kye

Good content for talking head vlogs is in the writing. Or, if you're a good communicator, in the ideas. As they say, content is king

Did you watch his other videos? He's obviously a pro, and his attitude in the Linny LUT video is hilarious - giving the LUT creators crap while casually explaining advanced colour concepts like they're something that is taught in primary school is a very entertaining mix. I can't wait for more. What stood out especially in the Log grading video above is that part about grading in Arri LogC and how you should use the Offset, Contrast and Pivot controls instead of Lift Gamma and Gain - I can almost feel how much I'm going to learn when he explains that!

I did have that thought when I was watching it. I watched a few tutorials on twixtor when I discovered Resolve basically has it built-in, and it was obvious that optical-flow time-stretching (what twixtor uses) is great for things that move proportionally, but absolutely awful when things move in front of other things. I guess embracing the softness of the effect and using it to your advantage is kind of like the Zen of film-making! In a sense that film has certain luxuries in run-and-gun film-making that other formats don't have - that's the ability to just select the good stuff in post and only use what works in the edit suite. If you're a wedding film-maker it wouldn't go down too well to not include key moments in the video, although now people are making 'highlight reels' there is more latitude for removing bad bits if there were technical issues.

@User What a wonderful video - I hadn't seen that one, thank you. Here's a similar one that I've seen that is also imperfect in quite pleasant ways: And to add to the Operator vs Camera theme of the thread - the above was shot in an iPhone5, so I don't think anyone will be rushing out to buy this magical hardware to get the look above! Fascinating - thank you. Not much has been spoken about lenses in this thread. I knew the Sigma 18-35 was a favourite but I've not heard it described like this! I contemplated buying it for my Canon 700D but after doing some tests of IQ I concluded that the codec was just too compressed for the kind of work I wanted to do. That lens still peaks my attention when it's mentioned, maybe in the future I'll make the decision to buy one and then work out what camera to put on the back of it I'd be interested in hearing your personal recipe. Not to copy it (which sounds like it would cost thousands of dollars in lenses!) but to see if there's anything in there I can learn from. Obviously if this is 'secret sauce' and you'd rather not share then no worries. On a personal note, I think I've made several strides in the last few days. Yesterday I found a wonderful combination between C-Log ETTR as recommended by @mercer (thank you again!) and the post workflow described by @Juan Melara in this video here: I was previously using the custom profile from the XC10 thread that was hammered out in response to finding the ghosting in C-Log from the temporal noise reduction they sneakily add at higher ISOs to bump their lab test scores. Unfortunately what that meant was that there were no LUTs or camera profiles available for me to use, so I was thrown into the deep end of Log grading in Resolve without a paddle, however shooting in C-Log and then using the above method gets wonderful punchy colours almost effortlessly, but is also flexible enough to correct for my inevitable exposure and white-balance issues. I've watched my body-weight in YouTube videos from amateurs showing workflows that seemed to work for them but never for me, or pros who did it and made it look easy with test footage shot without the problems that I encounter - none of them had a workflow even remotely like the one Juan uses above. And on top of that my investigation into YouTube and how to get nice looking video quality out of YouTube has paid off to the point where I now have a workflow without major issues (for the first time since buying the XC and Resolve!) so I'm pretty stoked about that. Now I think I just need to shoot more and gradually learn what I like

I've made some progress. On Mac, only Chrome supports VP9 (and therefore 2160p and above). Genyoutube supports 2160p, but downloads to webm format files, which is an open source format, that contains the VP9 stream. I've managed to convert the webm with VP9 into an uncompressed .PNG sequence, which can be loaded into Resolve. (uncompressed TIFFs don't work - not sure why). In Resolve I compared the original clip to the PNG sequence and there is a small difference, mostly highlights. I also compared the webm from the 4k YT video where I just uploaded the original MXF file from the camera, and saw the differences. I then removed the difference that the image sequence conversion created from the difference between the original MXF file and the converted webm file, and significantly boosted the video levels to get the below image. It should show the areas where the compression is damaging the original file. In theory I can do this for other uploads and then compare them. I can't get signal-to-noise ratios as it's not calibrated, but I can get relative values. Is this something that anyone is interested in? We have already established that uploading in 4k (or 1440p) is a good idea, even if you only have a 1080p source file, in order to get less harsh compression. Others suggested that 60fps may also get you VIP privileges during the conversion process. I'll do it if there's interest, but the analysis is a PITA to do, and I think I've satisfied my own curiosity from a "good enough" perspective.

I would love to know 'what' mojo is, but I don't think anyone will be able to answer in detail, so in the absence of a detailed description I'm happy to try and approach it from a different direction, which is to ask where are the examples of it and what is it that we can describe? My underlying motive for all this is to 'learn to see'. I am relatively new to 'real' cinematography / editing / colour work (or compared to some of you I'm a complete noob!) and I don't yet really know what I like, and when I see something that looks nice I can stare at it but I just don't really know what I'm looking at. Thus, all my questions. I am also a very logical person and the inner voice that reacts to creative content is quieter, so I have to learn to listen to it, and when I do it's harder to understand the subtleties of what it is telling me. Many people have made the very valid point that it's just a matter of putting in the work, and being organised: shoot, take notes, evaluate the result, analyse the notes; or pick something I like from a film and try and shoot it, dozens and dozens of times if necessary; and I would also add in others like find tutorials grading sample footage that is available and try to follow along. This methodology is excellent, but it makes sense to combine the work of making your own discoveries with the wisdom and knowledge of others, which is what this thread is. Since starting this thread I have shot, edited, and graded two ~1 minute long short films (about my fish - a well lit and reliable subject!) and done two other camera tests where I'm filming the same thing only changing one parameter then comparing the results, so I'm pushing forwards and learning things each time.

It's a good sentiment, however, in my particular case, this is counter to why I started this thread. I own a camera that I can't afford to replace. Even if there was some sort of magical camera out there that would be better for me than the one I have, I can't afford it. I am 'stuck' with what I have, at least for some time. The purpose of understanding what might go into 'mojo' is so that I can use the tools I already have (Canon XC10 and Resolve) to optimise the amount of mojo that my films have. This was my hope for this thread. I already knew about the 180 degree shutter, but I suspect there are 27 other 'rules of thumb' that I don't know that I could exploit. Maybe there's a ratio of rolloff for grading highlights (I just made that phrase up as an example) and that's how film looks, so that will get me a bit closer. Then perhaps there is something to do with shadows, or vibrant colours, or...... From editing photographs I learned that you want to do a huge number of things that all push the image to be better by just a little bit, and it's the sum of all the parts that makes the overall difference. Just pushing a bit here, pulling a bit there, etc. I want to learn what to do in making films. That's the purpose of this thread, for me at least.

I think you might be confusing me with Anonim who made the comment about Ebrahim Sadaawi!

I don't know specifically about cameras, but I've done lots of stuff with audio and all circuitry has noise. The noise comes from analog circuits but when analog signals are digitised then the noise from the analog circuits will be captured as part of that digital signal. If you were to generate a digital file using only mathematics (for example VFX) then you could argue that the starting signal will have no noise, but if you manipulate it afterwards then the limitations of digital resolution can be accentuated, which is what people are really talking about when discussing why 10-bits is better than 8-bits. The definition of noise is anything that isn't part of the signal (the bit you want) so cumulative digital errors are a source of noise, which is one of the reasons that intermediary codecs are normally high quality - you want to avoid 'baking in' as many compression artefacts and other undesirables. Anyway, all cameras have noise.

I've got no idea about why this looks good (hence this thread), but one thing I noticed was that the shots with the water dripping into peoples hands and into the river was with a very short shutter speed - something way shorter than a 180 degree shutter. I mention this because the 180 shutter is meant to help something be cinematic, but this does despite it. Interesting.

This is a fascinating conversation. One of the most interesting bits was @jonpais mentioning Red - which I don't recall anyone mentioning as having mojo, however Chefs Table is absolutely gorgeous and definitely a stand-out production (visually and in potentially every other way). This leads neatly into the idea that perhaps considering the wide DR and huge data files coming out of it that the magic was added in post? In terms of some mojo coming from the operator - I too suffer from creating bad output from good cameras, but it can't be that all the people that bought a 1DC or BMPCC were good operators!

They're just the ones I've heard mentioned - I think I've heard Digital Bolex mentioned in this sense as well. What does ES mean? In theory if you capture enough DR and bit depth, you should be able to re-create some of these in post - colours, rolloff, curve, and maybe rendition (I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "rendition"). I agree it would be better to get it right in-camera, assuming you can afford it that is! For those of us with modest means, I'm curious to have a little more understanding. Not only can understanding get us part of the way there with what we have, but it can also do that for our archive of footage that regardless of wealth cannot be shot on a different camera!! I know that many on these forums don't dip into their back-catalogue much, but for family videos its a real thing

I hear lots of love on this forum for cameras like the 1DC, the C100, etc. The context is that they're more than just the stats, that it's something potentially involving the movement, or the sharpness (or lack thereof), or maybe the colours.. I'm sure there's other things too. Three questions: 1) Which cameras have it? 2) For each camera that has it, what is it about that camera that gives it that mojo? Movement? Colours? Highlight rolloff? .....what? 3) How much of this can be done in post? Surely if you record 13-stops DR high-bitrate in 10-bit there's enough data to get the colours, maybe the highlight rolloff? Maybe sharpness can be tailored?

Interesting, I guess if some of the download tools have this limit then that explains why they don't show options to download 2160p. However, that still doesn't explain why I can't play 2160p on YT site natively! Can anyone verify the above videos have a 2160p option for them in YT?

I'm still having trouble with downloading. Firstly, I found genyoutube.com but can't get the saved file into Resolve. Also, I don't seem to be able to get videos to show in YT as more than 1440p - they simply don't give me that option. This video here: Gives me this in Stats For Nerds: and this one: Gives me this: I find it hard to believe that both of those videos weren't uploaded in 4k. Can someone else please let me know if they are able to see a 2160p option in YT? Didn't know about that - thanks! It looks like it's changed again from the two shown above - my original upload is also the same as above. Well, I tried installing Ant Video Downloader, and I now know that you're both PC users. and from this comment, you now know I'm a Mac user! The extension installs, but not the standalone program. Doh! I did a bit of googling and I found something that says that you need a certain version or earlier for it to work, so it looks like that's not an option anymore.

True. I ruled them out due to no autofocus, but you're right that the image quality is better than the other options. Regardless, I think that we've gone a little off topic, and although phones are very capable devices and can be kitted out with rigs that make them almost as useful (and almost as large) as a DSLR, I don't think that anyone would make the case that a phone is a suitable alternative to a 1DC or a 1DXII.. at least not until the RED phone is released

@CastorpDefinitely agree about frustration / confusion. So many people seem to see cameras as being as good as their best spec, and ignoring the weaknesses of a particular camera, but I think the opposite is true, a camera is only as good as the weakest feature it has that you use. I bought a the Canon XC10 which was almost universally hated because it didn't do anything spectacularly well but also didn't have any amazingly bad weaknesses, and yet people rave about the GH5 when I eliminated it immediately as it can't be trusted to focus. Partly this is people having different requirements (eg, if you use manual focus), but also it's due to people not taking into consideration the practicalities of real-world use. In purchasing my setup for my own personal projects I eliminated so many cameras - even if a camera shoot RAW 16K in 16-bit with 20 stops of DR it would be useless if it can't reliably focus (GH5), or ran out of battery (A7SII), or its really heavy and you're too exhausted from carrying it to use it (complete BMPCC rig), or you get hassled by security or they won't let you in the venue because your camera is too large for working without a shooting permit (C100), or you don't have it because it's too expensive and you can't afford it in the first place (1DXII), or many of the above (1DC, Red Raven, URSA mini, Kinefinity, Digital Bolex, etc etc etc...)!

I'm interested to know what lenses you've seen that I haven't.. To my eyes anything except the Zeiss primes look so bad in the corners that I'd file them in the "vintage" category, and it's not like they have anything much in the telephoto range. I regularly shoot at 280mm or 400mm in my videos. If you're doing narrative work or filming in 'controlled' conditions then sure, you can get away with 16/28/35/50 focal lengths, but if you're shooting run-and-gun in the wild like I do then reaching for my phone to then have to stop and put a 50mm equivalent zoom lens on it is completely ridiculous when the built-in lens on my XC10 does 28-280mm and I don't have to change anything. I understand your comments, and you do have a point, but not everyone has the same requirements that you do.

For one thing, they're fixed focal length. Otherwise I'd use mine a lot more. There are other reasons of course too, but this is the main one for me.

Does anyone know how to get this file type into Resolve? VLC info on the file that the genyoutube downloaded: I'm inclined to think this is likely to be the raw output that YT streams, rather than a re-interpreted version, so if I can get Resolve to load it that would be great. Yes - that's the one I have been using. I think that the genyoutube site is likely to be the winner, but only if I can get the files back into Resolve!

Just on my lunch break and I have done a couple of tests, and I've found that neither 4kdownloader nor the Firefox plugin Video Download Helper will let me download 4k versions, without my UHD external display connected anyway. However, this site seems very helpful and will let me download things at 2160p http://video.genyoutube.net/1ror9CDQZ3o If you use that link (which is my Upload test #1 above) and choose the 2160p version then the downloaded file shows as 3840x2176 VP9 codec, and considering I think I have 4 subscribers that means this codec is available to everyone! [Edit: although I am a YT Red member, so maybe that gives me better quality - more work required]

Thanks all - I'll give the above suggestions a look. Ultimately what I'm trying to do is get a local copy of what is shown on the screen when you watch it. I'm thinking I can pull the downloaded file back into Resolve, then using a layer mixer set to Difference blend mode it will give the magnitude of the difference and we can see if there's anything useful to be learned about the various formats and bitrates. Ultimately what we care about is the difference between what we see in Resolve and what others will see online. I did wonder if there was a threshold for getting better quality. If I can work out how to get reliable info then I can do a study on codec vs subscribers.

Thanks Mattias - lots of interesting stuff in here to test. For some reason I'm still motivated to keep going on this topic. In terms of bitrates, I downloaded all those videos, and all the 4K ones were 13Mbps and all the 1080 ones were 5.5Mbps. This is a bit of an inconclusive test, considering that VLC states that the 4k videos got downloaded as 1440p videos, and the 1080 videos came down as 1080 (a couple as 1088), so it might be something that the downloader has asked YT for, not YT itself. That was using 4kdownloader - does anyone have another tool they'd recommend?

Indeed. I just find it hilarious that in one thread people are criticising a camera based on specs, when simultaneously there are other threads where people are recommending cameras like the 1DC and C100 and saying "you can't judge these cameras based on specs" - they have a certain X-factor in their image, or another thread where a poll showed that the people on this forum put "Buttons/handling and build quality" as third out of almost a dozen options with most of the specs criticised above scoring far less votes. I guess I should know better to expect to learn something useful from these threads - I thought they'd be people discussing the possibilities of a new camera, instead of trying to establish themselves as alpha males. I'll butt out and leave everyone to whatever it is that this conversation is...

Lol.. I didn't realise that you'd made a compilation! In terms of "internet" this forum is much more like the internet that other people experience than the one I normally experience. But that's mostly because I watch and listen to the people who are making content, not criticising it without contributing anything useful. Casey Neistat said in one of his videos that the people who don't create don't get a vote, it's only the people who are out there and contributing that you should ever really care about. It's easy to criticise, harder to create. In much the same way that I don't go to drink at the pubs full of angry men swearing about how the world has screwed them, then getting drunk and fighting with each other, so to with the internet - but sadly it seems that the "internet" is present here, at least in part, some are also experts in both their field and civil human interaction