I've been a filmmaker for 25 years, though I'm still trying to understand why.
At first I was shocked and horrified that this kind of "censorship" is happening, but the more I consider the situation--- Youtube and Facebook, etc. are corporate businesses, not public utilities exercising government control. As an example, The Disney corp keeps a tight reign on 'standards' in their theme parks, in order to serve the larger core of their customers. Some may be frustrated that Disney won't allow, say "snuff films" to be displayed on the sides of buildings on Main Street USA, but by keeping things wholesome, it makes better business sense to serve the majority of families who come to the park, with expectations from the Disney brand. The same can be said of Facebook, Youtube or whatever content portal restricts certain material. The vast majority of users may not want to stumble on to extreme content, and by keeping certain standards (outsourced to the Philippines), it ensures the users will feel "safe" using those brands. Their are other sights on the internet if someone wants to view that sort of material, people seeking that imagery can go there. This "outrage" may be more of a reaction to private companies protecting their business interests, than it is a deep dark conspiracy to censor videos.
Uh...Jeffrey - No need to be snarky. This article is about a piece of editing software...so, where can we see your "Editing" work on the web?
There are some useful tips here -- But (sorry to be a critic) the video itself is so poorly produced and directed that it's nearly impossible to recognize this guy as having any credibility.
I get that this website is called 'No Film School' and that it's just linking to SLR lounge's content, but sometimes a little film education is a good thing.
Let's start with eye lines. If you MUST set up 2 cameras and constantly cut between them (probably to cover mistakes and re-starts), can't we at least try to align the shots so the talent's eye line isn't jumping off-camera, then direct to camera, back & forth-- it drives me crazy when I see amateurs do this, giving no thought to the perception it creates in the mind of the viewer. If the director can't get both cameras on axis to have the presenter look into both cameras, the director should just have the talent look off camera (interview style) for both.
Now, let's talk shot size: the 2nd angle needs to be a 30% change in shot size for the cut to work, or it just feels like a bad jump cut... (Even better if there's a 30 degree change in angle as well, but that will mess with the eye line if the presenter is looking into camera, so it wouldn't help here).
I realize this isn't a piece of cinematic art, it's just a battery tutorial, but it would be nice if the fine folks that created this at least followed a few basic rules of visual grammar for a more effective presentation.
Groan...another guilt trip from a self-righteous actor who spews more carbon in a single jet trip to location than I will in my lifetime.
Ahh. Watch out for hairy gay bears. Now I finally understand what "The Revenant" was all about.
For less than half the price I have Canon's L series 24-70mm 2.8...it doesn't have the servo, but why would I pay 5k and only get F4? Looking at the demo there's not a lot of shallow focus or bokeh in the footage...there IS way too many 'swoosh!' sound effects and lens flares over bad action 80s TV series theme music. Not a very tasteful demo....