Davide DB

Has anyone noticed with some of the biggest tech reviewers on youtube like Hardware Unboxed or MKHB, there's a trend at the moment for deadpan anti-hype style reviews.
Be careful with that as well, it's a style-change to counteract the falling viewing figures caused by them overhyping everything every day for the past god-knows how many years, as people catch onto it and get bored of it.

I hadn't thought about that, but if that's an option, I guess I could have done it.  Though at this point, I doubt I have an installer around for the old version.
Yes, for someone who needs multiple or many Adobe products, the current pricing is somewhat advantageous vs the old pricing.  A lot of people, me included, are not that person and use Lightroom almost exclusively.  The only time I use Photoshop is when I need to run SRDx.
 
The current cost for the entire suite is $70/month - over 3 years, that's $2,520.  So... wow.  That's an additional $20 in cost over $2,500.  So it doesn't seem "much cheaper" to me.  It seems to be "the same cost."
This is the pitch that is made for subscription software.  It's not applicable to most people.  I use Lightroom often enough that it doesn't make sense to turn on and off my subscription all the time.
There's no need to guess.  They went with it because it radically increased their profits and gave them a steady predictable monthly revenue instead of an unpredictable spiky revenue that got reduced if people didn't like the new version.  Now it doesn't matter if you don't like the new version.  F U consumer, you are paying for it anyway.
Here are some charts that show the true reason that Adobe went to a subscription model - prior to it, they had a pretty consistent/flat 4-5 billion dollars per year in revenue.  This is plenty of money to develop their software.  It has been on an upward ramp since then and now they are making 20 billion dollars per year.  If it flattens again, expect them to increase subscription pricing to further enrich their shareholders.  This is why subscription models exist - to enrich shareholders, not to make your life better.  I used to work for a major e-commerce company - discussions of subscription billing, etc, were very rarely phrased in terms of the benefit to end users.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ADBE/adobe/revenue
The free version is intended to stay.  Petty said in their NAB livestream that he expects that, at some point, people will be asked to pay for upgrades to the Studio License to fund continuing development of Resolve.  This is, for me, fully acceptable.  My existing version of Resolve Studio will keep working as long as it needs to work and if I find the features in a new version to be compelling, I will pay them for it.  This is a healthy business relationship.

EH FILMS gave an interesting take on the GH7:
 

Surely the main point is that if you can afford to shoot ARRI Alexa 35 you are not quibbling over software licensing fees over the week(s) long duration of a shoot.
Whereas with Adobe they scavenge £ from grandmothers and students for years and years.

As much as subscription models suck for us individuals, they are often preferable for businesses, even regarding software like Adobe. Obviously Arri's target market is rental houses, and the comment earlier about a rental house passing those temporary upgrades to customers is quite likely the intent.
It's worth spelling out the difference between subscription editing software and camera upgrades, though. With Adobe's product, if you stop paying, you can't open your old projects. In Arri's model, if you stop paying, you can presumably still open files shot with those upgrades. Losing access to the creative work that you've already done is a big difference.

I thought/assumed that the choice of cameras for f1 were similar to the reason that studios have been using Ronin 4D for a bunch of stuff - and why the last couple of Mission Impossible films used Z Cams for the stunts - because there's no Arri that could possibly fit in the places where they put the custom Sony cameras (just as there's no Arri that can be usable on a gimbal as quickly as the R4D can be ready and because there's no Arri that can fit in a lot of the places that the Z Cam does).
It's not to say that the Venice line isn't really good, it certainly seems to be, but on a movie with a budget of $100,000,000, the difference in price between shooting on Alexa and shooting on Venice is basically a rounding error.

I was with you on "it's OK to have a license as long as there's an option for perpetual," but this is the part where you're losing me.
Subscriptions, as currently implemented by companies like Adobe, are actually extremely consumer-hostile.  You're right that it's good to have an ongoing source of revenue, but you're completely ignoring that they now have no impetus whatsoever to build features that people actually want.
If I have Lightroom 5 and Adobe release Lightroom 6, I can look at the features that were added.  If none of them are something I want, I keep using Lightroom 5.  If Adobe completely misses the mark with customers, few or no people buy version 6 and they are forced to course correct or go out of business.  If they go out of business, the copy of Lightroom 5 that I have keeps working forever.  Maybe eventually it won't run on a new computer, but I have virtual machines or my old computer as options still.
In a subscription world, I pay Adobe every month to keep using the software that I already have.  They can waste as much time and money as they want on shitty new features that I don't want or care about.  I still have to pay for them.  They want to spend 1000 hours developing an integration between Lightroom and a stock photo site so they can pull extra revenue through a deal with the stock photo company?  I don't care and I'll never use it.  But I'm still paying for it.  The company spends a bunch of time integrating their own cloud service which would charge me even more money to store my files?  Don't want it, probably will never use it, still funding the development.
If a competitor has different features that I want, I can certainly move to their software, but unless the interface is identical to what I'm used to, now I lose time and effort re-training on how to use the other software.  They know that a lot of people aren't going to take that time and effort so the money keeps flowing in.  Plus maybe I've spent hundreds of hours in something like the Lightroom catalog rating and tagging things or doing some other activity that isn't necessarily stored in the XMP sidecar (not sure if ratings and tags are) and moving that to another software package would eat a ton of my life.
Stop using the software for a while?  Sometimes subscriptions are easy to pause or stop, but a lot of times, they are a pain in the ass to stop.  Once again, extra money keeps flowing in because people forget the subscription or give up on cancellation because they'll probably need it again sometime in the future.
You are arguing against yourself here.  If I own the software and it doesn't have to check a central license server every time it starts up, I can open my files in perpetuity.  Virtual machines are a thing and allow running older software basically forever.
On the other hand, if I had a file created in some version of Adobe's software in a format that isn't supported elsewhere (not sure if this exists) and I don't pay a ransom to Adobe, those files are now dead to me.  Also, if Adobe decides to stop supporting that software because not enough people are paying the subscription, those files can never be opened again.  Go offline for a month because you're traveling in the middle of nowhere and/or don't want to pay for a local sim?  Sucks to be you, you won't be editing anything after a few days because the software can't phone home.
This is increasingly a concern in the gaming industry as well - there's even a petition and a movement within Europe about it at https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
Companies intentionally build their games to require an online connection and if it's gone, the game stops working.  Meanwhile, eventually most people stop playing and it costs money to run/patch/maintain the servers so the company turns them off.  Wanna play that game that you loved a few years ago?  Too bad.  Even if you have it still installed on your computer, it now serves no purpose other than to waste disk space.
Anyway, Adobe announce record profits all the time.  I'm still using Lightroom about like I was 10 years ago.  I should probably try Capture One again.  I have kind of hated it every time I installed it, but at least their model is less offensive - option for a perpetual license or subscription, and if converting from subscription to perpetual, some of the subscription costs are prorated toward the purchase.

And so one feels like searching for the Naiads, beautiful and immortal freshwater nymphs that disturb the spirit of those who catch a glimpse of them emerging from the waters. Beliefs that embody the ambiguous feeling of fear and attraction to the waters.
So far no Naiads and Nereids but only many sticklebacks!
GH5MII and GH5S, various lens, natural light
Sound ON
 
 

This looks incredible!
Great images and colour, and I really like the music and edit too.
It really is a different world down there isn't it...

We are two divers, one GH5MII in a Nauticam Housing and a GH5S in Aquatica housing.
 

Speaking of new cameras...
This was shot by a friend of mine on a "vintage" Lumix LX10 in Nauticam housing and different wet diopters.
 
 

Speaking of new cameras...
This was shot by a friend of mine on a "vintage" Lumix LX10 in Nauticam housing and different wet diopters.
 
 

prepping a no budget feature.

here's some stuff that i like somewhat from the past year and a half or so:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Nice! What type of underwater housing are you using for your GH5s?
That looks really beautiful.

Yeah, exactly.  That's what I'm saying.  Their banter is still good/fun, but there doesn't seem to be even the slightest spark in the reviews anymore.  That's probably also a symptom of PetaPixel demanding a higher volume of reviews and with a number of them being for things that are inherently uninteresting. 
And I get it - to some extent, how much is there to say about a 21mm lens?  And in that review in particular, they didn't even seem to be doing any basic research before the videos - talking about Thypoch coming out with one (the Simera-C has had a 21/1.4 lens for months already, though with a different design) - and 21mm has been a Leica staple for many years with the 21/1.4 Summilux having been released in like 2008 (which makes sense since Thypoch, to some extent, is emulating Leica with the Simera series).  But yet, Chris acted like a 21mm lens was something he'd not heard of before...  presumably because he just doesn't care about what he's reviewing anymore.  It's a job.  Lens comes in, take some photos around Calgary, do some LoCa tests, shoot a test chart or two, lens go out.  Ready for the next lens to come in...
But they've also become a channel that won't publish a negative review at all.  I had high hopes for the new person - Sarah?  But then she did a review of some shitty wearable camera that seemed way more like an advertisement and any criticism mixed in with tons of praise, despite that the footage looked like pure garbage.  Then the next week in the Podcast, they acted like people were crazy for suggesting it, given that some small criticism had been slipped in to a 14 minute mostly positive review where the footage is described as "good enough" and since the gross oversaturated colors are "so vibrant there's not much you have to do to them."  To me the footage (the link should go right to the sample clips) could be much better described as "a gross, shaky jello-filled nightmare."  Later, in the conclusion, the presenter concludes that the camera is definitely worth the $200 price tag, despite that it's redundant with a smartphone and records with quality much worse than a smartphone.
If that shit is sponsored, it's not disclosed and they actively denied it - so that's gross.  If it's not sponsored, then PetaPixel's standards on cameras are incredibly different from mine.  It was already a thin ice - and posting videos heaping glowing praise on AI slop and deleting critical comments is just the last push that I needed.
 

When FLCs were introduced in Resolve I had seen some tutorials on how to apply them. I had never actually played with them because I was only working with underwater footage at that time.
Some time ago I took up the subject again and realized that several YouTube videos gave wrong directions on how to apply them and the results are very different.
I am certainly stating a trivia and I apologize in advance.
This should be a correct example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwcItNYhOV4
 

Red bull might have something to say about that, It would seem to me that they have made a truckload of money off the back of extreme sports shooting as well as selling a few more cold drinks in the process.  I suspect its also kept a few camera men / editors in a job as well. It may not be your "thing" and definitely its a niche area but it still videography and worthy of a thread i think.
Like eatstoomuchjam and Emanuel have said, your house your rules and we appreciate that you opening up this thread. No idea where the next david lynch or Spielberg is coming from but there's a good chance one of his / her cameras  will be an action camera of some type to cut their teeth on. 
I was blown away by Chris Benchetler' chasing el nino series from like ten years ago. amazing scenes of winter  wonderlands, great skiing and huge jumps with alot of gopro footage. Inspired enough to buy a gopro anyway lol. In hindsight i suspect there was probably a film crew with your typical camera gear doing all the normal stuff with a few skiers wearing gopros. If i was more cynical i'd say very clever marketing by red bull and gopro, however still very impressive visually.
I dropped and cracked a two day old iphone 13 pro max while documenting the local roads after the last big storm / flash floods we had. Really wish i'd gone out that day with the gopro... 
 
Hats off to anyone who gets out there and does stuff.   Be it a wedding, forest trail or car show and I'm brand agnostic, so use what you got.  

Ok I bought the C500 mkII. Can't wait to create the first project with it. First tests the AF is so much smoother then my S5II, maybe not faster, but it feels more natural. As does the image. The dynamic range is not crazy better over an S5 or S5II it seems. The highlight rolloff seems smoother though. The internal Nd's are fun too.
 

Same, costed me lots of jobs as well. As often they request the premiere/Ae project files. Or they ask if I can take over an existing premiere edit. Been working in resolve for 10 years now, and stopped using adobe because of their subscription model. All in all I might have made more money, just paying for the subscriptions..
Sorry to get offtopic a bit here.

WTH of a combo! 56 grams + 1/1.7-inch CMOS sensor delivering 4K video at up to 120 frames per second...
https://dlmag.com/dji-osmo-nano-leak-reveals-ultra-compact-action-camera-set-to-revive-modular-design/
 

I ordered the EVF thanks to this great thread. Shipping took around 3 weeks to Germany and I had to pay 20€ extra. 215€ total. Thats not even half the price of the Sigma FP EVF.
Unfortunately it does not work 100% with the Sigma FP. The camera screen flickers when I plug the EVF in and once in a while a frame appears on the EVF. After switching the settings of the HDMI Output in the menu a couple of times it eventually always works. Sometimes it takes 1 minute, sometimes 10 seconds, but after I switch off the camera it's always the same issue again.
At first I thought it wouldn't work at all and that the HDMI power of the FP was not strong enough but once the EVF works it does so without a problem until I power off the camera. For focus the image is nice and mirroring the camera display works great, with peaking, false colour, magnification, etc. The blacks are crushed (and have a green tint), so for exposure it is not as useful.
If it wouldn't be for that annoying connectivity issue this thing would be perfect. Paired with the 28-200 this finally makes my stripped down "Bolex FP" complete. Being able to adjust the EVF freely and keep the camera close to my chest is really comfortable and the Lens Stabilisation makes the FP viable for handheld while still being compact and light.
Think I'll be using this for slow paced personal projects or when I am filming constantly and dont turn off the camera a lot. The form factor and not having to think about extra batteries is great. For photography in sunlight I'll still have to use my diy loupe for the backscreen because waiting up to a minute for the EVF to finally work is just to cumbersome.
@Clark Nikolai Do you know if the buttons on the back have any functionality apart from the one that changes brightness?
 

"Canon doesn't want you to know about this camera"
"This camera changes everything"
"Why I sold all my gears to get this camera"
"Why Hollywood loves cropped 4k"
 

I've just sold my 2016 Nissan at the same price it was in 2020.

Having used both professionally, I'd go FX30 all day. The XS-20 is a fun photography camera, that does video pretty well too. It's just not quite up for pro level work in my opinion. The image is really good, the size is fun, and the color is pretty good too. It's kind of fiddly though, lacks a good selection of custom buttons, overheats a lot, struggles with autofocus a bit and has the SD card in the battery compartment, which is something I personally don't enjoy. 
While not being maybe "as fun" as the XS-20, the FX30 is more of a workhorse. Decent color, duel native ISOs, integrated Sony cinema features, solid autofocus, good cooling, easily riggable form factor and the list goes on. The major con is lack of a EVF, but I rarely use built in EVFs, so that doesn't bother me. 
Basically if I'm choosing a family camera for stills and some video, I'd go the XS-20. For professional video work, the FX30 is a much more reliable choice. 

I've just sold my 2016 Nissan at the same price it was in 2020.