kye

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

Good stuff. One of the reasons I started this thread was that most people in forums are unhappy with the results they're getting. I am interested in your export settings - what software, export file format and codecs are you using?

Three points: 1) this isn't how the target market will see this camera 2) Canon is a company, and companies are interested in profit - not what people outside the target market say about products on the internet 3) Canon made a profit.....

Hi All, I've decided that I might use unlisted videos on YouTube for distribution of my home videos, but had a couple of attempts and didn't like the quality after YT compressed them, so I've decided to work out the right settings. I've seen various threads on this, but people don't seem to have an answer beyond methods that are the least worst, so I decided to do my own tests. This thread is kind of my public notes on this. Ok, the tests. The test video I have used is some "flowers" (weeds) in my backyard. The video is 3.44 seconds (in order to keep the file sizes manageable) UHD 366Mbps. Bitrates specified below are in Megabits per second, based on the file size divided by the 3.44 second duration. Upload test #1 - No processing 366Mbps - I uploaded the MXF file straight to YT Hypothesis #1 - I'm doing something wrong in Resolve exporting. In the following tests I took the original file into Resolve, put it on a UHD timeline, no edits or grades applied, and exported straight from Resolve in the codec specified. Upload test #2 Prores 422 HQ 963Mbps Upload test #3 Prores 422 Proxy 178Mbps Upload test #4 H 264 20k 92Mbps (20k refers to restricting the Quality to 20000 Kb/s in the export settings) Upload test #5 H 264 10k 92Mbps (10k refers to restricting the Quality to 10000 Kb/s in the export settings) Upload test #6 H 264 5k 92Mbps (5k refers to restricting the Quality to 5000 Kb/s in the export settings) Hypothesis #1 result - The higher quality output files look fine - therefore I'm not fundamentally stuffing things up in exporting from Resolve. Hypothesis #2 - I'm stuffing up my grades somehow. In order to test this I applied a grade which radically brightened and clipped the highlights (and most of the frame), followed by a node that darkened to compensate, followed by the Sharpen Edges OFX plugin, followed by the Glow OFX plugin which I like. Upload test #7 H 264 5k with levels glow sharpen 91Mbps Hypothesis #2 result - also looks fine to me - therefore it's not the Resolve grading engine, or some common OFX plugins I apply. Hypothesis #3: I have always worked on a 1080 timeline and exported 1080 files - maybe that is the cause? In order to test this, I exported at 1080. Upload test #8 H.264 5k with levels glow sharpen 1080 8Mbps (8Mbps! I was very surprised it came out with such a low bitrate - the 5k Quality setting on the UHD version was 92Mbps!) So I started raising the bitrate again.. Upload test #9 H.264 10k with levels glow sharpen 1080 14Mbps Upload test #10 H.264 20k with levels glow sharpen 1080 28Mbps Upload test #11 H.264 40k with levels glow sharpen 1080 54Mbps Considering that all we care about is quality and file size upload time, a good comparison would be between the 4k ~92Mbps files and the 1080 ~92Mbps files. Therefore: Upload test #12 H.264 80k with levels glow sharpen 1080 92Mbps Hypothesis #3 result: Yes, uploading a 1080 file instead of 4k (even with the same file size and duration) yields a worse quality result. That's where I've gotten to tonight. I have another idea to test, so will likely write a part 2, however, I think that's a result of note. Lesson - upload in 4k.

That caught my eye in the video too when I was watching it, so I messaged Tim on Instagram and he said it was for a vlog that he's recording for his channel while he's shooting with Kai. I studied the screenshots as I have created a similar setup, but what I couldn't see was where Kai's lav mic was going - it's not going into the GoPro or into the GH5, so I suspect it's an outboard recorder of some kind tucked in a pocket and synced manually. This makes sense as occasionally Kai will be a long distance from the camera but still audible. When you vlog you want something wide angle that will focus reliably, the GoPro seems pretty well suited for that. My setup for home videos is a Rode VMP+ pointing forwards going into my XC10, and my old GoPro Hero 3 with a Rode VideoMicro pointing backwards at me. The GoPro will be used in 2.7k Wide mode with Protune for a semi-flat profile, and also for timelapses of things like sunsets, where because it's recording photos and not video, it gets a very high bitrate UHD output and can use slower shutter speeds so its poor ISO performance will only come into play when it gets much darker than for video. I'm still working out the kinks with this setup but for the first time I might actually appear in the videos I make!

I am interested in your thoughts on the different shots in this video I put together. https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D8480669_08693060_421075 (100Mb 40s) It has eight shots in it. I am interested in your subjective impressions - what is good about certain shots, what's bad, etc. It's not a scientific test. It contains multiple cameras, lenses, codecs, bitrates, frame rates, resolutions, and profiles. All the shots were scaled to a 1080 H.264 timeline from their native resolutions. It's of my fishtank, so no skin tones, but the lighting is consistent and I don't have a model handy. Differences are visible regardless. I picked the nicest image and attempted to grade the other shots to match, but did a relatively mediocre job and someone with more skill than me could get them much closer. I'm definitely not the best person to extract the best IQ from any of this equipment, so it shouldn't be viewed as a camera test either. Once people have had a chance to discuss for a bit I'll share the technical details of each shot, after which point I'm sure the conversation will quickly turn to tech and away from aesthetics! I'm hoping peoples feedback will not only teach me to 'see' more, but it will also reveal a bit about what other people value and perhaps why.

Who does everyone think they're shooting for? ie, is this just for fun, or is it for a specific audience? Personally, I've worked out that the audience for my home videos of family and friends is my extended family, the kids (more so when they're grown than now as teens/tweens), the grandkids, and future ancestors. I look at this in the sense of a family heirloom - if my grandparents or great-grandparents had shot vlogs or home videos they would be very interesting I think. In this sense although as @dbp points out that video editing is a bit of a slog, it's worth it for me because of the long-term benefit that I see coming from my work. If I was just posting for Instagram or for amusement then I think it would be quite different.

@Matthew Hartman I believe you have a point and that I'm not quite understanding it. I do agree that vertical vs horizontal composition will of course have artistic and psychological connotations / implications. Could you elaborate on what the subliminal messages are for vertical compositions? I'm keen to learn more. Personally, I wouldn't output a vertical format for anything except social media posts where a single person is talking to camera. From that point of view, the goal is to show their face and hands, which if you do it vertically fills the whole screen, if you do it horizontally the person is barely the size of a postage stamp, and square aspect will be somewhere in-between.

I chose ISO, which even surprised me! I should probably have chosen price, because who buys something they can't afford because it's good at everything else.. I'd own a Lamborghini, Red Raven, Sony A7RIII, and a render farm! My rationale for ISO is that I shoot run-and-gun in available light, which means interiors feature heavily. If ISO performance is bad, then resolution dies, AF stops working, etc. During the process to buy my current camera I looked at quite a number of options, and eliminated most of them based on sub-par performance in a particular aspect despite them being brilliant at almost everything else, so I ended up with a camera that doesn't excel at anything, but doesn't really have any fatal flaws that I need to work around either. Being forced to choose is quite a revealing thing.

I shoot home videos for family and friends, and when I shoot there is an expectation of discretion, especially around the kids. I suspect if I posted something that between my fiancé and teenage daughter it would be similar to what you describe Matthew! I don't need a public showreel to get work, but I'm now trying to learn my new camera and push my skills and am having to shoot test videos so that I can post online and get feedback so I can learn.

Stills photographers started having this conversation years ago when the first wedding got shot on an iPhone. For film-makers it will be the DSLR revolution conversation all over again. This is nothing new.

In a sense, going from one medium into another is taking another step forward into seeing the beauty in everything. I remember years ago when I was working on a music project with a friend and we were writing abstract minimal electronic music, we got to the point where everything had artistic value. We were auditioning a song and quite by chance one of my neighbours unlocked their car, and the beep from that coincided spectacularly with the track. Everything is about context, and so if you can change your brain to be open in the right ways then everything is art. Moving from one medium into another is learning to see and appreciate things we hadn't before.

Yes!! Great idea!