kye

$10,000 isn't much. Lots of YouTubers will also have a dedicated cinema camera setup for their permanent 'newsreader' setups, like an FS7, FX6, or even FX9, in addition to their multiple R5 or A7S3 bodies that sit on a shelf and can be seen randomly in the background. One data point that stands out to me is Monica Church, who is a lifestyle influencer and also more recently a licensed real estate agent, and in this video actually spells out her income from each: TLDR: She has ~1.5M YT subs, with mostly 50-150k views per video, about 35 videos in the last year She's also active on other platforms too, and likely has lots of followers there too, so revenue is likely to be from cross-platform posts and eyeballs She says she's signed brand deals up to $120K (although who knows how many videos/posts that would involve) She says that prior to starting in real estate (which seems to be a huge amount of work) she was making $500k/a as an influencer, but then that went down to $300k/a and the real estate made $200k that year (IIRC that was her first year doing it) I know she's used a modern BMPCC camera (not sure if it was 4K/6K) but she's not a tech YouTuber so doesn't talk about the gear I suspect she's probably got a more monetisable audience than McKinnon etc, as she talks about all kinds of things that young twenty-something women are spending money on (rather than just cameras) but also this audience has greater lifetime value as if you can grab someone as your customer in early adulthood then you might have them as a daily/weekly customer for life, whereas that's not what happens with camera equipment which is only likely to be a few thousand a year. Influencers are (mostly) like old money - they don't want you to know how much money they make because you won't react well to it and there's no up-side for them if you do find out. This is obviously different if you're an influencer trying to look rich in order to influence people, but most have influence these days due to how relatable they are, not how rich and elitist they are.

How strange.. I remember shooting on the top of a hill right next to a large city and the boom op using a very directional mic to aim at the talent (only having to capture one person talking per setup) and essentially 'thread the needle' because on either side of many of the setups were noises like lawn-mowers, motor boats, etc. The audio was by far the biggest challenge for the shoot and was what caused the most time during filming. We even had to alternate between aiming up vs aiming down due to the odd helicopter that was flying by. The width of the pickup pattern saved the audio on that shoot, giving us only a few shots that we had to ADR.

How much do you shoot with really high DR conditions? I seem to be shooting quite a lot in conditions that exceed the DR of the GH5 so would imagine that those would run the risk of streaking.

I have kept my GH5 despite other offerings being a pretty amazing in many ways, for several reasons: I was looking for a backup camera / tiny camera and ended up buying a GX85 which further locked me into the MFT ecosystem, and I really don't want to have to re-buy all my lenses The GH6 has that horizontal streaking issue that Panasonic don't appear to be motivated to fix, and I don't feel motivated to risk having to fix in post (although I think with much careful fiddling it could be done) The GH5 can look great and although it's not the best colour science in the world, my ability to colour grade is definitely the weak link in my setup I started studying award winning productions in the same genre that I shoot (and I mean studying seriously, breaking down 45 minute episodes sometimes frame-by-frame, dissecting audio and sound design, etc) and the more I looked at Emmy Award-Winning stuff the more I realised that the images looked OK, but it was everything else around that (editing, sound design, narration, music, etc) that made it great It's reliable, I enjoy using it, and keeping it is free.... which is good because despite me buying it in 2018, the pandemic has meant that I didn't get to use it on nearly as many trips as I had planned to do before being tempted to upgrade Some months ago I bought a BM Resolve Micro colour grading panel with the goal to teach myself to grade the way that the pros mostly learned (using the basic tools but using a control surface) and kind of justified the purchase to myself by saying I would buy it to learn instead of buying a new camera. I had planned on just putting in an hour or so grading practice per day, but I got distracted with other things (life!) - however I found that I got noticeably better for every two hours or so I put into grading. I have a huge backlog of footage from past trips that a skills upgrade will improve but not new camera can influence, so I'm more motivated to upgrade myself rather than the camera.

Is there an arms race in the microphone world to make microphones more and more directional? That would be the natural response to having to put the mic further away from the talent, and it's something that would be easily marketable as a single number... which is how manufactures get people to replace their perfectly good equipment with newer, marginally better, models.

I wonder how many videos it takes for a new camera to pay for itself in extra revenue. ie, where the YouTubers purchase price (whatever that might be for those with large sub counts) is overtaken by extra clicks that their videos get from having a new camera vs filming with the one they were using before. One of the things I've noticed in quite a lot of situations is that they (McKinnon, Matti, etc) often seem to have several of the new camera bodies on their shelves rather than just one that they'd need to buy to make the review videos. If It's an R5, let's say, and they had three of them, and a few nicer lenses, then that's a serious investment!

Also, if you're looking to up your quality of final edits, it basically doesn't matter what type of videos you make, upgrading your camera is probably pretty far down the list of what will actually move the needle in terms of outputs. I've seen inexperienced folks shoot with an Alexa and it looked like a poor quality student film 🙂

In all seriousness (or more than my last post at least), the formula for YT success is to make videos that can be found through organic searching (as this exposes you to new viewers) but also keep the content suitable to retain your audience (as this builds the channel over time). A video where you get a new camera and put that in the title is just as good as a van tour video where you put that in the title, or go to a new place and put that in the title, or whatever. These things are good for both organic views as well as your existing subscriber base. If I was just starting out on YT an FX30 wouldn't be a bad choice I don't think. These days all cameras are good enough, and Sony is popular enough that if you have problems then half the people in your YT circle can help you out because they're using Sony too. It's one of the reasons that ARRI are the Hollywood standard, everyone knows the system and are setup for it, as well as the image and products being spectacular of course.

and here's a channel with 825K subs that is filmed with an iPhone.... https://www.youtube.com/c/hannahleeduggan/videos What can we draw from these two amazing data points? How about... cameras don't matter than much 🙂

I'm willing to do my part!

Actually, and I know this might come as a bit of a shock, but mostly these people don't think about the cameras they use the way that camera YT does, and many of them just use their phones. Some of the ways I can tell this is that: they mostly shoot deeper DoF they mostly shoot in-camera picture profiles (or do a stunningly good job of grading footage so it looks like the in-camera profiles) if they do get a new camera they will typically not mention it, except if they screw something up and have to apologise for it by saying "sorry, new camera, I'll work it out eventually" if they do a video covering their essentials they will often just say the brand of the camera and some even say they don't know what the model is Also, and these probably will also come as a shock: Lots of them have been doing van life for years and years and aren't quitting anytime soon There is no way they would ever ever ever ever get rid of their dogs because they weren't a puppy anymore Outside of camera YT there's many many little niches where people care about things other than YT and equipment, aren't attention-grabbing narcissists, and genuinely care about living creatures other than themselves. SHOCK!!!!

Very nice! I'm glad to see that at least one person on the internet hasn't forgotten how to put some feeling into their images! Almost all videos these days look like a lens sharpness test that's been graded as a sharpening-in-post stress-test...

Why do people have this secret desire to be a coroner?

Puppies pretty quickly grow and look like dogs. Even at 6-months or so, most puppies look like very excitable dogs. If you do a bit of searching for van-life videos you'll quickly find that there are thousands of twenty-something women who live in vans with their dog and travel constantly while living full-time on their YT channel or Etsy store. Dogs get a lot of air-time in that genre of content 🙂

I guess I never trusted him, so was never betrayed. In terms of being neutral and even-handed, facts are always neutral and even-handed, so that part hasn't changed - unless he's outright lying of course. To me, reviews contain facts and fluff, with the facts being the only useful things. The challenge was always what facts were missing, which is always a problem because it doesn't matter how deeply a camera is reviewed, they're never going to cover every aspect. When I first got into video, I did a bunch of reading and came to (what I thought) were reasonable conclusions. Those were that 4K, bitrate and AF were the most important things, oh how little I knew! Could I have saved myself from going down that particular dead-end road by trusting the right person? No. No reviewer was saying what I needed to hear, and the ones that I later found that were pointing in (at least) partially the right direction would have been waaaay out of the realm of what I was ready for (Steve Yedlin for instance). It's a process, you have to learn for yourself, and unless you're a YouTuber making camera reviews, then the YouTubers making camera reviews couldn't possibly steer you in the right direction, even if they were squeaky clean. I don't think we are spoiled. Cameras have gotten more and more features, but the manufacturers aren't giving people what they want, they're improving the specs that drive TV sales and then marketing the crap out of them in order to brainwash the customers into thinking the new features are actually desirable. Did you see the two recent videos by Crimson Engine about cinema cameras? I thought he did a great job. The first one is what the manufacturers are pushing, and the second is what people actually want. Spoiler, there's very very little overlap.

Maybe this is the thread where we discuss how well the camera can make cat videos?

The major issue with cameras these days is the cripple hammer / technical limitations they put in them which aren't in the marketing. Sure, a camera might be 8K, 240p, 10-bit, but the fact that it's not all of them at the same time is the information that isn't mentioned, and which combinations are available are hard to find out. Gerald is useful because he seems to systematically find many of those gotchas whereas other people don't go that deeply. In terms of Sony and his opinions, to put it bluntly, who gives a crap? If you're spending thousands of dollars then you should be making your own decisions rather than simply listening to other peoples conclusions. Gerald is good because his videos are full of facts about the tech details... just ignore his opinions and you're fine. Most other camera reviews are ONLY opinions. That's where we should be getting annoyed..

Just remember, there are two attributes that define how well IBIS works, and this is the one that doesn't matter.

I was really just comparing 2K Prores HQ to 4K Prores LT. If we're talking about anything more than that, then we have to start talking about what is visible, and that means discussing a certain resolution test that makes sensible discussion basically impossible.

To me, the FP or FP-L seem like the natural choices, but I do wonder how far away other options are. I see three essential criteria: Rolling shutter amount Zero is ideal of course, but I wonder how much leeway there is for this. IIRC film had a degree of rolling shutter so some is likely tolerable. Colour science I've tried at length to replicate the colour of the OG BMPCC and BMMCC with my GH5, even when recording RAW stills, and have fallen short by miles every time, despite being able to match other cameras together as well as match grades etc, so this tells me there is something magical about their colour that perhaps simply isn't captured by other cameras. NR / noise performance This happens in-camera from deliberate processing and also as a side-effect of compression in the codec The Sigmas are great because they seem to have some of the nicest colour science around at the moment (I'm not sure if it's the camera or the transformations and management afterwards but the results speak for themselves), and the output is (AFAIK) completely unprocessed and uncompressed RAW. I watched that video some time ago and one thing I noted at the time was the OG BMPCC having NR built in to manage the noise of the circuitry inside the camera. I have played with digital circuits and optimising for signal quality and have done a reasonable amount of research into the topic, so it makes perfect sense to me that a product designed like any camera with many circuit boards and high-frequency digital busses would be noisy as hell, but I never thought that they would need to process it within the camera beyond just keeping a digital signal viable between ICs through careful PCB design and the odd bit of shielding. I'd be extremely curious to learn more about this.

Yes, acquisition tried to keep pace with the tech I'm sure, and this was also in the days when cameras didn't downscale in-camera which made oversampling at capture even more important. My point was simply that if a 2K Prores HQ didn't have intolerable macro-blocking when used in a workflow that was projected in multiplex cinemas, that 4K Prores LT with a similar/superior bitrate wouldn't be worse than that. Also, the people in this discussion are pretty unlikely to be shooting for projection on a 590" cinema screen, so a codec with 400Mbps being streamed at 15-25Mbps, LT is probably good enough.... even with our post-millennial biologically superior eyesight 😉

lol... I guess it's just me and my logic again, getting too big for my britches 😛

What were they distributed in? and what about the DI? I ask because once something has had things like macro-blocking then there's no fixing it downstream. I thought that a 2K Prores DI was common for colourists, and they'd deliver in 2K as well. Not sure if that would have been 4444 or better though.

This raises an interesting question for me about what role resolution plays in the quality of Prores. Prores bitrates scale proportionally with resolution, so 4K is ~4x the bitrates of 1080p because there are ~4x the pixels. I would assert that 2K Prores HQ is "sufficient" (not perfect, but sufficient) as countless feature films were shot in 2K/1080p Prores HQ (at ~180Mbps) and were projected in theatres worldwide on the largest screens available (short of IMAX), so the macro-blocking can't have been too bad. So then, if we're talking 4K, Prores HQ is ~700Mbps and LT is ~330, which is almost double the 2K HQ bitrate. If you film 4K you don't project it onto a larger screen just because you have more bitrate (plus there aren't really many screens larger than real cinemas anyway), so even if the macro-blocking is larger from LT in terms of how many pixels wide the artefacts are, the fact that there's more bitrate for the whole image, surely the artefacts would be less visible than on 2K HQ? Does anyone know how this comparison actually fares in the real world? I've never tested this particular aspect.

I'm not really into Halloween (and it's less of a thing here in Australia, although it is growing in popularity each year).... but, Alien is seriously good sci-fi cinema! I can't imagine you haven't seen it, but if not, wow are you in for a treat! My first experience with the series was Aliens, which I watched as a ~7? year old alone in the lounge room of someones big old scary house where my dad was visiting and the adults put it on to keep me entertained why they talked somewhere else in the house. I had a major jump-scare when during a particularly tense moment in the film someone suddenly stuck their head into the room to ask me what I wanted for dinner! A memorable watch! I've often wished that I could 'forget' a movie so that I would get to watch it for the first time (again). I purposefully don't watch my favourites for years so that I have forgotten at least some stuff and get some surprises and fun twists. Other fun movies that come to mind: The Forgotten 2004 with Julianne Moore (watch it without any spoilers or previews at all if you can) The Ring The Fourth Kind 2009 with Milla Jovovich (again, watch without spoilers or previews if possible) and of course, just for fun... Shawn of the Dead 🙂