kye

Great video by one of Andrews favourite YT channels: It's 50 minutes, but when it ended I was so entertained I thought it would only have been half-way through and I would have loved for them to go deeper still. Great stuff, and answered many many questions people have, and many of the questions people don't know enough to ask! The sample footage from the f0.7 lens was particularly interesting.

I thought it was cool. TBH I can barely watch equipment reviews any more as I find them too formulaic and too dull. Yours are on the better end of that spectrum, along with presenters like Kai W who keeps things light and entertaining. I'm coming from a different perspective. I'm not 'in love' with the anamorphic look and I find it to be much more hype than substance. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely salivate over gorgeous images, Peaky Blinders, The Crown, The Expanse etc all look spectacular. Then when lens reviews come out and they rave about this anamorphic look, followed by minutes of talking-head footage not shot with the lens that may as well be them reading the spec sheet, then 20s of derivative B-roll with the lens that whispers "anamorphic look" while simultaneously screaming "EITHER I DIDN'T GET PAID ENOUGH TO SHOOT NICE LOOKING FOOTAGE OR I DON'T KNOW HOW". These videos are basically useless because: I can read the spec sheet for myself thank you The amateur home b-roll of un-lit, un-composed, barely-graded footage does nothing to show me the potential of the lens What I liked about this video is that it wasn't the above, it had a go of making something, it held my attention for the whole video, it showed off the anamorphic look far more than most other "I accidentally hit record" sample footage in other reviews. Your videos where you've gone out and shot at sunset or at night are both visually nice and also useful, most don't even make that much effort. Could it have been better? Sure. Could it have been worse? Yes - at least he did something. The name of the channel is "Make Art Now" and it was art - most reviews are the minimum requirements for a pay check. It's art. I can tell because he tried something and some people didn't like it. TBH, that's something that's sorely lacking from YouTube camera discussions.

I suspect it's pretty unique to there, and probably to Silicone Valley (and maybe a few other pockets too). I don't imagine it's like that here in Australia either. It does make sense from a risk perspective though, when you're making an investment the rider who has ridden a horse but fell off badly might still be a better rider than someone who has never ridden before.

It was. Integrity is hard to find and he seems to have it in spades. It's well known in start-up businesses that not every idea works and not every business can sustain itself, and this is taken into account. After having built a business that lasted 9 years there will be a lot of people who will see that achievement and it will help him in the next company he wants to start. Someone who has gone bankrupt once has learned one more lesson about what not to do than someone who has never tried, or has just been lucky.

Pick two or three of those focal lengths and buy quality lenses instead of trying to buy 9 cheap and poor quality ones. Then go film something. Even better yet, buy one really nice lens, then go film things and never look back and never take it off your camera.

I've seen a number of the higher production quality "shows" record the stream from their camera so they get the benefits of being able to do something live, but then get a much higher quality image for when the final thing is published. Obviously that requires transfer of files, editing to replace the compressed version, but it certainly creates a nicer finished product. I don't know what tech they used to do it, but it sure is obvious when they do!

How do you find the Micro vs the P4K in the new 2.6K mode? The new 2.6k mode gives a similar crop factor and many were wondering if the new mode would give the organic look of the Micro and P2K. I picked up a Micro earlier this year myself, and the images certainly are nice, although as @BTM_Pix said, the footage is RAW, but so is the shooting experience!

I think a bunch of people might be a little surprised that the film-makers that feel this the least will be the people who create content in their own home studios. This means YouTube, but also people that create paid content such as courses and other in-house productions behind paywalls. Film-making was a team sport until it wasn't. People might also learn how to get decent audio and video of themselves, although judging from this mornings virtual team meeting in my corporate day-job, maybe not....

Well, this is impressive.. Not many anamorphics make me want the anamorphic look, but this one was a little different. Great video.

Choosing and setting up cameras is possibly the easy part, it's the uploading, distribution and use of the footage that will be challenging. This is for a few reasons: If you're recording a decent amount then the files will be large (an hour of footage is likely to be 25Gb+ from each camera) That can be reduced by compressing the footage at your end before uploading, but that's a lot of exporting so will take hours of render time on any reasonably priced computer Did you want the different angles of the footage to be used in a synchronised way? ie, someone looking at themselves from multiple angles. If so, they will have to find and synchronise the footage themselves, or you will have to do it before uploading. Either way it's a bit of work to align them. On the plus side, if they are only looking at the footage to study their form or for their personal improvement then the angles and lighting and stuff won't matter so much, whereas for the normal way that people shoot (where they want it to look spectacular) then that involves all kinds of other aspects that aren't required of reference footage.

Fantastic! Not only did the sock-reveal hit the beat perfectly, but the fact it stayed serious only extended the enjoyment. The ending was predictable (did you consider the puppet killing the guy?), but it was very well executed. Bravo!

Faster yes... lots of people make similar comments about films in this vein too!

Oh, I don't know... I think it depends on the operator: https://lithub.com/the-painting-that-took-22-years-to-finish/

I love that the BTS is a painting. Oil on canvas has the longest exposure time of any visual medium available I think..

That's quite impressive and certainly shows where the tech can go. Do you know of systems that will work with multiple angles and switch automatically? The Mevo seems good for a plug-n-play home or gaming setup but especially with its 1080p sensor isn't good enough for anything more than that. Something that can have a few HDMI inputs, or even has a few of those integrated cameras that talk to each other would be very interesting.

How are you guys feeling about live switching vs editing? I'm not a very experienced editor by and means, but I know enough to get the impression that live-switching (real-time editing) is a different skillset than editing in an NLE. Also continuity editing multiple angles of the same scene is different to something like a narrative where you might be skipping around a bit in time, so that's another factor.

You are misinterpreting Juans video and confusing yourself. Resolve retains all values, even when they are pushed outside the legal ranges. Please open Resolve and do the following: Pull in a test clip Node 1: Adjust curves so that you make the image very bright and really really clipped Node 2: Adjust curves so that you darken the clip so the clip comes back into range You will see by doing that test that even through the first node pushed the clip very far above the white point (100% brightness) that the data was still there and re-appears when the second node pulls the levels back down into the legal range. Juans video on the URSA Mini is talking about many advanced concepts and he uses his words somewhat loosely which can be misinterpreted if you're not 100% clear on the order of operations in Resolve and what each operation does. He moves very quickly and if that video was made by any other YouTuber it would have been 40 minutes as they clumsily explained each button-press and what was going on, whereas Juan just assumes you've got the knowledge and can keep up. If you are going to look at Juans videos then I'd suggest doing what I did, and starting with the most basic ones, study them like you're at college/university and like there will be a test on them. Recreate each node tree he shows, and play with it. Read about each colour space and gamma curve that he mentions. Read the Resolve manual for the Colour page. If you didn't study the highest maths in high-school then go and learn the maths behind Linear and Log, learn what cartesian and polar coordinates systems are and how they work (RGB is cartesian and HSL is polar). Read about human vision and hearing and understand the relationship between the physics of light (Linear), the mathematics of Log (ln(2)) and the perceptual experience of light and sound (ln(10)) and how they relate to Dynamic Range. It took me months to be able to wrap my head around what he's talking about in that video and I have a computer science degree and spent a decade in audio where I was reading about everything in the signal path including psychoacoustics, which there are strong parallels between the signal path of light and the signal path of sound, even deep into our perceptions.

The colour science that manufacturers have created isn't as magic as most people think it is. Yes, it's very nice, but you don't have to spend that much time grading to learn how to make well shot footage look pretty good even if you're only using manual controls. Yes, you'd have a pretty hard time replicating the CS from Canon or Arri, but getting 80% of the way there can be done just by shooting well and doing a few basic adjustments.

I think so. This post (https://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/lab-processes-before-the-digital-intermediate.12923/#post-129058) from Marc Wielage describes a workflow that doesn't seem to include a conversion: Assuming I am interpreting correctly, Marc may well use a conversion to get the files into a log format and then goes manual from there. HLG is a log format but has a pretty extreme curve so that might not be the best curve to start with. Having said that though, here's some tests. GH5 HLG image with no processing: GH5 HLG image with CST (rec2020/rec2100 HLG to rec709): GH5 HLG image with contrast, saturation, and a slight hue rotation of all colours to get skin tones in range: Are they the same? No. Is the manual one nicer? Not really But you can't deny that it's pretty similar to the CST. They're just different. As a more general comment, this test took be about 10 minutes and that included finding some music to put on and finding the project with these test shots in them. Before you make a statement or ask a question, ask yourself if it's about something you can actually test yourself, and if you can, try it out and see what actually happens. Grading is so easy like this because you don't need to actually go shoot anything, you just fire up Resolve / FCPX / PP and click a few buttons and see what happens

The video was on YT, but appears to have gone now. I remember it well. What I was talking about was that you can grade using technical transforms, or just with the tools. Juan is obviously a fan of the technical conversions, but there are other more old-school pro colourists who have straight-out told me they just grade LOG footage by using contrast/pivot/saturation and then the LGG wheels. What Juan was talking about in the Linny rebuild video was about being as accurate as possible in emulating something, but the guys who grade freehand are just looking for a nice image using the motto "if it looks good then it is good". Colour grading can be as simple or complex as you like, and I've heard that most footage shot well just needs a WB, contrast adjustment, and primaries, and then everything (including skin-tones) will just drop right in place.

@Jimbo Great stuff! My criticisms are more general in nature, and to a certain extent everything about it could have been "better", but I think there are a couple of huge caveats that need to be talked about. The first is limited time. 8/8/8 hours is a huge restriction on something like this, and everything about the final result was of a good standard. Not great, but solid. The editing could have been tighter, the shots could have been more varied, camera angles refined, sound more natural, VFX improved, etc, but for such an extremely short process these are all things that I'm sure you could improve given a lot more time. With the time limits involved I think you did very well. The second is that this is not an easy piece to shoot. What I mean is that the acting skill required was significant. I thought your brothers performance was quite good, but not great, but this is a world away from an easy role. It called for the main character to be distraught, drunk, partly incoherent, (literally) suicidal, and completely overwhelmed with grief. These are the emotions that separate the great actors from the spectacular award-winning actors, so combining the fact that there wasn't a month of rehearsals followed by a month of shooting I think you did very well. I've been on shoots where the main actor absolutely nailed the monologue on take 27 and that's the one that ended up as the crown clip in their showreel. Of course, this occurred at 3am when we'd been shooting for 6 hours and they'd also worked that day in their day job and part of the emotional delivery was sheer exhaustion on their part. We can always do better, but one of the main things you achieved was actually finishing it and publishing it. That's harder than it sounds

This stuff is different.. these people tend to actually prepare!

I've seen a few setups that I thought (?) ran of iPads and used speech recognition to scroll automatically? it's not that difficult a technical challenge these days. I didn't look at them in full detail as I'm not in the market for one, but I do remember thinking that it was a solved challenge and wasn't that difficult to get a good setup.

I've seen lots of live streams pop up in my YT feed, which is normally much higher percentage of edited content. I must admit I'm not a fan. Watching someone read the chat in real-time mixed in with "is this on" and then deliver unrehearsed unfocused content just makes me angry that the person chose to waste my time instead of spending theirs editing. Professional live streams are like TV talk shows or the news and require large amounts of hours of prep and a crew of multiple people. Most streaming online is like watching the dailies from a set that never hit stop between takes. The minimum number of people required for a professional live stream is three: someone to control the tech someone to present the content someone to manage the chat and feed good questions to the presenter so we don't spend minutes at a time watching them read the chat They also require a huge amount of preparation - to the extent that the presenter can deliver the content with crystal clarity and almost zero mistakes.