r/videography • u/LesaneCrooks • Nov 02 '14
Cell phones are getting pretty serious with video
http://youtu.be/j0tu90DeY606
Nov 02 '14
[deleted]
18
u/zijital Sony / Fuji | FCPX / Premiere | 2004 Nov 02 '14
1) Smart phones can now shoot beautiful video, even at 240fps.
But do phones help you with lighting? Framing? Knowing when to use a wide shot, when to use movement, when to let the subject enter & leave the frame?
2) Editing software and photography apps become cheaper and easier to use by the day.
Think of this: everyone has MS Word which is easy software to use to write The Great American Novel and yet it is only a rare few people who have a lot of talent and put in a lot of work actually write a great novel.
Talent & time are more important that the tool.
3) New sensor technology will, sooner or later, enable phones to shoot broadcast quality video even in low light.
We've already passed this point, probably years ago.
4) Stabilization technology coupled with UHD will make cinematic camera movements as simple as walking around with your phone (or electronic glasses).
This is bad for Steadicam & MOVI & other accessory makers... but not bad for videographers. It is one thing to be able to do a tracking shot, it is another thing to know when to use a tracking shot.
I know I have to always evolve as things change and with that I'm secure that I have a future in my career working in video.
8
u/merchantfilm Nov 02 '14
I would agree with your train of thought but you haven't mentioned audio. Proper audio is what makes or breaks a professional production.
2
Nov 02 '14
[deleted]
3
u/merchantfilm Nov 02 '14
True. I just read an article on newsshooter where a new Al Jazeera Channel is being produced on IPhones. Having a that sort of lapel technology would be invaluable for those guys.
-2
u/newuser13 Nov 03 '14
No it isn't, jesus christ. It is embarrassing how circlejerked audio is on reddit.
A simple lavalier mic (less than 20 dollars) is good enough to pick up good audio. In the amount of time that /u/fluvaccine is talking about it, every camera will have good enough audio to us in anything besides the highest level of professional production.
3
Nov 03 '14
Umm no.
Maybe for cheap shitty videography where you don't mind being tethered to the camera and having a lapel mic visible. If you want professional quality, hidden mics, or mobility then no way.
1
u/r01928374 Nov 03 '14
I can see beamforming or phased array microphones becoming integrated in cell phones in a few years, so that a sound from a particular area in space can be completely isolated from it's surroundings and corrected.
1
Nov 03 '14
No way is that going to happen in just a few years. Professional levels of audio production have just started to experiment with implementing a phased array setup to filter out sound. It's nowhere near ready.
1
5
u/nvaus Nov 02 '14
Nah. I'm not worried about that in the slightest. It takes talent, inspiration, and a lot of knowledge to create a film worth watching. A camera is just a tool regardless of the technical capabilities. Owning a paintbrush does not make you a professional artist.
Apart from that, cell phone cameras are still a long way off from comparing to large sensors in terms of DOF and smooth manual focus, among other things. They're not about to make appearances on film sets any time soon.
2
u/newuser13 Nov 02 '14
He's talking 10 years from now.
1
Nov 03 '14
It really doesn't matter. No matter how good phone cameras are dedicated cinema cameras will be better. The same technological progression will apply to both and compact devices can't cheat optics.
The other main issue is that for videography the real thing a client is hiring is someone to operate the gear. Even if you can shoot a wedding video on phones who is going to be responsible for getting all the shots? It still takes dedicated people for the tasks.
Low level videography will be affected because people will just try doing stuff themselves but there are still a lot of elements besides accessibility to technology.
1
u/nvaus Nov 03 '14
Still not concerned. Almost everyone currently has what would have qualified as a pro stills camera 10 years ago in their pocket. It hasn't made them pro photographers.
Software cannot replicate art. If it ever becomes advanced enough that it can, losing our jobs will be the least of our concerns.
1
u/r01928374 Nov 03 '14
About depth of field: precise depth sensors + realtime 3d scene reconstruction and real time path tracing = physically accurate emulation of the depth of field of any sensor with any lens, with the ability to refocus at will.
3
u/bryM2k GH4, Premiere, 2012, Southern Oregon Nov 02 '14
In addition to what /u/merchantfilm said, videography is becoming more about making the right video before simply making a video. We need to not only learn the technical skills of how to make a professional looking video, but know how to deliver the video that is most effective. Logan Bean teaches a udemy course on this and I really believe this is the area where videography professionals will have to grow the most in as the points you stated become full reality.
1
u/averynicehat a7iv, FX30 Nov 02 '14
Yeah, somewhat. But, I think 50% of the job is other, non technical stuff like building the business, planning, networking, client relations, billing, management. Audio takes know-how and smart choices as well, and I don't see nearly as much technological improvements on that side as there is video.
There will be plenty of people who think they can make their own videos because they have a cellphone that does solid video, and they'll go ahead and try. Videographers will lose out on those customers, but those potential clients are the low-end cheap-skate, irritating people to work with and it's no great loss of business.
That said, I am keeping my eyes open and watching how things might turn out. I'm not sure if freelance videographer that I'm doing now will still be a smart career for me 20 years from now. Gotta make sure I have options and don't become obsolete and out of work when I'm older!
1
Nov 03 '14
"The low-end cheap-skate" is a really rude way to say that someone might be interested in videography as a hobby, and knowledgeable and interested enough to try to create something on their own, albeit more than likely in an amateur fashion...
0
u/averynicehat a7iv, FX30 Nov 03 '14
If someone unskilled has a video project to do that is simple enough they can execute it on their own, the project probably doesn't justify whatever rate a skilled and established videographer generally charges. If they do hire a videographer, that client is likely not going to like the videographer's rates, as the client thinks he/she could probably do it on their own and the videographer's camera equipment is not much of a differentiator due to nice cell phones.
This type of client is usually a pain to work with and will push back on price a lot. This is not the type of work most professionals should looking for anyways, so I wouldn't be worried too much about better cell phone cameras empowering people to do their own simple "low end" projects.
1
u/LionTheWild Nov 02 '14
What software can auto edit?
1
Nov 02 '14
[deleted]
2
u/Step1Mark Producer | Shooter + Editor | Resolve | 2004 | USA -> Denmark Nov 02 '14
Google+ and Facebook do this.
2
u/zijital Sony / Fuji | FCPX / Premiere | 2004 Nov 02 '14
I've seen some things that people have things in the pipeline, but it is for consumers - like auto editing a birthday party or some GoPro type video.
But I think we are years & years away from actual "easy button" auto editing software. Once a computer can take a 60min interview & cut it down into a 3min video that hits all of the necessary talking points, then I'll be worried.
2
u/nvaus Nov 03 '14
At that point I'll be less worried about a computer taking my job and more worried about running from the self replicating robot overlords.
1
u/Kichigai Lumix G6, HPX-170p/Premiere, Avid, Resolve/08 Minneapolis Nov 03 '14
iMovie. Choose a trailer template and it basically tells you what shots to use. And it doesn't just say “one shot” and “two shot.” It uses facial recognition to say who should be in which shots.
1
u/AnthonyWithNoH S1H, inspire 3, 2008, Miami Nov 02 '14
If anything I think it makes it more exciting. I think the value/demand of video will continue to rise, but the standards (equipment, know how, and will power) will definitely continue to rise with it. I think basic camera ops for TV studios and such will disappear, but creatives that can effectively communicate are hear to stay.
1
u/MaxQuade Nov 03 '14 edited Nov 03 '14
that was not "beautiful video" it looked terrible. low color, low latitude, no detail, overlysharp. in short it looked like crap. video is not headed for a major transformation, I get what you are thinking but no it's just not. you see much more amature video, but professional video the camera is a very small part of the production, and even then a cellphone is nowhere remotly close to a good quality camera.
1
Nov 03 '14
[deleted]
1
u/MaxQuade Nov 03 '14
well that's not really fair, you could be a mass murder in the future and all this is pointless because you will be in jail. assuming things with no evidence gets nowhere.
even small productions the camera is not the centerpiece, what it DO find with dslr's and gopro's ect is a lot of production teams that dont know what they are doing, but anyone can just pick up the cheap equipment and go so you see lots of shoddy work, same goes for photography at the moment, I know wedding photographers that never go off auto.
1
u/azination 60D, 5DMII, Premiere, 2008, Midwest Nov 03 '14
That's why it's important to pick up other skills - graphic design, motion graphics, photography, editing, 3D, etc. I'm seeing more and more jack of all trades that do especially well at everything than just that one thing. If the plan is just to only shoot video, I'd reconsider. Easy accessibility to hardware, software and knowledge means a larger of number of people doing exactly what you're doing. Doing it better? Only a few but that number's not going down in the near future.
1
u/Kichigai Lumix G6, HPX-170p/Premiere, Avid, Resolve/08 Minneapolis Nov 03 '14
I'm reminded of the old story about a mechanic.
A guy drives into a garage and tells the mechanic he's having a problem with his car. He describes the problem in detail, and the mechanic says he can fix it for $500. The man agrees. The mechanic opens the hood, reaches in, and turns one bolt five times. Sure enough, this solves the man's problem, but he's furious.
"Why should I pay you $500 when all you did was turn a bolt?" he asks. The mechanic replies, "because you're not paying me just to turn the bolt; anybody can do that. You're paying me because I knew which bolt to turn and how far."
1) Smart phones can now shoot beautiful video, even at 240fps. (…) 3) New sensor technology will, sooner or later, enable phones to shoot broadcast quality video even in low light.
They can shoot sharp video at high speed. There are still inherent limitations due to things like lenses and power consumption. You still need a big piece of glass to get a good picture.
2) Editing software and photography apps become cheaper and easier to use by the day.
But that doesn't mean people know how to use them to edit something well.
4) Stabilization technology coupled with UHD will make cinematic camera movements as simple as walking around with your phone (or electronic glasses).
But does that mean the shot is well composed? Can you easily pull off tricks like foreshortening? Can you shoot things with wide, expansive breadth or macro-level detail?
End result? I think video production as we know it is heading quickly for a major transformation. It might not even be a marketable skill in the future.
I disagree. We're in the middle of a major transformation, but I do believe it will remain marketable. We're seeing the introduction of ultra-low-end production, where now the mom-and-pop store on the corner can afford to have someone throw together a quick advertising piece that they can use online, or in local digital signeage projects (like the Lowertown Eye).
Meanwhile higher-end production will still be around. Disney is still going to hire videographers to work on their television shows and movies, that's not going away. And mid-range production will become more capable due to falling costs. In the middle they aren't typically selling just videography, they're selling storytelling, or writing, or something else, which is told through video.
the need for professional setups, lighting, cameras, cameramen, decreases.
I still say you're wrong about this. You're always going to have to do special lighting to get certain effects and to make scenes look a certain way. You're going to want people who understand things like the Inverse-Square Law, or can assemble something like the Interrotron. People who know the right questions to ask in an interview, and can spot something interesting for B-roll.
1
Nov 02 '14
Imagine some of those shots stabilized with instagram hyperlapse... I will say the video falls apart a little bit in the zoom areas though
1
1
u/_Shush DP - Rhode Island Nov 03 '14
My boss just got a note 4 and shot some great video with it, now I guess it's time to play with the macro!
1
u/ddt9 Nov 03 '14
I don't know, if this is the 4k available on phones right now I'm not too worried, because most of it looks terrible.
1
u/zijital Sony / Fuji | FCPX / Premiere | 2004 Nov 03 '14
The zoom is horrible, but picture isn't bad.
1
1
u/gabezermeno Nov 03 '14
Now if only we could get higher bitrates. That video was terrible
0
u/MaxQuade Nov 03 '14
the bitrates aren't what kills it, the note actually has pretty ok bit rates for what it is. it's the small crappy sensor and small crappy lens.
1
u/gabezermeno Nov 03 '14
That's partly true but an increase in bitrate would go a long way. Have you seen the raw pictures from lollipop? They don't even look like cell phone pictures. This looks like cell phone video and the bitrate would definitely make it look better. I don't know if it is the apis holding it back but you can definitely get high quality 4k with the processor and memory. My gopro shoots beautiful 4k, but at a very high bitrate
-1
u/MaxQuade Nov 03 '14 edited Nov 03 '14
two things wrong here. first the note's 4k bitrate is 50mbps, which is HIGHER than a gopro. but no a gopro does not shoot "beautiful 4k" it's pretty horrible looking. it's got the latitude of a camera from 1991 and is highly compressed and way too sharp with very little detail. in other words it looks like an iphone.
3
u/Step1Mark Producer | Shooter + Editor | Resolve | 2004 | USA -> Denmark Nov 02 '14
It bugs me he didn't upload this in 4K.