modern lenses.  The rationale was that often these cinematographers were doing personal projects and having the vintage primes made it so that they had a set on hand for whenever the personal project was able to be scheduled.

Quite a few were filming one (or more!) documentaries too, and are essentially on-call so that if something suddenly happens they can grab the camera and go.  It was common for these guys to store the camera in a go-bag, often rigged up and sitting next to the front door.  Good luck shooting that if you got the call and then had to rent equipment in the middle of the night!!

Film-making varies much more person-to-person than most people expect, and logistical factors or aesthetic preferences can easily flip a decision between two different people and their circumstances.

Brady Bessette

WanderingDP

Crimson Engine

Jeven Dovey

D4Darious

Andyax

Lewis Potts

Clever Ghost Chili

Beyond the game

Singularity Film

Neal Howland

Jimmy on Film

Scott Jeschke

11 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Why did it triple post?

Maybe the forum has been taken over by AI and it's become sentient and agreed with your comments so much it wanted everyone to read them several times!!

2 minutes ago, ac6000cw said:

The situation with review content being affected by commercial interests is nothing new in the slightest...

Many years ago I was asked if I was interested in doing a product review for a now long-gone print magazine.

I watched this video recently about synthesisers and recording equipment magazines (which operate incredibly similarly to cameras) and yeah, print magazines almost make YouTube reviewers look honest by comparison.

TLDR:

• he analysed a magazine from 2002 and out of 188 pages, 79 were full page ads (he didn't even bother to count half-page ads either, so the ad coverage was way higher)
• all reviews were positive except for the odd little minor comment, and none of the sub-category scores in any review were even below 2.5/5 (except one product which got 1.5/5 for a subcategory, but that was because it had too many ads!!)

12 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Self-indulgence?  😉 
 

Entertainment is probably an overly-broad category, but that's splitting hairs.

LOL, yeah, or self-importance or narcissistic or megalomanianism etc 😂😂😂

I guess in that case they don't have a clear idea of the industry they're in, likely because they're thinking about themselves rather than their audience.

Entertainment is very broad and is sort-of a catch-all for the other categories, but I think it's still useful as it firmly defines that the purpose is to engage and entertain.  

I think that because YT was new and people didn't really understand what it was or how it fit into the world people weren't clear that it still fit the definitions that had been previously established, but (as usual) the pros had figured it out already and there (almost never) isn't anything new under the sun.

Lok just posted a video talking about the S5ii and talks about the new e-stabilisation feature, and it looks like it has completely eliminated the IBIS wobble on wide lenses?

He includes examples with him walking with a wide lens, so it looks like a legit test:

13 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

With all the discussions recently about YouTubers I've been thinking about this as I watch YT videos and I remembered this comment and wanted to come back to it.

I think that perhaps one of the things that would help a YouTuber achieve success on the platform is having a clear idea of what business they are really in.  For example, and off the top of my head, YouTubers likely fall into one of the following:

• Advertising (as has been discussed)
• Entertainment
• Education
• Journalism

These are pretty broad, but I would suggest that each has a clear definition and purpose, with clear principles on how it is done, how to make money, and what is to be expected from a good (and dodgy) channel.

I'm guessing that if you don't really know which category a YouTuber is in, then perhaps they're drifting into dodgy territory.

Did I miss any?

On 4/29/2024 at 6:33 PM, gethin said:

Back in the day I did a few shoots with 5 and 10k hmi's that you could blast through a window and would compete with daylight.  I don't really use lighting much anymore and I'm very out of the loop.  I have a couple of cheap and cheerful godox 150w leds. Is there anything current that has higher output that is $1000 USD and below?  I've seen a few diy things that look absurdly bright but no idea what the output actually is.  They don't need to run for hours on end either.  

@Parker is right that having too much isn't a problem because you can just turn the lights down or put on more ND etc, but in order to not end up buying $20,000 worth of lights unnecessarily, maybe just do some tests with your own light?

Work out what the largest amount of light would be that you would need on a regular basis (you can always rent for the 5% of times that are an exception) and then test your own 150W one and just crank up the ISO to see how many stops brighter a light you would need for that situation.  

It's work, but in film-making you pay for everything one way or the other..  with money or with time or with experience etc.

19 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit. 

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment.

I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Of course this is true; but the main business in photography, as far as the consumer market (and businesses that target it) is concerned, is selling gear and not the art or teaching techniques for making that art.

 

The attitude in online forum discussions is that everything should be easy and automatic, and people are willing to pay significant money towards that end, but many people are not willing to accept that there is a skill component to photography. If skill is required to get results, the camera is considered flawed. People spend more time online complaining about (perceived) camera flaws and performance comparisons than learning the skills that they would need to do meaningful work. And the youtubers who talk about gear target this population who has been mislead to believe that if they shop for the next great thing, then they will become great artists. They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

Well said.

It's also worth pointing out that while manufacturers will do whatever they can to sell you an item again and again, it's hard to get people to buy a $3,000 tripod every year or two, or $4,000 worth of lenses every year or two, etc, but the camera body is one thing they can convince people to buy and re-buy over and over again.

I also think there's an element of "hangover" where old ideas live on even after they no longer make sense.  In the days of standard definition, wanting more resolution in the image was a sensible request, but since getting 1080p / 4K it is no longer a sensible response.  No-one looks at a high-quality uncompressed 1080p / 4K image and thinks "the thing that is limiting my ability as a film-maker to express myself is the lack of detail in the image"....  but the idea that "more resolution is more better" lives on, endlessly pushed by people with vested interests in selling you something you already own.

2 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I'm doing a b-roll shoot over lunch today for one of the documentaries I'm making this year (first shoot on this one, so looking forward to it!). I haven't been able to scout the room, which is a recording/rehearsal studio, but I do know that it's very small and that the walls are lined with those acoustic tile thingies. So I'm taking:

1 x tiny Ulanzi 40W bi-colour
2 x RGB wands
2 x Lupo 20W bi-colour Smartpanels
1 x Zhiyun M20 bi-colour
1 x FalconEyes RGB panel

Also a bunch of pipe clamps, spring clamps, 1/4 20 magnet plates etc, plus 2 5-in-1 reflectors, one of them folded out to black.

All battery powered. I probably won't use all of these, but I wanted to give myself some adaptability given that I'm going in near-blind.

The look I'll be gunning for is classic split tone so I'll be setting up a daylight wash with the 40W light and using some of the other lights for warm accents. Camera set to 4300K.

All of this fits in a single standard aluminium photographer's case from which I've stripped the foam, which is good because the camera weighs about 40 tonnes!

I really don't envy you pros who have to go into who-knows-what situations and have to deliver professional results!

Do you at least know what colour the acoustic tiles are?  Heaven forbid that you go in there and they're all purple or green or something horrific..

2 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I like Luc, but it does seem that since he started really pushing his paid courses the channel seems to have shifted emphasis from practical stuff to more talking head stuff.

I haven't been following him for very long so haven't seen a change, but I can tell you that I'd much prefer to hear the thoughts of someone as qualified and experienced as he is versus the gaggle / hoarde / confusion / seething-mass of "film-making" YouTubers that only know how to shoot a product review YT video!

One thing I find in severe scarcity is people that have worked in professional settings and know how the real pros do things, that also know what it's like to make videos from idea to upload by themselves, and can also communicate it in a way that is clear and concise and doesn't have some sort of off-putting trait (like being an arrogant asshat and talking to the audience like they're morons - yes I am thinking of someone specifically).

I also like the fact he's selling courses.  The alternatives are that they do YT for a while but get no return and stop doing it, or they go full shill, or they somehow keep the channel going but you have no idea where their revenue or equipment to run it come from and so trust and credibility just erode over time.

I wish more people from the industry would create a YT channel where they share their knowledge for free as advertising for their own courses.  Imagine if Deakins etc had a YT channel where they did a 5-minute piece to camera per week!

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Agreed, great share. Now this video is just a single training session and not a narrative but only shot on the a6700 and 18-105 f4. Looks aesthetically pretty good. 

Saying "even the a6700 can look good" is sort-of like saying "even the cheapest Ferrari can go fast"..  the a6700 is a very modern camera and high-spec camera.

I can understand why you would say something like this though - you've been watching too much "camera YT" and have fallen prey to the two biggest hidden problems:

Older cameras are invisible on YT, despite being the majority of what is used
People that talk about cameras, or even mention them in the video or description so they're searchable, are using the most recent cameras, or relatively recent cameras.  The reason for this is simple - if you shot a video with the Sony a4000 then you're obviously not into the "tech" so it's not something you're thinking about , and putting that in the description isn't going to benefit you because no-one is searching for a4000 anymore.

However, the people making videos about anything else other than cameras might be using the a4000, the a3000 or their phone from 5 years ago.  I recently discovered a woodworking / renovation channel I like shoots with a C100, which records 24Mbps 1080p but his YT uploads are in 4K and the image is basically flawless.  It's over a decade old and you can get entire setups with lenses batteries etc for $500 or so if you snag a deal.

The camera body is the most discussed film-making item, but is the least important
Go watch almost any video that talks about camera equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera body is less important than the lenses or tripods etc.  Watch and video about film-making equipment in a balanced way and they'll  tell you that the camera rig is less important than lighting or cinematography etc.  Watch and video about technical film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that equipment is less important than location choice, production design, hair & makeup, etc..  Watch and video about creative film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the technical stuff is important to get right, but is far less important than writing, casting, acting and directing, etc.

So...  the camera body is the least important item in the least important sub-category of the least important sub-category of film-making.