kye

Also also, having multiple nodes allows you to have parallel processing of the image, for example you can take a key of an object, split it and the rest of the image into two separate paths though the node graph, and for each one you can have it pass through multiple nodes, before they get combined again.

Also, I forgot that multiple nodes allows you to do things like layer adjustments and parallel nodes, which allow all the kind of effects that having layers in an image editor gives you.

That's what I thought as well. It doesn't directly talk about your setup, but there are a bunch of articles on Pugets website talking about what benefits you get from having multiple GPUs, like this one: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/DaVinci-Resolve-14-GPU-Scaling-Core-i9-vs-Xeon-W-vs-Dual-Xeon-SP-1121/ Of course, buying a second GPU also means buying Resolve, so it's more of an investment. I found with my system that the CPU was the bottleneck until I added an absolute ton of processing, so I had to upgrade to my new laptop. You can use the Activity Monitor application under Utilities to see the load on your system (go to Window and enable CPU History and GPU History then go do things in Resolve and see what got maxed out). I would definitely upgrade to Resolve Studio. IIRC the free version of resolve only lets you have a single node? If that's the case then having the ability to have more than one node let's you do a few killer things: Choose what order your effects get applied in by separating them into different nodes You can start to work with selective adjustments where you take a key and adjust only certain ranges of colour (eg, skin tones) or certain areas within the image (eg, track a moving window on someones face) Apply multiple OFX plugins Use Temporal Noise Reduction that compares multiple frames to do NR instead of blurring just one frame at a time

Agreed. I should do a follow-up with different scenes, but including some landscapes at infinity focus. Having a composition where lots of stuff is out of focus really helps any compression algorithm along, so having lots of detail is much harder. Would you suggest a shot with lots of stuff moving? That's not that easy to find, although I guess the ocean would be pretty good for lots of random motion at a far focus distance.

I focused by focusing at f0.95, then stopping down several stops. I think I shot at either f2.8 or f4 (stopped down 3-4 stops). I then shot in whatever mode the camera was in 4K / 2K, if the camera was in 2K then I would wait a few seconds then shoot again, then change to the other mode and shoot. I shot handheld standing up, so slight focus changes are possible. In post I used a random number generator to decide which of the 2K shots got Super Scaled and which was kept unprocessed, and also on the sequence of how the 2K SS / 2K / 4K appeared in the video. I've done tests comparing how much lenses sharpen up when stopping down (closing down by 2-3 stops is normally close to their sharpest) and I compared the Voiglander 42.5mm to the Helios 58mm + 0.7x SB (41mm) and the Konica Hexanon 40mm and all were similar sharpness when stopped down, on MFT at least. Once again, if it's only visible by direct comparison of identical shots then it won't matter because I don't get the option of watching a YouTube video shot in 4K and then watching the same video shot in 2K and then up-scaled.

You never heard it from me..... 😳😁😁

Actually, for it to be a real test, I should have shot different scenes altogether.

Between 4K YouTube and 1080p YouTube? Hell yeah - 4K is 10Mbps and 1080p is what... 0.1? 😂😂😂 lol about Safari. Maybe I should do a blind test for safari viewers between 360p and 1080p! I literally use safari for all browsing except media consumption 🙂

And the answer is....? If you can't tell without a back to back test, then you won't be able to tell when someone shoots something in one resolution and you never get to see it in another.

Seeing the results of my tests, I the logic will be transitive. ie, when people start watching in 8K, then it might be time to start shooting in 4K. Of course, people watching in 8K probably won't be watching on screens twice the diagonal size, so it will actually matter much less. Agreed. One of the things that is interesting to most (but not you as you've moved to shooting RAW) is that to have a 4K pipeline your computer has to decode and process 4 times the pixels. By putting 4K files on a 1080p timeline the computer would still have to decode 4K but then would only have to process 1080p. Anyone who is wanting really nice intermediaries can shoot 4K compressed, and then render 1080p proxies in an ALL-I format, then they only need to decode 1080p and process 1080p. I used to think that somehow the 4K quality was visible and that if I had some sort of 1080p processing along the way then it would be like I rendered to 240p and then was exporting at 4K again but the weak link would screw everything up. Turns out that the weak link is actually after your entire workflow, so no point keeping all the quality (and paying for the processing of it) in order to just have it crunched after you have delivered it. I remember when 4K was a huge deal and people were beside themselves about how much storage and processing power it would take for 4K. Hell, I remember buying the first 1080p panel that cost less than a reliable second-hand car, and it was great, but it would be two computer upgrade cycles before my computer was powerful enough to play any 1080p videos! Now we've gotten computers powerful enough to play 4K we naturally assume that it's easy and therefore not a requirement. Then we lump on all these effects and processing in post and spend thousands of dollars on something that we "don't give much thought to". Turns out it all doesn't matter, for YT that is.

Yes, this is a big claim. Allow me to explain how I came to this conclusion, and prove it to you. First off, the evidence. This is a video containing 5 compositions that were each shot with either 2K, 2K (and processed in post), or 4K. It should be easy to tell the difference - so see if you can tell! Not so obvious is it.... In the video I encourage you to download the video and pixel peep, please do. I have pixel peeped the shots directly on the timeline in Resolve, in the output file I uploaded and the YouTube file I downloaded. It took me zooming in to 200% and finding the place in the video with the finest details, to be able to see the differences, and I know which is which! Now, the details, to show that the test is valid. I shot each scene with the GH5 and 42.5mm Voigtlander (stopped down several stops) in either: 4K 422 10-bit ALL-I 400Mbps mode 2K 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps mode (with Resolves Super Scale) 2K 422 10-bit ALL-I 200Mbps mode (with no processing) I exported the timeline to an RGB Uncompressed 10-bit file (65GB - 6,500Mbps!!) and compressed that file using ffmpeg to a 4K 10-bit 422 IPB 225Mbps h265 file, which was then uploaded. I tried uploading an 10-bit 422 ALL-I file but YT only interpreted that as 1080p. YouTube then compressed that 225Mbps file to the pathetic 10.42Mbps file you see if you watch the above YT video in 4K. As far as I can tell, there's nothing I could have done differently to get a higher quality result out of YouTube. But what about other platforms or delivery methods? This is just YT. If you pay for Vimeo, or deliver via any other mechanism that has a higher bitrate than YT this thread should make you feel better about that! But 4K is useful for things like cropping in post! Yes, and this test doesn't apply to doing that. I've tested how much you can upscale an image without it being visible in another thread / test (spoiler, it's something like 150%) but let's leave that aside for now. But YouTube supports 6K and 8K and ...... Sure, and when people start watching YouTube with their 6K and 8K TVs then they'll start to benefit from that. Until then, they're getting the 10Mbps file above. Are you saying that a 4K camera is not required? There are advantages to having a >1080p sensor. Downscaled video is much nicer, and there are times when shooting in 4K or higher can have advantages..... So, when IS it useful to shoot in >1080p? Lots of times: Cropping (significantly) in post Overcapture for things like stabilisation If your cameras 1080p isn't that great (which is most cameras TBH) etc. I have nothing against 4K or higher resolutions except that I think most people are making their life harder than it should be thinking that they're somehow getting better results when for many people it simply doesn't matter if they shoot in 4K or not. This was me. I fell for the hype, and have gradually been doing tests like this to actually see for myself what is true and what matters - rather than just believing the marketing hype from the camera industry. Ultimately, the lesson here is that what matters is that you publish in 4K, not that you shoot in it. Let the questions and comments (and flame wars from resolution fanboys and fangirls) begin...

I disagree. There seems to be this assumption that if they were making it that somehow we'd hear about it. As a counter-example, take the BM UMP 12K. We had no idea that a 12K camera was coming. I know BM isn't a company that has lots of people chasing rumours, and the UMP isn't exactly an internet darling, but it came literally from no-where. If BM can keep a 12K camera under wraps before launch, there's nothing to say that Panasonic can't keep a GH6 under wraps too, if they chose to. Absolutely. Yes. It's about features. The GH5 is still as awesome today as it was when it came out (and got the firmware updates). The bar has been raised, sure, but it wouldn't take much to put a GH6 right back up there with the current crop.

Good post. How would you say that lens baby products differ from a normal tilt/shift lens? My impression was the lens baby look had character on top of the t/s properties, but I'm curious to know what your impressions are. I've never really used either, but I understand how a t/s lens works and I've seen a bunch of lens baby images.

To second what @ntblowz said, most people I know that are successful in investing are in it for the long term. There's a saying that if you're going to own stock for a decade or more, any time is the right time to buy. There is a pretty widely held belief that there is a strong 10-year cycle that the market follows, and so the idea is to plot a 10-year moving average for the whole market (eg, look at the indexes) and whenever the current market position is below that trend-line then that's the right time to buy.

Just remember... the first hit is free 🙂

If we're going to cherry-pick the best examples, then you're all wasting your time not going to the casino....

....and after the bailouts stop, gold.

It would be interesting to see how they measure. I've said all this before, but I think people gloss over things a lot of the time, so I'll share some links again. People are very critical of the Voigtlanders and consider them to be inferior because of how soft they are at apertures that other lenses don't offer. People then seem to extrapolate this to them being inferior to the alternate slower offerings, and in fact, this is false and it's just a lack of education on their behalf, because the Voigts are similar or better than the other MFT contenders at a similar aperture. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/01/finally-some-m43-mtf-testing-25mm-prime-lens-comparison/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/wide-angle-micro-43-imatest-results/ Of course, people can always look at these and then react with "oh, ok, so they're sharper or almost as sharp in the centre as the competitors that 5 minutes ago I was saying kill them completely, but look at how the sharpness falls off at the edges". This is true. If you value edge-to-edge sharpness then that's great, don't buy these. Being fully manual and with easily de-clickable apertures, they're not really photo lenses either, they're really video lenses. So if we're going to start talking about video lenses then we need to change our entire frame-of-reference because sharpness is the holy grail in photography but not in cinematography. If you haven't already, go read up about the lenses that are lusted after and are the go-to Hollywood lenses. Then go find tests for them and see how they really perform. Once again, lensrentals is a spectacular resource here. The tests of the Zeiss CP.2s and Super Speeds, of Canon and others, reveals they're not that sharp, and they fall-off drastically in the corners. Have a scroll through and see how the graphs look: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-mtf-charts-zeiss-cine-lenses/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-xeen-and-schneider/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/06/just-the-cinema-lens-mtf-charts-canon-and-sigma/ I think it's really just a sign of how things are on the internet, people judge at face value and don't actually look to see if their beliefs are true, even when there is data available. And perhaps the bigger challenge we have on camera forums, we idolise how Hollywood has done things for the last decade (shoots 1080p with soft lenses) and then immediately disregard that and start banging on about how everyone needs 6K at a minimum and that lenses should be judged by how sharp they are. When I joined the forums I was no different. I wanted 4K and sharp lenses because I'd just come from shooting stills and I'd recorded 1080p with my Canon DSLR and found it way too soft and didn't realise that the fuzzy mess was Canon-related not 1080p-related. My journey of learning video has benefitted the most from un-learning the falsehoods that were already there, rather than to learn new things in addition to what I knew.

Thanks. That's interesting that the LGG colour wheels are more of a 'look' tool rather than a 'correction' tool if that makes sense. I seem to have become allergic to the orange/teal grade and have no desire to use it on my projects, and I think of all the grades that do a tint-vs-luma style adjustment that the O/T grade is probably the most natural, so I think I'm even less likely to grade using any other colour combination. I'm still working out what looks I like, but I'm making steady progress. I discovered DCTL over the weekend and that's a fascinating thing. I suspect that with that ability I may end up developing a DCTL for any adjustments I want to do that Resolve doesn't have an easy out-of-the-box solution for and then probably just grade under my custom one of those.

I find that one of the worst words that a person can use, both for their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of others around them, is the word "should". We should all just get along. We should all do X, Y, Z. I find it to be problematic for two main reasons: It is the opposite of acceptance. So you found that some people like Tony Northrup - are you going to relax and accept that? No, you'll hang onto the idea that the world should be different. Holding onto how things should be in the face of what is is equivalent to that saying about resentment and how holding onto resentment is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. You can't possibly think that what you say here in this thread is somehow going to change, literally, anything about what you're talking about, right? It is pure hubris. So you find yourself at odds with someone else, a group of people, a way of thinking, the world, the laws of nature, whatever it is. Should is the idea that somehow you are more qualified, knowledgable, intelligent, caring, virtuous, or whatever, than they are and so somehow your ideas are more worthy of shaping the world than the ones you don't agree with. I'm not going to pass judgement on this, maybe you are right, I'm not going to fall into the same trap and take the line that I know better than you about how much should-ed-ness you would benefit from. However, a good thing to contemplate when you go to say should is to think about what you're really saying. I have found that when I've backed away from the judgements of should then the fight seems to lessen in my life. I no longer have the friction with people that I used to over certain issues, and even YT seems to calm down. It's not that I don't see clickbait-style titles or thumbnails any more, although they're much less, but what I find is that I'm not emotionally triggered about them - they're just the same as an ad on TV telling me to buy Joe's Paint Stripper. I don't care about Paint Stripper, I don't automatically think that Joes is somehow the better paint stripper, but I'm neither going to eliminate Joes as a company I would buy, nor fire-bomb their headquarters in protest of being told what to do.

Great looking setup! I'm curious how much you use the colour part of the colour wheels in comparison to the levels (rings) of the wheels? I have the Beatstep mod and it gives the levels for LGG as dials, which is awesome, and it occurs to me that I generally don't use the LGG colour controls that much, but I'm wondering if it's just that the convenience (or lack of it due to no 2d controllers) has prevented me from using them, or if it's something else. I'm rarely called to adjust the colour of various luma ranges differently to others, so using temp/tint seems to work for me. Of course, I'm still just getting used to the LGG levels and have only recently realised how good they are for grading footage - so much more powerful than I thought they'd be considering how simple they are.

I suspect that you might be right about that one. I suspect not dead, but probably not in the world leading features ages either. Fundamentally, focal length is determined by sensor size, and lens size is determined by focal length, so MFT will always have an advantage of being a physically smaller but still interchangeable lens mount where there are already lenses available. In that sense there might be continuing budget lines from Panasonic. They could keep on making cheaper cameras but with better features still using the tech that already exists and is gradually decreasing in price.

I just looked up the definition of clickbait, and wikipedia (at least) says that it's marketing that has some kind of deceptive element to it. That wasn't my original thought process, I was thinking of clickbait as simply that - bait for clicks. I guess to me the idea that it involves deception is kind of simplistic in a way, and perhaps the crux of what we're talking about. So let's say that clickbait is deceptive marketing, which I'm happy to do if that's the definition that is broadly used. The trick is then telling deceptive marketing from the marketing that delivers. ie, if someone posted a video and had the title "We broke up" and had a sad faced person on the thumbnail, and the crying emoji, is that clickbait? Well the answer is - you can't tell until you watch the video. Maybe it is, but maybe it's not. Without having watched the video, all you can see is that it's sensationalist marketing, but you can't tell if it's clickbait. What this means is that it is logically impossible to not watch clickbait videos. Even a video that has a picture of a chair on it and the title "How to build a chair" might be clickbait - maybe the video isn't about how to make a chair, or maybe it's about how to make a chair but the quality of instruction is too poor to actually be instructive. I could go one step further then, and say that by saying "I don't click on clickbait thumbnails or titles" means that clickbait cannot be defined as deceptive, because by definition you can't tell if the video will deliver or not, and so in that sense, the use of the word in that kind of sentence must apply only to the style of the thumbnail and title, rather than how accurately they describe the content of the video. Id' suggest that if you're normally let down by videos that have that kind of appearance then you're particularly susceptible to whatever it is that they're pushing. I click on videos all the time that make claims in the title that could easily be left unfulfilled, but typically aren't. Here are the last few videos I watched as of right now - none were clickbait, but all claimed some kind of content: "how I created my youtube channel" "Pulp Fiction cinematography breakdowns | Part 2" "Slip and slide WITH A LOOP!! (World Record)" "It's yacht vacation time" "DIY porch swing frame" "Vietnam: the economy of the next decade?" All of these were phrased in such a way that made me click on them, and all of them had the potential to fail to deliver. agreed 🙂 In either way 🙂 I agree that it holds up a mirror to culture and society - absolutely. That same sense is what I was referring to when I said it speaks about the individual - it holds a mirror up the the individual as well. I'll admit that camera and videography channels seem to be particularly bad for sensationalist and deceptive titles and thumbnails, but the YT drama genre is probably way worse - I would imagine that all the typical human dramas that soap operas are made of make pretty good sensationalist titles. Mind you, I've watched my fair share of other genre videos that had more exciting titles than the content actually delivered, and vice versa. If I could find it, I'd link to the video of the machinist channel This Old Tony where he talks about machining in his home hobby shop, but managed to make drink come out my nose because of the various time travel references, in-jokes about other machinist channels and you tubers, and various other jokes of an extremely nerdy nature. It had the kind of title that would put a librarian to sleep. Maybe by having a boring title and not preparing me for a nasal-passage-related-incident then that video was also clickbait?

I love it when people criticise the Voigtlander lenses for being soft wide open. You know what every other MFT lens looks like at 0.95? This.

I think that what people think of YT says more about that person than it does about YT. Plenty of channels out there delivering great content and with no ad breaks either. Admittedly, most of the channels I watch have a Patreon, but typically those aren't promoted very hard. Judging the quality of content via the thumbnail is like judging the quality of the lighting in a film by the graphic art on the DVD case, back when we had them. Marketing is marketing and content is content. Just because someone is selling something doesn't mean what's being sold is rubbish. Every product that you ever loved was sold at one point with marketing. and when you say you don't like "clickbait" what you're really saying is you don't like "marketing".