My 6 input (5+1) mixing hot end
-
@deckingman personally prefer the blog posts as a reference. The videos are useful for illustration (easy to see the differential head movement on a video, would have taken more time to describe that). As David says, will continue to watch/read along either way!
-
Well here is the thing. My blog has been running slightly longer than my YouTube channel (although there isn't much in it). Until recently, the only YouTube videos were those that were made in support of blog posts with links in the blog to the corresponding video. So there are actually less YouTube videos than Blog posts.
Stats for blog;
Total followers - 43
Views for October - 85Stats for YouTube channel
Total subscribers - 1027
Views for October - 2522So the YouTube channel reaches a lot more people than the blog.
I'm still learning a lot - standing in front of camera and talking to myself doesn't come easy (and I hate the sound of my own voice)
. It's surprising how many times I clear my throat or say "um", which I wasn't aware that I did. I have to cut those bits out which is why the videos look "jerky".Maybe I should write it all up on my blog, then use that as the script for the video. But that brings it's own problems in that I find it hard to read from a script without it sounding like that's exactly what I'm doing.
I've never given actors or film makers much thought, but I've started to develop a bit of an appreciation ...........
-
@deckingman YT will always have more viewers as ppl are lazy, if you look for numbers YT will beat the blog always, if you look for quality it is other way around...
few suggestions if you don't mind, widen the shot a bit as you can always zoom/crop in post if you want to, but can never widen in post, also if in post you want to apply stabilization for e.g. it will zoom in as it needs to crop out the edges while stabilizing so taking a wider shot is always better idea... dunno what you are using for post but I can suggest daVinci Resolve, free version is awesome and paid version is not too expensive if you decide you need it (paid version have some AI effects and few nice features but for what you are doing free version should be more than enough), in same tool you have full editing capability, movie standard color grading (they are the color grading software that all big studios use), full audio software (ppl say it's professional level, I can't say I'm not audio person, all audio is ok to me
) and some effects too ... so all around package where you can do everything from start to finish and it's free with ton of tutorials online -
@arhi Thanks for the tips. I only have an oldish camcorder with fixed lens and in the last video I zoomed in a bit to try a get a blurry background - it didn't work but that's the reason for the close up.
I've always used Vegas editing suite (used to be Sony Vegas but now it's Magix). It's one of the very few paid for packages that you can buy outright, rather than the monthly subscription model that a lot of software companies are moving over to. I've heard good things about de vinci but like I said, I already have a paid for package.
-
@deckingman dv-resolve is also, pay once
but the free version offers more than many other paid packages... anyhow if you are more acustomed to vegas (have not tried it for years but last one I tried was way below than free version of resolve) you can use resolve (free version) for stabilization only, that's how I started with it as even free version have awesome stabilization, and then I slowly moved to it (have not yet got paid version, will probbly get it on black friday) -
@arhi Vegas had probably moved on a lot since you tried it. A quick comparison of features shows that it does quite a bit more than dv (depending on version). It's had image stabilization for quite some time, although the camera itself does quite a reasonable job of that.
YouTube also attempts to do image stabilization and it's bloody awful. I've uploaded videos with close up shots of the print head, and after YouTube has done it's thing, it looks like the print head is almost stationery but the printer frame is moving around! I must look into that - there must be a way to turn that off. -
@deckingman said in My 6 input (5+1) mixing hot end:
It's had image stabilization for quite some time
awesome
YouTube also attempts to do image stabilization and it's bloody awful.
ah, YT processing is terrible, always better to prepare everything at home and let YT just encode it's required sizes
-
@arhi I came across this https://www.vegascreativesoftware.com/us/video-editing/vegas-pro-vs-davinci-resolve/. It seems that dv has also moved on since I last looked.
Although the source is vegas, it seems to be quite an unbiased comparison - (they do state that dv has better colour grading tools for example).
On balance, they both seem highly capable with not much to choose between them. Both have pros and cons when comparing one with the other. I'd say that Vegas biggest downside for some might be that it's for Windows machines only. It's also more expensive. So if I was starting out again, I'd certainly take a serious look at davinci but as I already have vegas and I'm reasonably familiar with it, I'll stick with it.
-
@deckingman good find, looking now, I'd say biggest difference is that dvresolve's free version is way more capable than anything available (vegas has no free option, only free trial, dvresolve is fully free in non studio version where it only lacks the "AI stuff") ... so as you already paid for vegas I don't see a reason to think about resolve at all
... resolve started as professional color grading tool (was doing only that) and used to cost in 5 digits levels but then they reorganized, purchased some companies, created all arounder and went on to big numbers.... I'm mentioning it to ppl "new to video" as most ppl (like me till few months ago) have no clue where resolve is today and how much it can give in free version and use very limited stuff like imovie or shotcut or openshot and similar free but super limited stuff... (or worse, cracked premier/after effects) ... I made a mistake, I see that you are in video for a while, I assumed you just started from the way you went with (I'm noving from blog to YT), but I see you have bunch of videos there already ... my mistake ... -
@arhi Yes, I've been into making my own videos since about 2013. Mostly when I go travelling (not that there is much scope for that right now). I have a Panasonic HC-X900 camcorder. It's old by modern standards but works quite well. Being a camcorder, it will shoot continuously for hours at a time no matter how hot the ambient - that's something that DSLRs struggle to do. I would like something better with large format sensor and interchangeable lenses but my pension income won't stretch that far. My home movies are all 1080p AVCHD with 5.1 surround but I don't put them on YT. I've uploaded a few in MP4 format just to share with family members but they don't show up on my channel.
Resolve looks a very good choice for anyone starting out - especially as there is a free version to start with. I'm fairly locked in to Vegas as I've purchased several third party fx add-ons from the likes of Pixelan, NewBlue, and HitFilm (as well as the cost of Vegas itself).
-
I have few dslr's (1dx, 5d3, 5d4... all canons) and while they are awesome for professional recording they suck big time for hobby use and almost every camcorder is better choice IMHO
.. I'm not a panasonic users but most of camcorders with fixed lens that are sold in quantity now have 3rd party addons to attach "modifier lens", especially panasonic ones, I had 20 years ago a panasonic camcorder (high8 I think, something like that, digital storage with analog output) with fixed lens and I found on ebay alu adapter you screw on and then a x0.25 wide lense, that goes on top of that adapter, x2 tele lens, x5 tele lens and a macro lens that made that camera many many many many many many more versatile ... you might want to check out ebay if something like that exist for that hcx900and yes, resolve is awesome for beginners as free version is totally useful for everything beginner needs, that's why I recommended, had no idea you are already experienced with video
-
@arhi You also ought to know that, although I started video photography about 7 years ago, I have been into still photography for more like 50 years. In fact, I used to shoot a lot of black and white because colour photography was new and costly when I started.
A bit later, I used to develop my own film and mount my own slides but that was still in the pre-digital age. I've spent many a Sunday afternoon in a bathroom converted to a dark room slopping around with trays of chemicals. I've long since thrown away all my old film cameras and slide projector but I do still have a DSLR (Canon as it happens) but it doesn't do video.Ref lenses, the Panasonic has a half reasonable 12X optical zoom Leica (it also has digital zoom as well but I'm not a huge fan of digital zoom). Indeed there are lens converters and extenders available but again, I'm not a huge fan due to various aspects of image degradation. They can screw up auto focus and stabilisation too (although with a tripod that's not a huge problem). But the big problem is that they all affect lens speed - as general rule they add at least 1 f stop and the stock lens is only f2.8 to 3.4 (depending on zoom setting) to start with. What I'd really like is to be able to use faster lenses (smaller f stop= bigger aperture = smaller depth of field) to get a nice out of focus background.
For those reasons I prefer interchangeable lenses to adaptors or "tele converters". But large sensor camcorders with interchangeable lenses start at about £2,500 and go up from there - much more than a pensioner can afford or a that a hobbyist can justify. Maybe if I win the lottery.......(oh wait, that won't work as I don't buy a ticket...........)
-
@deckingman I'm not that old
I started with still photography seriously only in '97 with my rebel-g ... you started before I was born u old and u know it the adapters I used were actually superb quality and apart for slight image purple fringing (that can easily be fixed in post) on images with high backlight there were no issues and the combo of macro+wide actually gave one stop instead of taking it (tele was taking one stop) so with macro+wide you would get around x1 wrt zoom but x2 wrt light and 2x wrt DoF so effectively faster lens
(probably 'cause it's collecting light from a 4x larger glass surface) ....
technology with new coating went very far now and for YT quality I think those adapters could be useful... on the other hand, I don't know the cost today but the pack of lenses I took back then for that camera, all packed in individual wooden boxes with felt and golden lettering inside, costed lot more than the camera itselfon the other hand, I recently got for my kid a kit of clip-on lenses for the mobile phone and WOOOOOOOW, I did not expect that .. I took the "most expensive kit" from a store as they had some PRC noname ones and this one was HAMA (yeah I know, not a reputable name but..) and that "most expensive one" was 99eur so not really that much, comes with 6 lenses and adding this to kids iphone 8 the ... wow .. for a super tiny sensor and super tiny lenses ... just wow ... object separation like I was using f/1 ... crazy .. it does not work on modern xs, 11, 12.. iphones with multiple cameras and on some phones is hard to use (like samsung s8) as clip is not deep enough but that's a totally usable for YT .. also, the iphone xs and 11 ... I'd say, without any addons, usable for YT right now.. dunno how they are doing it with sensors size of a nail but..
-
I am not deep into video yet, dabbling around a little and using Resolve. Quite capable, but man, that program sucks up system resources (and especially GPU) like there is no tomorrow. Ryzen 3700x and NVidia RTX2070 barely cuts it with 2k footage from my Foxeer Box 2.
-
@DaBit said in My 6 input (5+1) mixing hot end:
I am not deep into video yet, dabbling around a little and using Resolve. Quite capable, but man, that program sucks up system resources (and especially GPU) like there is no tomorrow. Ryzen 3700x and NVidia RTX2070 barely cuts it with 2k footage from my Foxeer Box 2.
I'm using bit newer cpu (3900x) with only 64G of ram and older generation gpu (1080) and I have no issues... the secret is, when you add the clips to your project left click on them and "generate optimized media" and then in the menus you need to select to always use optimized media ... then, the work is easy, everything is super fast no matter how big the files are
-
Hmm. I wonder if there are any differences between Vegas and resolve in that respect. My PC is nothing too fancy. It has an i7 8700K - std frequency of 3.7 GHz - not overclocked or anything. 16GB RAM. NO GPU - just the stock intel UHD 630 graphics that's bundled with the ASRock 370 Extreme mobo. Mostly because earlier versions of Vegas didn't leverage GPUs all that well so it was generally best advice to spend the money on the processor instead. The latest Vegas does leverage GPUs a lot better so a graphics card is on my wish list - need to decide which one - any advice for a budget of (say) £200?
Anyway, depending on what is going one - stuff like picture in picture and motion tracking slow it down a bit more - but a typical 1080p AVCHD renders in about the same time as playback. i.e. a 20 minute 1080p AVCHD at 50 fps with 5.1 surround will render in about the same 20 minutes. An MP4 for YouTube renders in about half that time - about 10 mins for a 20 min video. Dunno if that's good or bad........
-
@deckingman no clue, dv depends heavily on what you did with the futage, with object tracking, many nodes of corrections and stuff, it can take hours .. on the other hand, some light corrections and 60min video is exported in 5-6 minutes ... I assume vegas is the same, basically they all use cpu fully all cores of cpu and lot of power from the gpu... and I doubt their algo's are too different in efficiency
-
@deckingman said in My 6 input (5+1) mixing hot end:
So the YouTube channel reaches a lot more people than the blog.
That is normal nowadays, the people to not want to check and check a blog for changes. The people prefer the push notifications on youtube, as I do.
(Nobody uses RSS any more, unfortunately.)I love to see more updates from your tremendous project.
Thumps up for your channel! You do a very good job there!
Cheers, Chriss
-
@deckingman an RX 580 or RX 5500XT should fit the budget, with 8GB VRAM, if barely. 4GB would probably be just fine for 1080P, but more would help for 4K. Vegas doesn't care too much about AMD vs Nvidia, just memory, memory bandwidth, and GPU throughput. Resolve can and will use the GPU a lot, but also all of your logical CPU cores, where most others don't.
As an aside, it's the i7-8700 that houses your current GPU, not the motherboard itself.
-
@yellowedplastic Thanks for the recomendations and the clarification about the graphics. I'll take a look at those boards (Xmas isn't far away
)
