newfoundmass

That entire series is excellent, especially that entry. What about one of the older BM cameras?

Apple M1 Pro 10-Core Chip 16GB Unified RAM | 1TB SSD 14.2" 3024 x 1964 Liquid Retina XDR Screen 16-Core GPU | 16-Core Neural Engine

I've been using it for about a year now and some of the results are genuinely astonishing. I just got the update, too, and have been impressed. On my M1 Pro MacBook Pro it does about 10fps, so it's not TOO bad, especially if you come from the days when it'd take hours to render stuff. I mostly use it to upscale old footage; decent 480i footage upscales quite nicely. I can't say that it looks like native 1080p but it's not that far. Their photo software is also very impressive, maybe even more than Video AI.

Agree with all of this. --- I think it's great that cameras are adding ProRes as there are clients that demand it, but the bitrates in 4K are just too much for the bulk of my work, and the editing performance on my M1 Pro MacBook Pro really isn't that much better than h.264. My modest MacBook Pro can handle four camera 4K multicam editing with color correction, titles, and motion graphics with ease. I haven't used h.265, but I've heard it's pretty easy to edit.

It really depends. I think for 90+% of my work 150Mbit is more than enough if I don't need to push the image around in post much. Storing/archiving the footage is a big factor. When you're filming a multi-cam live event and have four cameras with 3-4 hours of footage from each camera that gets to be a lot of space, especially when you're doing it multiple times a month. I've honestly thought about transcoding some of the unedited footage to save space. I really need to work on a server instead of using 5TB drives and try doing off site backups, but it gets to be so expensive.

My guess is focusing is an issue. It's an amazing camera, and I do think the AF is better than people give it credit for, but it's not perfect and I run into the same problem from time to time.

Cancer has literally taken away everyone I have ever loved the most. First it took my Grammy, then it took my Papa, then it took my Mom, and earlier this year it took one of my pups. To say that I hate it with all of my heart would be an understatement. Hearing how many people talk about how it has impacted them breaks my heart. I hope I'm alive to see the day when we finally beat this disease. It won't bring our loved ones back, but if it'll make sure no one has to feel how the way I did holding my Mom's hands as she slowly

The thing is, in any film that's meant to take place in a post apocalyptic environment, that environment is like another character ESPECIALLY when it's something as iconic as Las Vegas. You really kind of squander that though when it's all just a blur in the background of every shot. I found it obnoxious, and felt that it hurt the film. It's also one of the few times I've seen normal people notice shallow depth of field (though they didn't use that terminology) and talk about it.

It's like Zack Snyder was possessed by Tony Northrup! Too much toneh!

And the film suffered because of it, I think. Sorry, just had to say it!

Yeah, I was shocked at how reasonable it was, at least on first glance. I do wonder if there's a catch. I didn't look too deeply into it. I think the music industry is starting to understand, with the way things have gone, that it makes more sense to play ball so to speak. I'm pretty satisfied with Artlist.io personally, and don't really have use for using a song as a one off for YouTube, so I don't really see myself using it, but it's cool that it's out there.

Yeah, it's probably lickd. It allows you to license "mainstream" music for like $8 per video.

Sorry 😔

Cinematch might be something that can help you, given it has profiles for all these cameras. It might be able to get you closer than Lumetri.

This is just speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that he might be using one of those distribution companies that works as a middle man between the creator and the retailer. On Amazon, at least, there isn't a lot of (maybe none?) 4K content that isn't a major studio release or an Amazon original. I just don't think they're interested in having most independent/low budget content in 4K and consider it a waste of resources. While most filmmakers would probably disagree that their films aren't worthy of being in 4K, when you look at all of the stuff on there and you look at it from their perspective, does no budget found footage horror film #25679 really need to be available in 4K? Probably not. Besides, 2K is the standard for DCPs isn't it? I do think it poses a bigger question though: is "4K" streaming, at least as it stands now, really necessary? When I watch 4K blu-rays the image is stunning on my television. You can genuinely see a significant difference between 1080p and 4K. The gap though narrows significantly when you compare 1080p and 4K streaming, to the point where I downgraded my Netflix account (before eventually closing it) because the difference was so minimal. Don't even get me started on comparing streaming 4K to a 4K disc. When it comes to streaming I don't think it's the resolution that makes it better, but the better bitrates. I think you'd get essentially the same results if they used the same bitrates on a 1080p stream as they do for a 4K stream. My 4K uploads to YouTube I think look better in 4K for that reason, too, not because of the added resolution. Maybe I'll upscale a 1080p version of a video to 4K and compare it to the source 4K version to see if there's much of a difference after YouTube finishes with them? Either way, the streaming 4K version still looks inferior to 1080p blu-rays I've made for clients.

This advice doesn't help you for anything you've shot already, but I definitely recommend custom white balancing your cameras and using a color checker for each shot. Then you can easily take your footage into whatever editor you use and easily match them. Calibrite ColorChecker Classic Classic https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1649331-REG/calibrite_ccc_colorchecker_classic.html I haven't used Premiere in years, but I'm pretty sure there's a similar feature like this

Take your time, Andrew! We'll be here when you're ready, right now you've got more important things to focus on.

It's not a revolutionary camera, but it's very competitively priced, which I think is the main goal. I think they understand that there's a segment of their customers that won't shoot on anything that isn't full frame so this probably isn't going to hurt those sales anyway, at least not to the extent that it'd hurt more than they gain from bringing more people into their ecosystem with a camera like this. I really don't want to go with Sony, but getting 2 or 3 of these might be the direction I end up going. Though I have a Lumix S5 and quite like it I've never been someone that particularly cares about full frame, so "downgrading" doesn't really matter to me. The lack of video features that even the entry level S5 has is frustrating, though and might be enough to make me wait to see what Panasonic does.

I guess it's their version of the cripple hammer? It just seems ridiculous that if you want these features you need to drop thousands of dollars more on the FX6 or FX9, especially when other companies add these features to their non-cine cameras.

These more affordable "cine" cameras are very interesting to me, but it really drives me crazy that they lack so many video centric features. Like how do you call something a cine camera without offering DCI 4K?

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that we're here for you in your time of need, Andrew. I'm so sorry that you, Zara, and your Mom are going through this. You all are in my thoughts. ❤️

First, cool video! Second, there could be a couple things at play. I believe that YouTube prioritizes larger channels over smaller ones when it comes to transcoding, so larger channels have better quality than smaller ones. The other thing is that YouTube simply might not handle ProRes footage very well, even though in theory you'd think the higher the quality of your input, the higher the quality your output would be. Try exporting using your editor's YouTube setting and see if you get better results!

I have no doubt that if they'd switched to PDAF 3 or 4 years ago they'd be neck and neck with Canon and Sony. Sony no doubt has their diehard fans, but a Lumix S1 or S5 with PDAF would've been THE YouTuber camera. Whether we like them or not, those are the users that will help ensure a company's longevity.

I agree, but I acknowledge what they need to do and that the long term viability of their camera division depends on getting rid of the AF stigma. It's one thing when it's people just repeating the things they saw on YouTube but never have had actual experience with a Panasonic camera, but I own a S5, a GH5, a G85, and a GX85. I've also owned the GH3. I use these cameras for professional work, and have an interest in seeing Panasonic succeed because I am invested in their systems. While the autofocus performance on the GH5 was always better than people gave it credit for, and I find the S5 to be pretty good in that department overall, that doesn't matter if the majority of the market thinks that Panasonic AF is completely useless. The market has spoken, whether we agree or not, and they need to do something about it. The S5 is genuinely my favorite camera I've ever used. I'll probably end up buying at least one more, given the price and quality. But I'd be lying if I didn't acknowledge that my eyes are looking towards the future, and it's becoming increasingly harder for me to see myself sticking with Panasonic if they can't guarantee their longevity in a shrinking camera market. I want my camera equipment to be serviceable, and I don't want to be stuck with a bunch of lenses and accessories that belong to a dead system. A lot of folks don't care about that stuff, bless their hearts, but I do. If in the next couple of years a Canon/Sony/Fuji camera comes along that offers everything I need for my specific kind of work and at a good value, it will be very hard not to unload my Panasonic gear while it still has some value and move on if they haven't improved their image problems. There are a lot of people like @MrSMW and myself who are looking for a reason NOT to jump. The ball is in Panasonic's court whether we do or not.

First, I genuinely believe that Panasonic not only offers the best value, but their video capabilities are significantly better than their competitors. Still, I think it's important for Panasonic to be more aggressive in letting people know what their plans are and to meet the needs of the market. Sony and Canon don't need to do it because they're leading the industry, but Panasonic absolutely does. I don't know how else to say it, but the auto focus perception is killing them. I will maintain until I'm blue in the face that the AF isn't as bad as people claim, but the bottom line is people demand Sony and Canon level AF. It is what it is, and the longer they delay it the worse their long term prospects seem.