iPhone 13 Pro

[Run&Gun]

I'm never going to buy an iPhone if I don't have to. If Apple has a monopoly on the US market, then they can treat us however they like

Despite some of the aggravating and head-scratching things Apple does sometimes, I’ll still take an iPhone and Mac six days a week and twice on Sunday, over Android and Windows.

[NorBro]

They already have endless control and could have done whatever they wanted for many years and would never go out of business.

Instead we got great computers like M1s when they could have severely limited their own technology and milked, and milked, and milked with never-ending card and chip improvements.

[ahalpert]

I'm never going to buy an iPhone if I don't have to. If Apple has a monopoly on the US market, then they can treat us however they like

[Run&Gun]

The Filmic Pro app now supports Prores 4K up to 30fps and 1080p up to 60fps:

ProRes Proxy (max approximate bitrate 170Mbps*)
ProRes LT (max approximate bitrate 360Mbps*)
ProRes 422 (max approximate bitrate 540Mbps*)
ProRes 422 HQ (max approximate bitrate 735Mbps*)

Getting the files off the phone takes a while though.

It's always amazed me that they don't put a faster connection on the iPhone. It's almost like they DON'T want you to move anything off of it. It's bonkers. Even transferring pictures/videos off of an iPhone to a Mac is a pain in the ass. I backed up pictures yesterday and I have 12 pics/vids that it refuses to transfer. 14,600+, no problem(well, kinda sorta...). These random 12, NOPE.

And funny enough, I have a 13 Pro that I picked up two weeks ago, and it's still sitting in the sealed, unopened box, on the coffee table. I just haven't been motivated enough to activate it and transfer everything over to it from my 11 Pro.

[Teddy_Dem]

The Filmic Pro app now supports Prores 4K up to 30fps and 1080p up to 60fps:

ProRes Proxy (max approximate bitrate 170Mbps*)
ProRes LT (max approximate bitrate 360Mbps*)
ProRes 422 (max approximate bitrate 540Mbps*)
ProRes 422 HQ (max approximate bitrate 735Mbps*)

Getting the files off the phone takes a while though.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/10/...ks-impressive/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCOLdt4eO6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A01Pw-ZH_ks

Some sample clips:

https://app.frame.io/presentations/a...3-44f4e29f8163

[DLD]

.... But the interesting and personally relevant question for me is if people stop hiring pros because amateurs with high tech phones become "good enough". But there are so many skills involved besides exposure triangle and focus

The technological development over the last decade brought "professional" to the masses. In other words, whether you're shooting with A7SIII, A1, R5, C200/500, etc. you are capable of making movie quality footage using type of equipment that wasn't available until recently. And Apple is now claiming that its smartphones are at or near the high end consumer models. Which isn't true. But then the next question is whether the smartphones are good enough. And they may not be for the A-roll yet but they might be as a second/third camera. And they keep on improving. The codecs are getting better, the resolution, the low light, the AF, et cetera, et cetera. And it's likely that, within 3-5 years, they'll be good for the A-roll too.

As to the "operators". I have a friend who's in real estate and is often required to take photos of the apartments/condos/houses he visits. In the beginning, his photography was simply awful. The composition was limited by the shadows, the awnings, the balconies. There was too much noise in some shots, too much light in others, and no focus in the thirds. Now, I wouldn't call myself Ansel Adams - wrong initials - but he and I have talked about some of his stills and, over he years, they've gotten a lot better. I have another friend who used to have a Nikon and is now thinking of taking some photography classes (his wife is taking a painting class, so he is motivated). At some point, these smartphone shooters will be good enough for that B-roll too.

[ahalpert]

Maybe you didn't understand what I stated. Regardless of the pro-video footage, a couple of camera operators can't be at every spot all the time and the attendees will snap their smartphones at will. Yes, most of them will be poorly framed, out of focus, over and underexposed. But they will be personal

Yes and this already happens. Except that they often ask people not to use their phones during the ceremony so that it will be an unmediated experience for them. But otherwise totally. But the interesting and personally relevant question for me is if people stop hiring pros because amateurs with high tech phones become "good enough". But there are so many skills involved besides exposure triangle and focus

[Tom Roper]

Another modern reality of the social media, is that the reviews go in long before they've seen the product. It's more important to work the event with professionalism, courtesy, respect and friendly manners than to shoot perfect video. If you are working the event, it can pretty much be assumed the product will be good just from how you go about your work.

[Tom Roper]

Could wedding videographers switch to smartphones?

This is the relevant question. I've shot with some 2nd shooters who used them as well as DJ Osmo. During an event, I really don't care because the client has already been booked and the job paid. But the perception given by people seeing a Pro who in this case is probably more like someone in their early twenties who takes the bus, is that the Pro is not vested in his craft, and that yes anyone with a smart phone could be doing what he is doing. That would seem to marginalize the talents, and people could rightly think if a client is paying for that, he is getting ripped off. Even mirrorless, which is the most appropriate camera format for weddings people could have that notion if that's all you do with it, standing by on the sideline, wearing a single point and shoot. The real point is not to show people what you have, but to go about your craft, doing what you do in professional manner , not calling attention but the work ethic is worn on the sleeve, and the pro is recognized as one just as a consequence of his charisma, how he carries on with his work.

[Thomas Smet]

Maybe you didn't understand what I stated. Regardless of the pro-video footage, a couple of camera operators can't be at every spot all the time and the attendees will snap their smartphones at will. Yes, most of them will be poorly framed, out of focus, over and underexposed. But they will be personal

With the personal comes the garbage and do couples really want to shift through ten hours of crappy video to find the good bits? What do they do with those good bits? Are they actually going to put together their own video with those good bits?

Sure it will and does in fact happen but I don't think Cinematic mode has suddenly changed that. Most guests don't care about such things and if they are getting shots at a wedding to give to the couple they have already been doing so since smartphones first had cameras. The potential to replace wedding photographers and videographers has already been there for many years and yet it hasn't happened on a large scale. In fact I see a ton more people out there producing wedding video now then I did a decade ago when I still did some weddings. I remember a time when a wedding video was a luxury and now its much more common to hire someone to do it and has become almost as much of a staple as the photos. I have even seen some weddings where the video is now prioritized over the photos when budget is a factor.

So each new advance in smartphones doesn't seem to be hurting the wedding video business at all. Could it someday? Sure maybe but fast food and TV dinners haven't killed home cooked meals or nice restaurants yet either. People still like quality and substance. Maybe someday we will become like the Borg and lose all emotion and value quantity over quality but that day is not here yet.

I still think in some ways what the pros do is valued even more because of the crappy ammeter video out there. Previously video was just video. Now there is a point of comparison and thanks to smartphones and YouTube people know what to look for in video. Their video language understanding has greatly expanded beyond just how sports and the news looks like. That understanding helps them visualize that yes video can look different depending on who does it. Before everyone had a camera in their pocket video was just video. Video also didn't look nearly as good as photos and the methods to shoot weddings was rather clinical. Power zoom from a single locked down tripod kind of stuff. Today wedding videographers have embraced every technique under the sun for creativity and invented many of their own. Its a much more mature art form today than it used to be and that greatly stands out today.

Brides don't just want to exist on video. They want to look great on video.

Could wedding videographers switch to smartphones? Sure but I don't see that happening just yet. If it does who cares really? Its not a competition. If one can pull off stellar photos and video of a wedding without missing anything then more power to them. Some of us buy better DSLRS vs cheaper ones because we want a better keep rate on our photos or want to shoot video with less chances of something going wrong. We want better manual controls and less chance of messing something up. Smartphones can grab some great photos and video but they can't do it 100% of the time. There are a lot of hits and misses and limitations. Pros will not want to sacrifice and have those limitations just because a phone can suddenly do good work. I would definitely use a smartphone at a wedding to pick up some shots if the setting made sense at the time but I would never in a million years expect it to handle the entire day. Its another tool in the bag and never meant to replace everything.

[DLD]

Maybe you didn't understand what I stated. Regardless of the pro-video footage, a couple of camera operators can't be at every spot all the time and the attendees will snap their smartphones at will. Yes, most of them will be poorly framed, out of focus, over and underexposed. But they will be personal

[ahalpert]

Big lavish (first) weddings are likely to keep pro quality production. There, smartphones will provide the extra oomph - friends and family, etc.

But one hundred smartphones can't be wrong either. That's hundreds of photos free of charge.

There are 2 issues here. first is that people who don't shoot weddings seem to think of it as strictly a documentary affair. and second is that unless your guests are going in the aisle, behind the chupah, right up to the front within 4 feet of you putting on your rings...then they ain't getting the shots the pros are getting.

Have you recently observed a wedding photographer in action?

On the low end, sure. I shot a cheap wedding where there was no photographer hired because the couple said they could only afford either video or photo and they reckoned their friends could get some photos but they'd never get a music video production without hiring a pro. But it was a very cheap wedding

And talking about venue cameras - yeah, if you go to the chapel of love in Vegas, I can totally see a standard snapshot, even from numerous angles, getting taken of your ceremony, both video and photo. If you go to a catholic cathedral? Under a big tree overlooking a lake? What's the venue gonna do when the bride says she doesn't want the ceremony to be at their designated camera location but wants to set up on the other side of the ballroom

[DLD]

Big lavish (first) weddings are likely to keep pro quality production. There, smartphones will provide the extra oomph - friends and family, etc.

But one hundred smartphones can't be wrong either. That's hundreds of photos free of charge.

[ahalpert]

Btw the real money in weddings is running your own studio. Seems to be more common with photographers than videographers, but they can basically make $200k/year working part-time (on average) if they build a successful brand

As far as the work itself - it has its ups and downs. You're not shooting scripted drama and the only people who will watch it already know and care about the couple. But you're not shooting a 12-hour day plus surprise overtime. You're witnessing the happiest moments in someone's life and people usually treat you with a bounty of respect and goodwill. The food is usually good. Some of the bands are great. The pay can be very good. And any day that you're working with a camera is a day you're not working, as far as I'm concerned.

Different things are soul-sucking in different ways. Right now I'm editing a video that's pitching a novel type of fine art auction to rarefied collectors and the interviews are just So. Much. Capitalism. All in all, I'd rather be filming couples in love. (But the filming and editing of actual art is great.)

[ahalpert]

.

Kind of similar but funny, the popularity of photo booths has never been greater at wedding receptions, easily all those pics could be replaced by the iPhone, yet people line up to touch the screen to begin laughing their asses off. It's more than the camera, it's the experience.

I did read a couple years ago that there is a robot photo booth that is being deployed to weddings. But, as you said, people come to it and it takes the same shot set-up every time. The least demanding photo application. I have not yet seen one in the flesh

But there is typically also a panoply of props and costume pieces for people to play with while they take their shots. I don't see how there isn't a human involved in bringing the machine and setting the whole display up. Which means deploying a robot camera is little different from a guy who comes and sets up a camera with the same settings he uses every time