newfoundmass

The ads are very grating too! Very much targeted towards millennials, which I am one, but they feel like they're targeted for 20 year old "content creators" as opposed to someone like me.

As long as they're letting us know it's in beta I'm fine with Blackmagic doing it cause I can decide whether or not to download it. Adobe? Not so much.

Has anyone else experienced an influx of Adobe Creative Cloud ads on YouTube lately? Not sure if it's related, but it seemed to happen almost immediately after I started looking up Resolve tutorials. No exaggeration, it's like every other ad for me.

I enjoy Chris and Jordan's videos. I think overall they do a good job reviewing cameras, are honest in their reviews, and I've found that when using cameras they've reviewed I come to a lot (but not all) of the same conclusions. I don't really go to DPReview's main site and skip their other YouTube content, but I enjoy Chris and Jordan. There are also, I think, substantially more users there. Which is why Andrew is frustrated; his links being censored there harms his traffic and, frankly, deprives readers access to more knowledge.

It's cool if you liked it but... It had a 1 inch sensor with a f/2.8-5.6 lens for $2500. Saying it was the worst camera of the year might've been overstating it, but given the options that were available at the time for substantially less? Yeah, it was a bit of a dud unless you're a hardcore Canon shooter. Only after the incompetence Canon has shown these past couple of years have people warmed up to it. But people had higher expectations and the XC10 fell well beneath most of them.

If you're looking for the best value you can't beat Sony, whether it's their handy cams or their professional camcorders. As someone that has done live event videography for the last 20 years I've always preferred them to Canon, especially because they've generally had superior low light performance which was always important when you had little, if any, control over lighting. I'd prefer the PXW-X70 with 4K over the XA40. I've been intrigued too by the JVC offerings, especially given how much I love the LS300. Cameras like the GY-HM170UA looks like a pretty good bargain and has a lot of the features that the LS300 has. I wish they'd bring their menu system into the 2010s, or even the 2000s, though! 😂

Can we be real about resolution, honestly? From a PRODUCTION standpoint I get wanting higher and higher resolution. I have no real desire for 8K (and higher), 4K is more than enough given everything I do is pretty much edited for 1080p, but I do get why others want it. From a delivery standpoint though? I have a 55 inch 4K television. I watch some 4K content but most is 1080p. Truth be told, unless I'm within a couple feet of the TV I can't see much difference between 1080p and 4K content. I don't think most people can tell the difference unless they have a giant 4K TV. Simply put, for most of us, the size of the televisions we'll be able to afford makes 8K feel like a marketing gimmick more than anything. I watched this on my 4K television and frankly I've seen stuff in 1080p and stuff shot in 4K that looked just as good as this. Like, what are we really doing here? I feel like I'm the old man yelling at the clouds, but this is all so very silly to me. What size 8K television (or hell, 4K television!) would I need to really be able to truly appreciate this, and other videos, shot at such a high resolution?

Have you had problems exporting with Resolve?

I'm definitely waiting for a stable release and a couple updates, as multicam was broken for me until very recently and that's a big feature for me doing live event edits. Still, I just recently completed an entire edit from start to finish for the first time and am very happy about it. I just wish Fusion was a bit easier and that Resolve overall had a better, more intuitive titler (preferably Photoshop inspired.)

I own these and vouch for them. They're not the best you can get but for this price? That's a steal!

He's so eloquent and thoughtful. I'm a fan too!

At least they're not marketing towards photographers. LOSERS!

I saw someone say that Sharp told them that they're trying to target bloggers with this camera and not narrative filmmakers. I thought that was really weird, because what vlogger needs (or has the ability to) edit 8K video?

It's a modest update that adds features and improvements people wanted from the G85. It'd have been nice if they pushed the envelope a little more, but it's still a good upgrade.

Adjustment layers ❤️

I generally agree. Guessing higher frame rates / slow motion?

I don't see them switching to a subscription model. I imagine they'll continue to offer the software for free, with a "full version" available for $300. I think they're much more interested in attracting more people into their ecosystem than anything, especially if it encourages people to buy their cameras and hardware.

I can legally buy them from anyone selling them, whether it's off eBay or a dude off the street. As long as they're not stolen, it's legal. You might be expecting too much out of America, a country where private sales of guns is pretty much completely unregulated. There aren't a lot of jobs in the United States that require licensing. Most would be in the medical field. I mean shit, we elected a president that's a complete racist moron. The bar is pretty low in general here, in both good and bad ways, when it comes to job qualifications.

Yes, I pay taxes. You don't need a license in the United States to sell video production services (or shoes, for that matter!) I've never even heard of such a thing! What country do you live in?! 😂

It's not that we're surprised 8K is coming, it's that Sony has not yet released a mirrorless camera that can do 4K60p, so the idea that the A7Siii will jump straight up to 8K doesn't make much sense. They'd need a massive technological breakthrough to achieve that in a tiny body. Who knows though? Maybe with a 1 minute recording limit?! 😂

I think you're overestimating how many people are taking work away from you after buying a $500 kit. People that are good at their craft and keep clients happy will always have work. We all have financial obligations and desires, some larger than others. I live cheaply. I own a small home (paid off in large part thanks to my supposed "amateur" video work), I own somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 worth of video equipment, all paid off thanks to my "amateur" video work, and I've found a way to live comfortably on $25,000 to $30,000 a year. I've done all that by the age of 34. If someone comes to me and says they can only afford $500 for a gig that others would charge three times for, and I can fit it in to my schedule, I have no hesitation taking it. Some wish to frame that as undercutting "real professionals" whereas I look at it as paying my phone, electric, internet, and grocery bills for the month with one gig. Besides, those type of clients weren't going to pay those "real professionals" what they would ask for anyway.

Fivver is a good place, and also looking for local actors is an option. Many of them can do voice over work. If you're lucky you'll also maybe find a friend that's capable of competently doing it, as I have a few friends, both male and female, that have good voices and are adequate for the job.

It IS a mentality, because of what definition one chooses to use when using the word. Merriam-Webster: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs Google: a person competent or skilled in a particular activity. Using your strict definition tons of people that are professionals, from bands/musicians, to actors, to athletes, etc. wouldn't be considered "professional." It's silly.

This is such a weird mentality. The quality of work should always be what's most important. If those that have hired me and been pleased with the results consider my work to be "professional" then that's really all that matters.

I think location is a huge factor that's overlooked. There's a lot more work, presumably for more money, in New York or Los Angeles, than there is here in Vermont. There aren't a ton of high paying gigs in the immediate area. Does that mean I'm not a professional, even though I have nearly 20 years of production experience, have produced countless live sporting broadcasts all over the country, etc? Most of my work over the last 20 years has been diy punk rock and independent professional wrestling. These, by nature, are low budget forms of entertainment. It's not a matter of being cheap as much as there is literally very little money to pay people. If I charge someone $500 to shoot and edit their pro wrestling event I can guarantee you that I'll produce a better finished project than someone that will charge 3x as much and has no experience shooting or producing pro wrestling. Just as those who've spent years shooting skateboard videos, some probably for free, will produce a better finished project than someone that charges $2000. It's why I scoff at the idea that quality is related to expense. Does that make us amateurs, even if we're capable of producing high quality work for smaller budgets?