kye

Oh, I don't know... the people who are wasting their life watching TV and movies are the ones (indirectly) paying your salary. I wouldn't be too critical of their life choices!!! Besides, if we only compare the number of people whose devotion to computer games is about computer games themselves, rather than the number of people whose devotion really lies to avoiding the rest of their life, or devoted to hanging out with their friends, or addicted to the thrill of crushing their opponents, or to getting stoned and amusing themselves, (etc etc..) then that ratio would be quite different. Some people got where they are by running towards it, and some got there by running away from something else. You can't sensibly expect jobs for everyone who got somewhere because that was the least worst option they found, so I'd automatically eliminate them from consideration.

The camera is basically the LAST thing you should upgrade. First: Lighting - get some basic lights and learn how to use them Set design - get some much crazier lights and learn about set design - music videos go all out on this so don't hold back Composition - learn about framing, camera angles, camera movement Directing - learn how to work with talent to get the best performances from them - writing and even performing music are very different to knowing how to look good in an extreme close-up Business - making a good film isn't the same thing as making money Yourself.... learn about colour theory, learn how to edit ('cut on the beat' is one style - learn 15 other styles), learn to colour grade, learn about in-camera special effects and only then start to think about camera equipment... or, at least, don't think about spending more than a few hundred. A good way to be practical about it is to only use money you earned from shooting videos to invest in more equipment.

In a way yes, and in a way no. A close friend of mine from uni was computer game mad, and ended up switching from a Commerce degree to Computer Science in order to work in the gaming industry. He wrote his own platform game in his spare time (this was the late 90s so he was writing it from scratch - C and assembler) and used that plus his huge amount of hours playing games to get a job. Last I heard he was a gaming programmer for one of the huge gaming names (can't remember the name, but huge multinational). The idea that being obsessed with something for a long time leading to a career in that industry isn't a far off fantasy - you can get a career in anything if you're passionate enough and willing to persevere. Besides - the gaming industry is way larger than you might think, and you don't need to be technical either.

I currently run Resolve on a MBP and have upgraded to an eGPU. Computer is: 2.9 GHz Intel Core i5, with 16 GB ram eGPU is: SAPPHIRE AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB Resolve splits the processing between CPU and GPU and I think the biggest challenge is getting the balance between both of those. When I edit the 5K h265 files from the GH5 it can only play them back (with no processing) at around 15fps. It's way less without the eGPU connected, but when I'm getting that 15fps the GPU isn't maxed out, it's actually the CPU that is at capacity. The behaviour is similar for the 4K h264 files. I've spoken with BM support and they said that the AMD hardware decoding of the files is pretty new, and so much of the processing is done by the CPU and not the GPU. I was planning on upgrading to the new AMD Radeon 5700 but considering the 470 isn't the bottleneck in my system there isn't really much point AFAIK. Now, if I start applying lots of effects to the footage, lots of that processing happens in the GPU, but all the decoding and other bits will still happen in the CPU, so it's about what is the limitation in your own workflow. If you are grading the footage within an inch of its life with many effects then you will need more GPU and if not then it'll be more about CPU. and the PITA part is that Resolve works great with external GPUs, and gets better when you add additional ones too, but you can't add an external CPU, and that's my current bottleneck. I'd encourage you to think about this as a processing pipeline and you're looking to put your budget into the things that will be the bottleneck for your workflow. I'd suggest doing lots of reading and try to pull together the little snippets of info from forums and YT videos etc into a (hopefully) coherent picture so that you can make sure you get enough capacity for how you work and the software you use.

LOL, the autocomplete in my brain got me with that one. I mean.. how many Calebs do we need in camera reviewing?

Caleb Pike has hit "peak camera"... Me, not so much 😎😎😎

Can't stop watching this.... YT is an amazing place.... Imagine the brief for traditional media - "seedy-looking moustache-clad man makes a funk song and dancing in his apartment while naked except for a bright yellow dressing gown". Oh, hang on a minute, that's on the same level as basically every children's TV show. Nevermind.

Interesting technique I hadn't seen before....

35mm f1.8 FF from a Japanese lens maker...

Perhaps. Of course, drama and tech aren't exclusive, and drama drives views! Totally. If you are doing a makeup channel then you need good skin tones, so it has to be ARRI.

Yeah, that can happen. I think these instances were much more informed purchases and they knew what they were getting into. I was more thinking of the people that make the "I just spend $100k on a cinema camera!!" type posts. The main example I can think of is Jon Olssen, but I've seen others around the place. People that have heaps of money, ask themselves what the "best" or "most expensive" camera is and then they see the amazing specs and then want one, but find it's too heavy for the out-and-about content that typically they shoot themselves or only have a single person crew.

Yep... although the parallels with people buying Alexas to shoot home videos aren't there, because Alexas are big, heavy, and complicated. Cameras are a funny thing - I shoot family travel videos and the best camera for me to do that (even now) is the GH5... regardless of price. Ie, if I was infinitely rich then it is still the best camera I could buy. Even the super rich YT people that you see buying RED 8K cameras typically run-n-gun them for a bit but end up back to the GH5 or A7iii and the cine camera was never heard from again.

I remember being pretty impressed by the huge suit in this video.... Both how ridiculous it is, while also looking very natural Even when he dances in it..

A small insert on the power and charging setup The Outsider has to film his off-grid outdoor log cabin builds: Essentially he's got a solar panel, power station (battery / power management thingy) and an electric blanket to keep all the batteries warm. This type of setup is common for off-grid and #vanlife vehicle dwelling folks, normally minus the electric blanket.

Me too. In fact, when I bought the GH5, one of the things that made me choose it was that it removed the equipment as being a potential limitation on what I am able to create. Or, to put it another way, the GH5 is better than I am in every possible way, and I think may never put a limit on my ability to create. Now, I may buy new cameras in the future, (in fact, I will have news very soon) but I will never be buying a new camera because the GH5 is a limitation on my work that I want to progress beyond. I won't speak for other people, and certainly in Hollywood and the upper echelons of talent, the GH5 might be quite limiting to the artistic vision that others have. But for me, it's like buying a Porsche 4WD and only driving it up the street to the shops to buy milk.

I think the GH5 is a sleeper camera, along with many others like the UMP, C100, etc. These cameras are good enough quality so the images easily meet a professional standard, aren't fancy or odd enough to be bragged about, and aren't used on large productions that have interviews with the cinematographer. People talk when someone shoots a feature film on an iPhone because the perception is it's not good enough. People talk when someone shoots a project with a camera that is fancy or odd, or when the camera doesn't traditionally suit the project. and if a film has a huge budget and wins awards then everyone gets interviewed and there are four paragraphs about the lens choices and the phrase 'colour science' gets mentioned. But when someone shoots a documentary / ad / training course / low-budget series / short / or indy feature with a sensible and capable camera, there's no press about it. That's the GH5, XT-3, UMP, C100, etc etc. I would be very curious to see what percentage of all edited content consumed is shot on these types of cameras. I think it might be a quarter. But that's the point - we'd never know, because it's not remarkable. Therefore no remarks are made, and we don't hear about it. These are the cameras of the people quietly working outside the limelight and delivering good quality content.

Yeah, it certainly looks chunky! I suspect that there are limitations to how small a body can be if it's got a larger sensor in it like the S1H does, but the MFT form factor works pretty well with the combination of a body that's got nice ergonomics but isn't too heavy.

There will always be fascination / confusion / derision of new things that people don't understand. An older work colleague of mine was "having trouble" with her youngest son in his later years of school because as graduation came steadily closer he didn't seem to be motivated to do anything, didn't seem to have a career path worked out, and did ok at school but wasn't getting great marks. All he wanted to do was to play computer games. He started university in something he was only mildly interested in and was still just focused on computer games. My colleague loved him dearly but thought that basically he was going to have a directionless life that he would basically just fritter away. One day he entered a competition to review a computer game run by a very large gaming site, and out of many thousands of entries he took first place, won several thousand dollars, and was offered the opportunity to write another review. They liked his review, published it, and he wrote another, and is now a computer game reviewer and gets paid a wage that is pretty good compared to other entry-level jobs straight out of school. The interesting thing about it is that what set him apart from the rest of the competition is that his review included comparisons to loads of other computer games, making it a really interesting and rich review that would be entertaining to new players and seasoned gamers alike, and there is no way that he would have been able to write like that without having played computer games for hours every day for the better part of a decade. My colleague was incredibly relieved that he'd found a career, but more importantly had completely changed their opinion of him. They used to think of "my poor son, he might not amount to much" but now they were hugely proud as "he beat thousands of other applicants and is now getting decent income in a highly competitive field and doing what he loves".

EOSHD blog got a mention from Kai....

Is this the point in the conversation where a futurist mentions a dozen occupations that no one has heard of, everyone laughs and rolls their eyes at how the consultant has made up BS, and then the consultant produces a report showing they're the fastest growing occupations according to some reputable survey company, and then everyone is reminded that "truth is stranger than fiction"... And just in case anyone thinks I'm just making up things, that happened to me and I was one of the people in the audience looking at the job titles and thinking WTF?!?!? I guess if life wasn't so strange then there would be less awesome stuff to point our cameras at.. 😆😂🤣

Basic business Return On Investment rationale would suggest that they stop production of lenses that are no longer profitable, or they think are making less money than if they forced people to buy the newer mount. I'd imagine some lenses would be stopped immediately and might only have been in production for completeness of the lineup or other strategic reasons, and others would gradually dwindle until it was in their interests to just stop the whole EF lineup altogether, but they might be continuing to make the classic EF lenses for some time. For example I'd imagine that the 24-70 f2.8 and equivalents might be pretty popular and even if no new customers were getting into the system, there might be enough pros dropping them or wearing them out that there would be a steady demand. One thing that amazes me is that productions can have a movie budget of millions of dollars for a film and not think much of it, and then they talk about crash cameras or various other equipment getting destroyed and my brain kind of twinges with the thought that someone would buy something like a Sigma FP or other equally capable camera and deliberately destroy it, but that's the economics of the situation. and that means that even if camera ownership doesn't go up, for every time that happens, a new one much be manufactured and sold.

Great spotting... but how did they film Dr Who before the P4K was released??????

Great idea. Ken Rockwell has done a similar thing with this reviews, and it's really useful because he doesn't forget anything, so if you want to know if a lens has focus breathing or how much it weighs etc then you know that if he's reviewed it then it'll be listed. For that reason I will often see if he's reviewed something before I google for other reviews which may or may not specify something, so I think it would help the site

Thanks @IronFilm that’s really helpful. Definitely G6 over G5, despite the price difference. I’ll have another look over the other options mentioned when I get home, but this has all been very helpful. Thanks all!

Yeah, ok, that's a pain. My shooting ratios are pretty high, but my standby vs record time is absolutely huge, so that's a big deal. I guess power management and low-power circuitry has come a long way in the interim. The G6 is looking pretty good, but I'm still curious about the G5 and where it sits. It's something like half the cost, and cheaper is definitely better, so that's appealing!