EphraimP

Fuji is coming on strong for the underdog Super 38/APS-C mirrorless. The X-T3 is mighty tasty to shoot with a few choice accessories. And now the X-T4 is about to drop. I'm sure curious to see what it's like. I'll almost certainly rent one for a job on the week of March 18 if the rental houses have them by then. I did that last year with the T3 and my 80D's been pretty much collecting dust ever since.
Anyone want to buy a used 80D? It's got pretty low mileage, the tires are still good and it doesn't leak any oil ?

i kno rite. ive got my fingers crossed for fully articulated flippy ?

Fuji is coming on strong for the underdog Super 38/APS-C mirrorless. The X-T3 is mighty tasty to shoot with a few choice accessories. And now the X-T4 is about to drop. I'm sure curious to see what it's like. I'll almost certainly rent one for a job on the week of March 18 if the rental houses have them by then. I did that last year with the T3 and my 80D's been pretty much collecting dust ever since.
Anyone want to buy a used 80D? It's got pretty low mileage, the tires are still good and it doesn't leak any oil ?

I agree. When McKinnon started out, for instance, I'd watch his videos the second they dropped, guaranteed. It was bound to be an interesting tutorial with a bit of Pete's fun personality thrown i. Now that he's a big successful brand, I don't watch nearly as much of his content. For one, his fun personality has grown a bit obnoxious and I don't need ANOTHER tutorial on how to shoot b-roll of making a cup of coffee in some exotic location. He, and others like him, have gotten a little navel-gazely about their success with their blogs. But that's fine, there are always other channels out there to discover.
YouTube is still a great Skillshare platform. You just have to look harder for it. I think the fault lies with YouTube, not the creators/influences who are charismatic enough and clever enough to have figured out how to make a successful career off of the platform post Adpocalypse. When YouTube decided to slash the ad revenue going to channels and aggressively demonetizing them, it changed the platform. 
We all know how much work it takes to produce good videos. If you can't earn enough ad revenue off of your creative content to make it pencil as a business venture, you either have to figure out how to get other revenue streams, hence the growth of the channels we're talking about, get off of YouTube, or only due it as sort of a hobby. Some folks, like the Crimson Engine guy, are figuring out ways to split the difference. He for one, posts a fair bit of gear review, but he also posts some technique stuff and interesting content about the business side of making indie films and other content. YouTube is sort of a jungle; if you want to find worthwhile content you just have to keep hacking a way at it. Sometimes you'll find interesting trails to follow (channels) and they may take you somewhere awesome and they're just as likely to peter out.
 
That's my take on it, anyway. 

I agree. When McKinnon started out, for instance, I'd watch his videos the second they dropped, guaranteed. It was bound to be an interesting tutorial with a bit of Pete's fun personality thrown i. Now that he's a big successful brand, I don't watch nearly as much of his content. For one, his fun personality has grown a bit obnoxious and I don't need ANOTHER tutorial on how to shoot b-roll of making a cup of coffee in some exotic location. He, and others like him, have gotten a little navel-gazely about their success with their blogs. But that's fine, there are always other channels out there to discover.
YouTube is still a great Skillshare platform. You just have to look harder for it. I think the fault lies with YouTube, not the creators/influences who are charismatic enough and clever enough to have figured out how to make a successful career off of the platform post Adpocalypse. When YouTube decided to slash the ad revenue going to channels and aggressively demonetizing them, it changed the platform. 
We all know how much work it takes to produce good videos. If you can't earn enough ad revenue off of your creative content to make it pencil as a business venture, you either have to figure out how to get other revenue streams, hence the growth of the channels we're talking about, get off of YouTube, or only due it as sort of a hobby. Some folks, like the Crimson Engine guy, are figuring out ways to split the difference. He for one, posts a fair bit of gear review, but he also posts some technique stuff and interesting content about the business side of making indie films and other content. YouTube is sort of a jungle; if you want to find worthwhile content you just have to keep hacking a way at it. Sometimes you'll find interesting trails to follow (channels) and they may take you somewhere awesome and they're just as likely to peter out.
 
That's my take on it, anyway. 

I think one thing to remember is that flashing/reviewing/showing off all the new gear is part of the business model some of these YouTubers use to make their living. It's the affiliate links. The key for channels like Potato Jet, Matti Happoja, Crimson Engine, Peter McKinnon, Kai W, etc, etc, etc, is to get reviews up as often as possible, especially when flashy new gear comes out, to pull in viewers. Yeah, they only make pennies per view, but they make a lot more through affiliate link purchases. 
The next $ tier up is the big brand deals that people like McKinnon get to  fly somewhere posh like Dubai and shoot ~10 minute advertorial/blog videos about products. And the bigger the channel gets, the more likely big companies will loan or give away gear for a video review and little/new/Chinese companies will just send random product to them in hopes of getting a mention. Matti Happoja has mega swag-opening sequences pretty regularly on his channel that highlights this phenomenon. I wonder how much of brands' marketing budget has shifted from TV commercials, magazine ads and other traditional media purchases to social media placement. For marketing people, it's all about the impressions per $ spent.

I agree. When McKinnon started out, for instance, I'd watch his videos the second they dropped, guaranteed. It was bound to be an interesting tutorial with a bit of Pete's fun personality thrown i. Now that he's a big successful brand, I don't watch nearly as much of his content. For one, his fun personality has grown a bit obnoxious and I don't need ANOTHER tutorial on how to shoot b-roll of making a cup of coffee in some exotic location. He, and others like him, have gotten a little navel-gazely about their success with their blogs. But that's fine, there are always other channels out there to discover.
YouTube is still a great Skillshare platform. You just have to look harder for it. I think the fault lies with YouTube, not the creators/influences who are charismatic enough and clever enough to have figured out how to make a successful career off of the platform post Adpocalypse. When YouTube decided to slash the ad revenue going to channels and aggressively demonetizing them, it changed the platform. 
We all know how much work it takes to produce good videos. If you can't earn enough ad revenue off of your creative content to make it pencil as a business venture, you either have to figure out how to get other revenue streams, hence the growth of the channels we're talking about, get off of YouTube, or only due it as sort of a hobby. Some folks, like the Crimson Engine guy, are figuring out ways to split the difference. He for one, posts a fair bit of gear review, but he also posts some technique stuff and interesting content about the business side of making indie films and other content. YouTube is sort of a jungle; if you want to find worthwhile content you just have to keep hacking a way at it. Sometimes you'll find interesting trails to follow (channels) and they may take you somewhere awesome and they're just as likely to peter out.
 
That's my take on it, anyway. 

I think one thing to remember is that flashing/reviewing/showing off all the new gear is part of the business model some of these YouTubers use to make their living. It's the affiliate links. The key for channels like Potato Jet, Matti Happoja, Crimson Engine, Peter McKinnon, Kai W, etc, etc, etc, is to get reviews up as often as possible, especially when flashy new gear comes out, to pull in viewers. Yeah, they only make pennies per view, but they make a lot more through affiliate link purchases. 
The next $ tier up is the big brand deals that people like McKinnon get to  fly somewhere posh like Dubai and shoot ~10 minute advertorial/blog videos about products. And the bigger the channel gets, the more likely big companies will loan or give away gear for a video review and little/new/Chinese companies will just send random product to them in hopes of getting a mention. Matti Happoja has mega swag-opening sequences pretty regularly on his channel that highlights this phenomenon. I wonder how much of brands' marketing budget has shifted from TV commercials, magazine ads and other traditional media purchases to social media placement. For marketing people, it's all about the impressions per $ spent.

I've been called it more than once!
 
Blowing hot air was he?

I don't know, maybe that CEO suit is windy AF. He looks like the type.?

I don't know, maybe that CEO suit is windy AF. He looks like the type.?

I don't know, maybe that CEO suit is windy AF. He looks like the type.?

Please don't use a blimp indoors :-( 

And definitely don't use it indoors with a wookie condom on it!

I want to like this lens, but the flairs are a bit out of control. I think you're right that it is going to get old fast, especial since it triple flares so easily. If it had a warm flare, I'd be all over this lens in a heartbeat. It seems reasonably sharp and the no-hassle appeal of a single focus lens with no adaption necessary under $600 is super appealing. Hopefully this will spur other lens makers to get in the game. I can see Meiki and Rokinon competing in this space.

I want to like this lens, but the flairs are a bit out of control. I think you're right that it is going to get old fast, especial since it triple flares so easily. If it had a warm flare, I'd be all over this lens in a heartbeat. It seems reasonably sharp and the no-hassle appeal of a single focus lens with no adaption necessary under $600 is super appealing. Hopefully this will spur other lens makers to get in the game. I can see Meiki and Rokinon competing in this space.

X-T3 is affordable and has one of the best codecs out there in cameras under $5,000 and the images look great with either the built in film looks or graded Log. I think most people would agree. Autofocus is only ok. I can trust it for well lit sit down interviews, but it can be hit and miss for fast action b-roll. Great 60p and usable 120. Not a ton of third party glass, but Fuji's native lenses are nice and not extremely expensive compared to, say, EF mount L glass or Canon's new R mount. It's fine in low light at 1600 and usable up to maybe 8000 if you nail exposure. 
Fuji has an 8-16 F2.8 and a 10-20 F4 plus wide primes. Their lens stabilization is ok, but not amazing.
With the money you'd save over some of the full frame options out there, you could buy a gimbal to get smooth handheld shots or put in on good sticks. I'd say it's worth renting one for a week to see if you like it. That's what I did, and since I made the switch from an 80D I've been happy. 

You ever work for a nonprofit? It's like squeezing liquid from a stone. And I know, cause I gotta get the liquid in the stone in the first place.
Actually, though, I just got them to buy a bit of gear for my next project, coupla drives and a Mixpre3 ii, a year's subscription to Artlist and insurance for my gear. I put a wireless mic on the expense list, but it got stripped out. I'm going to see if I can get it put back in if I get more funding for the project.
 
It's hobby level for now, hopefully I'll be able to launch a business for real when in six months to a year.

You ever work for a nonprofit? It's like squeezing liquid from a stone. And I know, cause I gotta get the liquid in the stone in the first place.
Actually, though, I just got them to buy a bit of gear for my next project, coupla drives and a Mixpre3 ii, a year's subscription to Artlist and insurance for my gear. I put a wireless mic on the expense list, but it got stripped out. I'm going to see if I can get it put back in if I get more funding for the project.
 
It's hobby level for now, hopefully I'll be able to launch a business for real when in six months to a year.

I get the importance of story. I'm a former magazine writer and newspaper editor. At the same time, if I'm going to do something professionally, I want it to look professional. There's nothing like being prepared for something when you go to do it. That's why I asked about the technical aspects of shooting/editing for big screen. ?
I don't necessarily want to avoid a DCP. I haven't exported this way before, and it sounded like it might be either a bit of a hassle with third party plug-ins or stand alone software or expensive. 

Funny story. I bought the Godox 60w and did a fan replacement (taught myself to solder along the way). The noise definitely went down, and I'm only using it for interviews so no flicker worries at 1/48 shutter speed. It's bright enough for one or two light interview setups, but I don't think it's powerful enough to blast through a window, unless for something like an intimate kitchen or bathroom scene.
Then I went and got a Ninja V. That fan is way noisier than the original 60w's was.
Moral of the story? I'd like to be a big boy someday and have lights big enough to shine through a window to light my scenes someday... Maybe.

I've been shooting social media videos for nonprofits for a few years and graduated to micro-docs for online distribution. Now, it looks like I'll be able to bundle enough funds from donors (my *real* job is development, aka fundraising) to shoot an ~15-25 minute documentary for online distro plus entering into environmental film festivals and for our main sponsor to play at conferences around the country. 
In real-world cinema terms, it will still be a no-budget production (sub 20k). I'm mainly getting funds for my salary and traveling expenses, plus a tiny bit for gear. I shoot run and gun with my own gear, currently an X-T3/Ninja V rig. I suspect/hope that image quality will be just enough to get by with. I don't expect to get a anamorphic setup going anytime soon, so the question becomes what ratio to shoot in. I was thinking I would film in DCI 4k on the Ninja and drop the footage into a FLAT (1.85:1) timeline and export in either 2 or 4k. However, this Filmmaker article says that unless I'm creating a DCP, festivals that accept digital files do so in 1080. Probably not a big deal, because that means if I shoot in DCI I have more wiggle room in post to compose. I'd love wise words of advice here.
Audio wise, I've just ordered a Mixpre 3 ii and have Deity S-mic 2 and Samson C02 mics to boom for main sound. I hope to pick up a Sennheiser G4 lav for backup sound. If budget allows I'll get a local pro to do post for the sound.
For drone footage, I've been using my M2P with the 4k HQ setting, never the mushy wide angle. I'd skip drone footage entirely, because I don't anticipate being able to shoot on anything better, but it will be a film about forestry, so drone shots are pretty impactful. Plus, my boss goes crazy for drone shots. I have friend with Phantom 4, but I'm not sure the iq is really noticeably better than the HQ setting of the M2P. My best bet is probably to be very, very judicial with drone footage in the final cut and only try to shoot with perfect golden hour light, yeah?
What kinds of things should I be thinking about that I wouldn't necessarily have been shooting shorts for Facebook/YouTube? I should switch from 23.976 to real 24p right? I've shot a few interviews already that might end up in the project, but it's not a deal killer to stretch them in post by a frame a second, right?
I'm currently editing in, and cursing Premiere. I've downloaded the free DaVinci but haven't had time to learn it. I've been shooting in ProRes 422 HQ, even though I edit on a PC. Not sure if I should switch to DNxHD because its been the Windows standard, even though ProRes in now pretty supported by Premiere. 
It's not a sealed deal yet (I've only secured enough funds to shoot a series of 4 social media shorts so far, but I'm pretty sure I'll get enough to move forward with the whole project) yet I'm pretty excited about it. It could be a major step towards moving into videography/cinematography full time. Thanks in advance for the help.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. With most codecs you can losslessly trim a portion out. It can be done with ffmpeg, I've done it for archiving GoPro footage from long events. I don't know whether any mainstream editing software can do this--there is an option to "only re-encode when necessary" in Resolve but I haven't tried it. On All-I codecs such as ProRes, this should be possible with cuts on any frame, but with intra-frame codecs, you would begin your trim on a I frame.
Unlike an uncompressed format like your TIFFs, cutting out a portion of a compressed codec won't be lossless across edits. For example, you can't color correct it and maintain your complete fidelity with this method.
On the other side, most codecs will not show any degradation over a single re-encoding. Avoid it when possible, but it's usually not the end of the world if you're not doing it a few times.

Thank you very much!

Nice reel. I like the way you highlighted the different types of work you do and the places you've worked in.
 

I appreciated your warning this weekend. I tested it out and didn't lose any clips, so I used it on my weekend shoot. Definitely didn't lose footage, but it didn't keep my X-T3 powered for the whole shoot so I had to switch to my handheld rig with a v-mount battery. I do have an Anker power bank I've used with it before. Seems kind of clunky to gaff it to the gimbal though.