Apple iPhone 13 to have ProRes

I'm now going to go find my 24537814269 posts predicting that...be right back.

ha...although millions of others probably did the same.

Beautiful news if true.

But will undoubtedly destroy what's left of professional video production for everyone but the 1%. AI will frame, expose, focus and edit and upload and it will be good enough because you will have dozens of angles in the room from everyone.

And then that could be sent to a cloud for a live multi-cam edit.

God, Apple will do so much in the future.
 
NorBro said:
But will undoubtedly destroy what's left of professional video production for everyone but the 1%. AI will frame, expose, focus and edit and upload and it will be good enough because you will have dozens of angles in the room from everyone.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but ProRes seems antithetical to that approach. There's nothing stopping you from doing all that with H.265 and much smaller bandwidth

Also, I dont think that 99% of production would embrace what you're talking about. Granted, I don't know what the composition of the market is. But basically what you're describing sounds reality-esque.

And if, for some reason, a sports game would be shot with all iPhone cameras being operated by robots, you would still have someone overseeing the operation. The iphone doesn't fundamentally change the equation. Or at least, much of the automation has already transpired.
 
Think outside the wedding box...

It's a stepping stone for more powerful technology inside handheld devices.

Whether or not productions embrace it is irrelevant because they will have no other choice.
 
The camera module quality and the processor/GPU (and the battery) will make as much or more difference than ProRes. Having said that, the smartphone is a huge market and winners make beaucoup bucks, forcing them to never stop innovating. They may even overtake the ILC's due to some internal kick-ass processing that a non-pro will never notice. By which point, they will enter the "more than good enough" territory.

Grandpa,what is that in your hand?

Ah, you see, Sonny, this is a photo camera.

You mean like half a dozen I have in my brain implant?

Yes, but with a manual focus.

Miine is also manual, I can move it around my pupil, with my pupil.

And how fast can you do that, Sunny?

About a 100 frames per second, I still have the last year's model.

Mine is from 2021

Oh, a museum piece, how cute.
 
NorBro said:
Think outside the wedding box...

It's a stepping stone for more powerful technology inside handheld devices.

Whether or not productions embrace it is irrelevant because they will have no other choice.
Click to expand...

Weddings are about 30-40% of my business by revenue. I'd say that reality-esque stuff (interviews or verite) is probably about 15% for me. But that's just me.

AI could have a major impact on production, but those developments are sort of running in parallel to putting ProRes on the iPhone. ProRes on the iPhone is significant. But it's not going to put a cameraman out of work by itself, and it's not by itself going to gain scripted drama marketshare for the iPhone.

Take the laser commercial that Rob Norton just showed. Relighting in post would be a far more significant development for AI-ing that shoot. Then, with a high enough resolution capture, you could probably let the editor take a crappy interview and convert it into what he shot.

But much of that shoot relies on staging of actors and camera, not just lighting. And then there's the camera movement. There are a lot of moving pieces and a complexity great enough that one single innovation of automation is not going to be able to let a PA with an iPhone displace Rob.

And more to the point - the client wants something that looks as good as possible, not just "good enough." There are a lot of productions for whom "good enough" is good enough, but I think it's less than 99%.

And anyway, there will still be an editor at the helm, or at least a producer, even if they're managing more projects than they could without computers. Someone is still in the loop, even if most of the technicians have been fired.
 
NorBro said:
Are you trying to convince me...or yourself? lol

It's all good either way :)
Click to expand...

Another thing about good enough is that there is no good enough any more. Everyone is up to their ears in performance metrics. I just made a "hyperlapse" video for my auction house client with my A7SIII and Ronin-S. The reference video they showed me was shot by a producer with an iphone and no gimbal last summer and aired on the same social media channels. But my video has racked up over 130k views since last saturday whereas theirs got less than 10% of that. But their video was good enough, right? Most of the quality difference comes down to how you move the camera through space and the choices you make in doing so. Maybe if the PA has a 360-degree super-resolution camera, you could walk through and edit it to look like mine later. But you're adding a lot of complexity to what could be a simple process.

Of course, the same producer also told me that the $2500 gallery walkthrough videos I shoot and edit for them routinely outperform $25k videos they make with more production value. Because their audience mostly wants to just see the art for themselves rather than watch something unnecessarily slick. And that's what I feel like "good enough" is really about: figuring out which corners you can cut.

Theres no doubt that AI and automation will reshape production, but people will still pay you if you can add value. Your rate is a small price if you can multiply their audience and sales, etc.

Aren't you the one who keeps saying that everyone expects everything to look amazing these days? People will always be interested in qualitative improvements, as long as the audience actually cares about them
 
Views are great, but not always the best metric for measuring quality.

It's nice your video has 130K views and you're excited about it, but we live in a world where some YouTube vlogs/drama videos have 5-10-20 million views within a year.

___

As far as everything looking amazing; yeah. And that's going to include phones when they're ready. One thing I kept saying is they aren't ready yet. ProRes doesn't mean the next model will be as good as the a7SIII/R5/etc., but the progress and where their minds are at is what's most important.

We're too far apart in our understandings of the business and the world to really find much common ground here.
 
The client cares about the views, and only relative to the view count of the other work they're producing. Assessing the quality is subjective, and you'll have to take my word for it. I'm excited to have job security. I don't think that 130k views is a milestone in itself nor do I find total creative fulfillment in shooting that type of video, as much fun as it is.

I guess I'm saying that even if the iPhone gets good enough to be the camera of choice for this project (which I find doubtful since it's always going to be a phone first and a camera second), I still think they would hire an actual operator on this type of shoot. (Not every type of shoot.)

And how many times have we heard marketing about a new cheap camera being cinema in your hands? 24p... large sensor... etc...
 
I think you have to be more of a forward-thinker...I know they are phones-first and cameras-second for us, but there will be people ahead of us born into a different life.

You ever watch that YouTube channel where they ask kids what certain technology is? Or other stuff? It's a show and it's edited to get the best reactions, but some of them are genuinely clues about 90s technology.

Future humans will be using phones and similar devices to capture video because that's all they will know...there will be no other choice like you're thinking right now like we have.

Our technology to them...

image_128431.jpg
 
The problem with iPhones being phones first is not related to how its users conceptualize of its purpose or to their awareness of specialized alternatives. The problem is that it's designed to be a certain size and shape and configuration based around its use as a phone and internet-access device. Therefore, there are design compromises and drawbacks for using it as a camera. You can get a superior interface and functionality from a unit designed first and foremost as a camera. And that will matter to anyone who is a full-time cameraman (as long as there still is such a thing).

Your analogy to outdated technology is flawed because we currently have phone cameras in use simultaneously with DSLR/mirrorless and video/cinema cameras. And they each serve a different segment.

Will people still be shooting scripted dramas? Will they be using iPhones or Alexas? If even they are using iPhones, then generation AA won't know what a real cinema camera looks like. But otherwise, they'll still glimpse one in BTS videos.

I'm not saying that we won't see a continuation of equipment becoming cheaper, smaller, more powerful, and easier to use. But I look at Star Trek - they predicted that we would have fusion power and genetically engineered superhumans by now. Kubrick predicted manned missions to Jupiter and general intelligence AI by 2001. Elon Musk predicted fleets of self-driving robotaxis by 2020 instead of suicide sedans in 2021. The future is usually behind schedule.
 
Abe, you are still not getting it...these thoughts about a phone's design flaws or drawbacks for using it as a camera will not exist. (And of course they are used simultaneously now because decent phone video just started!)

You are aware of them because you are old.

And you had choices before phones.

There will be a technological transition that will phase out traditional cameras for 99% of humans, just like there was with hundreds of pieces of technology or processes over the last couple of centuries that this new generation never even knew existed.

The 1% will continue creating higher-end content on the most specialized equipment there is.
 
99% of humans are not professional cameramen so who gives a damn. most people have never swung a lens as it is. the only relevant question to me is if clients will continue to hire me to shoot and edit
 
I hope they do.

But just know you are expendable and easily replaceable no matter how good you may be, or what technology may or may not exist.
 
Once prices on smartphones get driven down (and average right now is ~ $580 in the US, with the high end above $1,000), one should start seeing more photo/video driven models. Currently, one gets more/better camera modules, more RAM at a higher price but one may start more specific features too. Samsung's K Zoom didn't take off in 2014 because smartphone weren't ready for pro photography then. They may be now.
 
DLD said:
Once prices on smartphones get driven down (and average right now is ~ $580 in the US, with the high end above $1,000), one should start seeing more photo/video driven models. Currently, one gets more/better camera modules, more RAM at a higher price but one may start more specific features too. Samsung's K Zoom didn't take off in 2014 because smartphone weren't ready for pro photography then. They may be now.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of specific camera features already. Nothing will change the fact that people generally need only one phone at a time (and thus it must be an all-rounder), and the reason the camera on it is so useful is because you're already carrying your phone anyway and the whole thing fits in your pocket. But you'll never see one designed for a cameraman who decided he also wants to make a call or surf the web from his rig while he's shooting

but to be sure, there are already "iphone cameramen" available for hire. A producer can decide to "just shoot something with my iphone". I've directed remote talking heads shoots that talent took on their iphone. and folks on the forum have mentioned "interview in a pelican case" PA-managed remote iPhone shoots. I just think it gets tricky when you're talking about more demanding applications. The cost/benefit of hiring a real guy with a real camera swings wildly

I see a utility in my own work for putting an ultra-lightweight camera on the end of my 7' monopod/gimbal rig. That would make it easier and safer. (My weebill-s currently serves instead of my Ronin-S for that purpose. But going even lighter would be better.) But not beyond that. Maybe as gopro car corner cameras, but I never bought any gopros personally
 
Last edited:
You're right ... but, as Norbro says, people will resort to the smartphone cams because that's the only thing they know how to use. To quote a Hollywood icon, "Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon and for the rest of your life".
 
I didn’t read through the entire thread but I own an iPhone 12 and used it for gimbal work on low budget dance movie. In well light and outdoor scenes it did incredible but for most everything else I wasn’t impressed. The reason for this is there is only so much you can do with a small sensor. The iPhone also has these noises reduction and skin tone warming algorithms you can’t turn off. While the addition of ProRes is nice it’s not going help improve the limitations of the sensor. I can say this because I use Filmic Pro app that has a 10bit high bitrate codec option. I couldn’t see much of a difference besides creating giant files.

So it’s a fantastic light weight gimbal option and is convenient for things like vlogging but it’s not replacing professional video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top