Apple iPhone 13 to have ProRes

[DLD]

... Did digital cameras from the 80s look like they do in the 2020s? ...

There were no digital cameras in the 1980's, if one gets specific about that. There were film cameras and digital backs, starting in 1984 with both presidential conventions. (Where is the beef?)

Which, I guess, is the whole point of the technological advance.

 

[NorBro]

lol. I said that same exact thing to you the other week after you most likely made a typo.

Karma, in its finest form!!

90s, 1990s.

 

[Peter C.]

… In the end, all this really does is separate the tech heads, who value themselves based entirely on their gear, from the artists, who value themselves based entirely on their talent.

This sums it up nicely. No one knows where technology will go, what companies will succeed, and which tech will be adopted. Better to concentrate on the one thing you can control and improve that’s yourself. If my clients wanted me to use an iPhone I would do that. But generally speaking they’re interested in an end product not the tools used to create it.

 

[ahalpert]

This sums it up nicely. No one knows where technology will go, what companies will succeed, and which tech will be adopted. Better to concentrate on the one thing you can control and improve that’s yourself. If my clients wanted me to use an iPhone I would do that. But generally speaking they’re interested in an end product not the tools used to create it.

that's the thing. I feel like there's a conflation between saying that iPhones will take over and saying that professional cameramen will no longer be needed. I'm not sure the former is true. But anyway, it wouldn't mandate the latter

 

[NorBro]

In the end, all this really does is separate the tech heads, who value themselves based entirely on their gear, from the artists, who value themselves based entirely on their talent.

I agree, in general, but there's so much irony here in this particular context of a relatively inexpensive mobile phone potentially replacing work created by other more expensive equipment by artists who value their talent.

___

Actually, I see a pattern in the opposing sides; the different mindset between people who value their skills and this industry versus those who are more focused on the business and any end-result that will work just as well.

I think that's the disconnection between some of us and our visions of what the future may hold for phones.

 

[Peter C.]

I agree, in general, but there's so much irony here in this particular context of a relatively inexpensive mobile phone potentially replacing work created by other more expensive equipment by artists who value their talent.

___

Actually, I see a pattern in the opposing sides; the different mindset between people who value their skills and this industry versus those who are more focused on the business and any end-result that will work just as well.

I think that's the disconnection between some of us and our visions of what the future may hold for phones.

There was a similar argument when auto focus was introduce. The older generation swore by their manual lenses and complained that now anyone could take a photograph.

There will always be need of skill and some people will choose not to pay for it. This has always been the case. It's true that a phone is so easy to use that some people won't hire you. I've done jobs in the pandemic where people filmed themselves but they hired me to edit it together. Btw the audio and video quality was terrible. Sometimes you have to accept not everyone will be willing to pay for your skill and quality.

 

[Thomas Smet]

The exact same thing was said the cameras added auto focus and auto exposure. The same was said when consumers got video cameras. We are still waiting for the demise of the pro some 30 years later.

Sure it may happen some day but that day is not today. Honestly if phones are that good in ten years will any of us really care? Will we even use the concept of phones in ten years? We may all have chips embedded into our heads so our eyes permanently record images and we can communicate on a whim without having to pickup a primitive little phone like device.

You Tube is flooded with content but I'm not entirely sure I would call it great content or a replacement of good content either. Its mostly a time suck or waste and here one minute and gone the next. Most Youtube content barely lasts a month and is never seen from ever again. Its all very disposable and no longer special. Despite the rush of YouTube personalities fighting for subscriptions we still have professionally produced material. There are more productions companies out there or those producing content for money than ever before in the history of this industry. There was a time when I could only find work for a handful of production companies in an area. Now the market is flooded with hundred of smaller companies or individuals. We have more industries than we did before as well. Online ads for products, weddings, music videos, indie films. all the sort of thing that was super rare when I started out. I see 1000x more potential for work out there now when I first started. The online era has created an endless supply of startup companies to produce for and we have gear that costs a fraction of what it once did and delivers 1000x better quality. My first camera I owned was a Canon XL1. when I worked for other companies I was strictly using Sony DSR-300 and DSR-500 cameras well into the $10,000 price range. Only so many could afford that kind of gear.

Yet here we are still working. Yeah things have changed. Sure some Brides decide Cousin Eddie can shoot their wedding with his camera but there are also more professionals doing weddings now than ever before. The wedding market for example has not been hurt by the Cousin Eddie's but by the 100 independent wedding video producers in each market vs the one or two there used to be. Some wouldn't even consider that hurt but flourishing.

Thats hwy I said glass half full vs half empty. To young people who wan to create for a living the industry is much better than some of us had it starting out. I had to buy a Xl! package for $6,000 and still struggled to compete with the higher end cameras. People today earn a living doing this stuff and they do very well.

Some companies will produce their own stuff in house but that isn't such a bad thing either. While it may hurt the bigger production houses it also opened up more job opportunities for the industry. Instead of only a handful of production jobs in a city there might be hundreds. It also opened up opportunities in other regions of the country. There was a time when finding a good production job meant living in NY, Chicago or LA. Now most regions in the US can have some level of production jobs. One of my best production jobs was for a manufacturing company. We did all sorts or product videos and 3D animation. Stuff we would never afford hiring an agency to do.

Someday auto everything and AI might replace some of our tasks but the pros will not just be sitting by either. We will also advance and find new ways to stand out. I'm hoping production value will be one of those things. The sort of thing that has waned and camera users got used to the camera doing it all for them.

Plus YouTube is not lucrative for everyone. Its starting to become over saturated. There are only so many video reviews we need of the M1 Mac that all say the exact same thing. We have now entered a lone culture where each personality needs to say the same thing and try to get enough likes to be relevant. The more people post video on social media the less lucrative it gets for everyone. The handful of those that found huge success and a allowing will likely keep that following but its getting harder for newcomers to go viral without a new hook or angle. There are not enough of hooks left.

A phone may be able to shoot a beautify looking wedding video but it will never help the user know how to tell a story or cover the important parts. Experience still matters and thats why Photographers are still in work today and there are actually more out there working today than ever before. If a long time photographer sees a reduction in calls and gigs its not because of a iPhone. Its because 100 people are now doing wedding photos in the area. That seasoned pro sees that as bad. Those kids following their dream and paying the bills shooting photos love it.

 

[ahalpert]

Video production is not difficult (for most of us because we don't have the money to make it difficult).

People can learn the skills we have in a short amount of time and can apply them when using phones.

I'm not sure that's true when you consider how much there is to learn.

But if you're talking about just exposure triangle/color balance/focus/stability and that's all that's needed to do the job, then absolutely an amateur with a powerful enough P&S could do it.

But so much of what I do is not just about basic exponometry etc. It's about storytelling - staging the action, choosing camera angles, capturing a variety of shots required for a montage that will cut together smoothly.

If you're saying that getting an iphone means an amateur won't have to read textbooks to learn how to use the gear, then sure. (Though they'll probably log plenty of hours with YouTube tutorials, same thing.) But they'll still have to train and develop their creative techniques. At which point you're just saying that they can learn to do the job just like I did. And then what's the difference between those newcomers and us aside from requiring lower capital investment?

actually Thomas sort of said what I just said but I only see it now

 

[NorBro]

There's no difference! That is the unfortunate point...

Access to data and information overloads brains with information and they learn in months, what took us decades.

All that's left for us is experience, which is important and still valuable. But it has a price, too. "How much does he/she want?"

And the knowledge is overrated, lol.

But you're certainly a true artist who loves his craft.

 

[ahalpert]

Everything is storytelling, dude. Even a wedding video, a gallery tour, an interview, or the art collector hype tribute video I'm editing now.

Virtually all of the clients I've ever had have valued me for my directorial insight, for being able to independently make creative decisions that enrich the project (and they take credit for). And I think that's just true in general in filmmaking. If you want to be good at your job, you have to think like the department head or whoever your boss is and anticipate their needs and do as much of their job for them as you can. It's not about being an "artist"

And just generally my clients hire me because I reduce their stress levels. They can rely on me. How are they going to feel when their iPhone cinema mode sporadically fails them on a project? Or their relighting in post doesn't work on a high-profile shoot? Or their hungover PA doesnt show up to shoot the project or forgets to charge the phone?

 

[NorBro]

That used to be the case without a shadow of a doubt.

But I don't buy it anymore, I'm sorry.

You will be lucky if modern viewers make it through even half the video.

IMO, videos aren't valued as much anymore because people watch more content than they eat or sleep. Which is why a factory of content creation 24/7 with phones and the data being shared via the cloud at all times makes a lot of sense.

What we used to consider pitching and brainstorming for potential clients just happens live, constantly with phones. The everyday practice and commodity devalues what we consider professional video production.

And you're creating hypothetical excuses against phone use when any number of problems can occur on the best sets in the world.

 

[DLD]

A few years ago on this very forum, I brought up the idea of acoustic vs. electronic music. Prior to the mid-1950's, a jazz band with a bunch of brass instruments was the cheapest option. Then Leo Fender came with his first series of amps and guitars (Telecaster, Stratocaster) and, all of a sudden, three guys could make the noise of twenty. And then they release Bassman with four drivers and 50wpc and now you need to wear ear plugs at near distances. And then anyone can play the Bo Diddley riff.

And, as far as the YouTubers go - in the old days, it took a while for someone to make it into a news anchor chair. And now there are tens of thousands folks with pleasant personalities and decent enough diction, who have taken over the digital airwaves. And it ain't coming undone just yet.

 

[NorBro]

And now there are tens of thousands folks with pleasant personalities and decent enough diction, who have taken over the digital airwaves. And it ain't coming undone just yet.

100%

 

[ahalpert]

And you're creating hypothetical excuses against phone use when any number of problems can occur on the best sets in the world.

I'm presenting reasons why powerful phone cameras won't let PAs replace cameramen. Because hiring a pro is partly about reliability. Reliability is partly about experience.

For my auction house client, I make videos that are 30 seconds long and I make videos that are 25 minutes long. They both perform well because they both serve the desires of the audience watching them. Same audience. Different purposes to the video. If anything, it's the 5-minute high-production value videos (ie multiple shoot dates with numerous crew) that are apparently not doing as well because the audience doesn't care about the production value in and of itself. They care about the content.

The 25-minute long-take "live" gallery tour videos routinely top their social media metrics, and the audience actually watches them in their entirety. This is a self-selecting audience that is very interested in fine art and would gladly attend a 30-minute or longer tour in person. There are many different audiences in the world.

Youtubers are storytellers. They build characters (usually just themselves). They present an order of information in a compelling way. Etc etc etc. But not everything in the world can be or should be a self-shot talking head video

DLD - the people taking over the digital airwaves offering intelligence and personality. Storytelling. And you still see big brass bands get hired. They're more expensive, but they offer something different, and when the audience wants that and can pay for it, they will.

 

[NorBro]

Get over it already, bro...you hold a box and point it at things from different angles.

You/we can be replaced by another human or a machine in a split second.

 

[laverdir]

There was no cameramen in team which made this key note:

 

[DLD]

... And you still see big brass bands get hired. They're more expensive, but they offer something different, and when the audience wants that and can pay for it, they will.

The audience now pays for a celebrity DJ and a monotonous techno beat. Nothing live, no music, all sequencers and computer generated notes.

 

[ahalpert]

Get over it already, bro...you hold a box and point it at things from different angles.

You/we can be replaced by another human or a machine in a split second.

i'll let this quote just stand by itself as a testament to the wrongness of this thinking

of course i can be replaced and i will be if i can be. i'm arguing that i will still make my clients more money for the majority of the work i do than a novice with AI and thus they will still hire me. i'm sorry you don't have similar faith in your own talents

you make too many generalizations to take seriously

consider the edit i'm working on right now. the client came to me with detailed instructions and specific assets to work with. and i presented them with a dozen different ideas and sources of material that they hadn't considered. that's general intelligence AI stuff, not cookie cutter copy and paste stuff. way out from now

 

[ahalpert]

The audience now pays for a celebrity DJ and a monotonous techno beat. Nothing live, no music, all sequencers and computer generated notes.

there are many different audiences. classical musicians are still going strong making $150k+/year because the elite still pays to go out and see them, just for one example

"Public libraries will kill the university system. Why would anyone pay $50k//year when you can read the material for free?"

"The internet will kill public libraries..."

Extremist predictions are fueled by an unwillingness to see nuance

Also, I sense the same kind of bloodthirst in this type of discussion as in celebrating the death of Olympus and the bleak outlook for Panasonic. Which doesn't mean the prediction is true or false. Just oddly motivated

 

[Thomas Smet]

Get over it already, bro...you hold a box and point it at things from different angles.

You/we can be replaced by another human or a machine in a split second.

Wow you value our craft that little? Its like you want us all to be replaced.

Where is the proof we have been replaced by technology? I hear it all the time and it still has not happened. Like I pointed out I think we have more producing content now than ever before.

A computer and AI could put together a piece of music as well but I don't expect it to replace musicians anytime soon.

You seem to want a future where we are all just mindless sheep consuming content that has little to no meaning or emotion. If thats the future coming I do hope I'm dead by then because frankly it sounds horrendous.

If I want to still have hope for all of us here I don't see how that makes me wrong. As soon as you give up then it will happen. We need to make sure that does not happen and not just give into a boring, dull, lifeless and bleak future. So you go ahead and believe we will all be replaced next year by a phone and I will go on believing that heart and soul still matter.