[mee]

Well said, Mee.

Can I add that the YouTubers are obligated by the algorithm to churn out clickbait, on a regular basis, with less than dignified titles and thumbnails? Otherwise their content doesn't appear in our feeds.

Their hope of being paid by gear manufacturers to be Influencers hinges on their views, and I heard one guitar vlogger say that less than 100,000 subscribers is laughable to companies.

So getting attention is everything, not producing sound content.

Absolutely. This is the major issue with youtube -- the information is heavily tainted by clickbait and influencers all grasping for dollars. Plus the popular names are usually rather immature which appeals to the very young audience that dominates these sites. That has had an effect on how videos are advertised too with the obnoxious, shocked face thumbnail in so many videos.


But also just in entertainment I find youtube can become rather annoying. Some will stop so the 'host' can lift up a snake oil product and peddle it for a period of time before returning to the actual content you clicked on to see. Some are decent about it though and will label the portions of the video which makes it easy to skip forward.

The ills of social media I suppose. It has become a revenue stream for so many either looking to supplement their regular pay or to become a full time job. Instead of it being a place for regular people to post videos on how-to, history/education, reviews, and yes stupid fun it has become a commercial enterprise for even the content makers.

[clackers]

Instead of it being a place for regular people to post videos on how-to, history/education, reviews, and yes stupid fun it has become a commercial enterprise for even the content makers.

I've seen the lows an American guitar teacher has had to go to - he fesses up, he's simultaneously ashamed and obligated - to maintain his stats, and there's an English family who own three malamutes, and they're resorting to desperate stunts to keep the clicks coming. They started off being a normal suburban family, but the other day I saw they took their cat through a McDonald's drive through. I have a feeling the mother doesn't work, Youtube is her job, her way of sharing the family expenses with the husband.

[clackers]

Could you explain that? I do have a couple of YouTube videos myself, and I was not obliged by anything, but then I don't expect (or get) any payment or more than a few views. Are you saying that they cannot be linked into an external website like PF?

If you keep the algorithm happy, when people go to Youtube your current video may appear on the startup screen.

Otherwise, how will anyone ever know you made that video? Other than people who've already subscribed to you *and* bothered to click on your channel to see if you've made a new one?

If you made a video today, how would any of us ever know it existed? In fact, did you know Pentax Forums has a YouTube channel?

I think you can begin to see the scale of the problem. In addition, let's say you can get paid $5 by AdSense for a thousand views once you've reached a regular threshold.

If those views drop off, the AdSense money drops off and you might question why you gave up your day job or whatever. When you approach a camera manufacturer for payment (advertorial) they will examine your stats and associated demographics:

Social Media Demographics to Inform your Strategy in 2021 | Sprout Social

[Lord Lucan]

If you keep the algorithm happy, when people go to Youtube your current video may appear on the startup screen.

They would be using Youtube differently from how I do. I never see the YT start-up screen, if that is what you see at www[dot]youtube[dot]com*. Maybe I did the first couple of times I ever used it. I keep YT permanently open on a tab at whatever I was watching last time. I also have my subscibed channels on my browser bookmarks.

how will anyone ever know you made that video? Other than people who've already subscribed to you *and* bothered to click on your channel to see if you've made a new one?.

Other than via my existing subscriptions, I find Youtube videos by means of its own search facility. I have just searched for one of my own channels with a key word (using a different YT/Google id - I have several) and it came up on the first screen. I uploaded new video in the Autumn for example and it has about 100 views, nothing compared with the Northrup's of course but I'm not bothered.

In fact, did you know Pentax Forums has a YouTube channel?

No I didn't, but thanks for pointing it out. I just searched "Pentax" on YT and it is not on the first few screens (but Snappiness, Kobie, Pentaxtips - all subscribed and Cameraville - unsubscribed , are all there). Searching "Pentax Forums" did find it though, and I subscribed.

I think you can begin to see the scale of the problem.

Not a problem for me. I'm an amateur doing it for fun like I take photos. I have been rewarded by some of my videos having helped people to use technical kit for which they cannot find instructions, and getting thanks in the comments.

* I just tried it and there is all sorts of rubbish there. Is that how most people navigate YT?

PS : Sorry, I seem to be getting a bit OT.

---

Last edited by Lord Lucan; 01-07-2022 at 03:27 AM. Reason: Tpyo and added PS

[bertwert]

* I just tried it and there is all sorts of rubbish there. Is that how most people navigate YT?

You'd be surprised at the sort of drivel people enjoy watching nowadays... I don't get the appeal, and I'm one of them "young people"

[clackers]

They would be using Youtube differently from how I do.

I don't think they're too concerned with you, LL.

I'm simply saying how the global business works, so that you understand Youtube, its viewers and its content providers. Social media has supplanted older forms such as newspapers and billboards as worthwhile advertising spends. Most content is not consumed on a computer like yours, but on a phone, too. A takeaway is that your own Youtube channel I think has zero chance of 'succeeding' in being even noticed.

No matter. You made those videos for fun.

You seem a traditional Pentaxian ... contrarian, relatively immune to the hype of dominant marketing styles. That's why we're a special breed. We don't run with the herd.

Now, that means our makeup is probably mainly old people who haven't moved with the times, I admit, but there are younger folk, too.

They would be using Youtube differently from how I do. I uploaded new video in the Autumn for example and it has about 100 views, nothing compared with the Northrup's of course but I'm not bothered.

Don't be modest, mate, what's the name of the channel so I can subscribe ... and most likely like?

[nutz]

Honestly folks what do you expect from youtube and specifically a YouTube know it all like Tony baloney???? Spare me

[nater]

I largely agree with what Tony is saying, and he spends some time in the video criticizing the big camera makers for spending so much time and energy creating mirrorless camera systems without fundamentally improving what an ILC is and how it operates to make it more capable and modern from a technology standpoint. It's something that I pointed out in this forum years ago in a different thread, and I made a number of suggestions on how an ILC camera could be a really progressive technology platform and do a lot more and be a lot more than it is now while still doing everything else it does great that a phone camera can't be. It's worth mentioning again that Android was created as a camera OS first, and adapted for general handheld electronic devices later:

Android founder: We aimed to make a camera OS

Ironic that no major camera maker has tried to significantly evolve camera operating systems all these years (such as seriously adopting Android across a lineup or creating something equally capable) despite massive computational improvements in mobile chips that could allow it. These years of stagnation leave us in a situation now where the deep pockets of big tech companies are creating photographic devices in phones that are drastically different in capabilities than contemporary ILCs:

You Tube

You Tube

I want both things in one device. I want an ILC with all the ergonomic, functional, and light gathering advantages of an ILC with a big sensor where I can use a wide range of lenses and accessories and I want all the power and connectivity of a mobile computational platform with the ability to install and run custom apps and develop my own and create automation scripts that can tap into and leverage all the power the whole platform and the unique I/O that it offers. There's a world of possible products that nobody is creating and it's a giant missed opportunity.

Meanwhile the traditional players like Canon are just going to continue closing factories and consolidating product lineups as they slowly retreat into their most profitable market segments as the cell phone camera market continues to eat into their sales:

https://petapixel.com/2022/01/22/why-canon-is-closing-its-china-factory-and-...-the-industry/

[surfar]

Ironic that no major camera maker has tried to significantly evolve camera operating systems all these years (such as seriously adopting Android across a lineup

Well,Samsung did it quite a while ago.the cameras still exist and are used but not supported by the manufacturer.

Samsung read the market accurately and dropped their camera division,tranferring the staff to work on camera tech within their phone division.

Panasonic had something a bit similar to what Samsung put out,its discontinued too.

[nater]

Well,Samsung did it quite a while ago.the cameras still exist and are used but not supported by the manufacturer.

Samsung read the market accurately and dropped their camera division,tranferring the staff to work on camera tech within their phone division.

Panasonic had something a bit similar to what Samsung put out,its discontinued too.

From what I remember, it made sense to discontinue/fold those efforts into other divisions because they were consumer focused and didn't make the cameras into complete platforms. They used WiFi for things like transferring images to phones and from there to online photo hosting services as well as some sluggish and cumbersome phone-camera integrations. Modern digital cameras should be their own app platforms all the way up the stack from consumer to pro with the ability to develop and install third-party apps from an app store as well as have a scripting language to create your own automations (like what you can do with CHDK firmware - the Canon Hack Development Kit - for Canon PowerShot digital cameras, but something fully supported and developed by the manufacturer).

Imagine pro level camera hardware with not just WiFi but Bluetooth and cellular radios, audio I/O, and software APIs that would allow integration and automation with a range of hardware in a studio (lighting etc.) and the field. Imagine being able to script your own AF routines for specific scenarios or program in your own focus bracketing automated shot sequences, or having full control over in-camera image stacking algorithms. Apple, Google and the other big phone makers are leveraging their hardware and software to do massive amounts of imagine processing in phones but the details of how those images are constructed are a black box to the end user and so much more could be done if there was a camera platform that opened that up to the photographer. It's a giant missed opportunity.

[ThorSanchez]

From what I remember, it made sense to discontinue/fold those efforts into other divisions because they were consumer focused and didn't make the cameras into complete platforms. They used WiFi for things like transferring images to phones and from there to online photo hosting services as well as some sluggish and cumbersome phone-camera integrations. Modern digital cameras should be their own app platforms all the way up the stack from consumer to pro with the ability to develop and install third-party apps from an app store as well as have a scripting language to create your own automations (like what you can do with CHDK firmware - the Canon Hack Development Kit - for Canon PowerShot digital cameras, but something fully supported and developed by the manufacturer).

Imagine pro level camera hardware with not just WiFi but Bluetooth and cellular radios, audio I/O, and software APIs that would allow integration and automation with a range of hardware in a studio (lighting etc.) and the field. Imagine being able to script your own AF routines for specific scenarios or program in your own focus bracketing automated shot sequences, or having full control over in-camera image stacking algorithms. Apple, Google and the other big phone makers are leveraging their hardware and software to do massive amounts of imagine processing in phones but the details of how those images are constructed are a black box to the end user and so much more could be done if there was a camera platform that opened that up to the photographer. It's a giant missed opportunity.

I think giant is an overstatement. ILCs, stand-alone cameras are a rapidly shrinking niche. The number of photographers who would program their own focus bracketing sequences are a tiny subset of that shrinking niche. Opening up the coding, or providing ways to do in-camera scripting would be used by a very, very small number of people. I'm all for open-sourcing stuff but this would be a selling point for a microscopic part of the user base.

[house]

I think giant is an overstatement. ILCs, stand-alone cameras are a rapidly shrinking niche. The number of photographers who would program their own focus bracketing sequences are a tiny subset of that shrinking niche. Opening up the coding, or providing ways to do in-camera scripting would be used by a very, very small number of people. I'm all for open-sourcing stuff but this would be a selling point for a microscopic part of the user base.

The way works in other areas is that it's enough with a few actual programmers with an itch. With a community built around it helping with testing and feature suggestions etc. crazy stuff happens. Magic lantern is a thing and so is about a million other similar projects across devices. If someone comes up with a useful hacky solution someone else might pick it up and polish, eventually it may make real firmware.

[surfar]

From what I remember, it made sense to discontinue/fold those efforts into other divisions because they were consumer focused and didn't make the cameras into complete platforms. They used WiFi for things like transferring images to phones and from there to online photo hosting services as well as some sluggish and cumbersome phone-camera integrations. Modern digital cameras should be their own app platforms all the way up the stack from consumer to pro with the ability to develop and install third-party apps from an app store as well as have a scripting language to create your own automations (like what you can do with CHDK firmware - the Canon Hack Development Kit - for Canon PowerShot digital cameras, but something fully supported and developed by the manufacturer).

Imagine pro level camera hardware with not just WiFi but Bluetooth and cellular radios, audio I/O, and software APIs that would allow integration and automation with a range of hardware in a studio (lighting etc.) and the field. Imagine being able to script your own AF routines for specific scenarios or program in your own focus bracketing automated shot sequences, or having full control over in-camera image stacking algorithms. Apple, Google and the other big phone makers are leveraging their hardware and software to do massive amounts of imagine processing in phones but the details of how those images are constructed are a black box to the end user and so much more could be done if there was a camera platform that opened that up to the photographer. It's a giant missed opportunity.

Yes, having the capability would benefit small numbers(as others have observed) and thats not a bad thing.

However,I'd suggest you suggest it to all the camera makers.

[ThorSanchez]

The way works in other areas is that it's enough with a few actual programmers with an itch. With a community built around it helping with testing and feature suggestions etc. crazy stuff happens. Magic lantern is a thing and so is about a million other similar projects across devices. If someone comes up with a useful hacky solution someone else might pick it up and polish, eventually it may make real firmware.

The open source community is based on this idea, and I agree that it produces wonderful things. But this is Pentax, with a relatively tiny fraction of the rather small and shrinking camera user base in the world. Programs like Darktable and RawTherapee are designed to be used across nearly all camera models, so the number of interested programmers is substantial. I think it's almost miraculous that RawTherapee supports Pentax pixel-shift, but there we are... So perhaps some good would come of this, if Ricoh ever showed the slightest inclination to move in this direction.

[house]

The open source community is based on this idea, and I agree that it produces wonderful things. But this is Pentax, with a relatively tiny fraction of the rather small and shrinking camera user base in the world. Programs like Darktable and RawTherapee are designed to be used across nearly all camera models, so the number of interested programmers is substantial. I think it's almost miraculous that RawTherapee supports Pentax pixel-shift, but there we are... So perhaps some good would come of this, if Ricoh ever showed the slightest inclination to move in this direction.

They would have to make a name as a hacker friendly brand. This should kind of work well with their workshop models. Niche use cases often benefit from niche software (astrotracer)

I know most businesses still can't understand or handle the idea of openness. Instead opting for maximum lock in.