Apple is Coming For Y'all: Disruptive Video Production Technologies

[kye]

15 hours ago, Emanuel said:

This is asking for some love for everyone who loves pictures:

 

WOW - that was one of the least cinematic videos I have seen for quite some time, and I shoot videos almost weekly on my GF3, which is a MFT camera from 2011 that shoots 1080p at 17Mbps.  I actually stopped the video to check it wasn't 60p (it wasn't) or that I hadn't set some other setting incorrectly.

Whatever they did, they've managed to make it scream VIDEO from every frame at the very top of its lungs.  I didn't realise a video could be that VIDEO.  If a famous cinematographer had directed that to make it as VIDEO as possible, I would sit back and think "no wonder that person is famous".

[Emanuel]

We have to redefine the meaning of the expression "cinematic" today, subordinated to an obsession for detail or a mere set of fancy gimmicks.

When the art of filmmaking is the art of hiding and revealing.

There are no more DoPs, they're called now DoCP ;- )

 

- EAG

[kye]

11 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

We have to redefine the meaning of the expression "cinematic" today, subordinated to an obsession for detail or a mere set of fancy gimmicks.

When the art of filmmaking is the art of hiding and revealing.

There are no more DoPs, they're called now DoCP ;- )

 

- EAG

The word has no specific meaning that people can agree on, except that "cinematic" is a look created by talented people with large budgets for cinema or high-end TV, and "video" looks like it was taken with a handycam by someone with no particular experience or training.

The video itself was fine, composition, movement, etc.  The quality of the image, however, was as video as I can imagine, which is a pretty big statement coming from me, who literally only hours earlier was editing videos I took on holiday with a video camera.

Any image that isn't 60p but looks like it is has managed to do something amazing.  Not great, as the people who saw The Hobbit in 60p concluded, but amazing nonetheless.

The "better" cameras get according to keyboard cinematographers, the worse the images coming from them seem to look.    I'd suggest that it's a very useful point of reference - take every spec where that camera is "advanced" and eliminate them from the list of specs that matter to getting a gorgeous image.

If ever there was a post that proves why the original Alexa models are still relevant and continue to be highly regarded, that video is it.

[Emanuel]

Well, Marvel goes directly to the big screen if not to get IMAX releases, indies dream with streaming, classics on YT, so I wouldn't surprise myself about. There's such a plurality of perspectives to see as matter of fact : D What is "cinematic" nowadays after all? ;- )

[kye]

54 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Well, Marvel goes directly to the big screen if not to get IMAX releases, indies dream with streaming, classics on YT, so I wouldn't surprise myself about. There's such a plurality of perspectives to see as matter of fact : D What is "cinematic" nowadays after all? ;- )

Marvel looks nothing like an iPhone test video on YT.  Unless you're saying something different?

[Emanuel]

Yes, Marvel is nothing about video-like, but "something" pretending to be cine-like. That is, if we're willing to ignore many different approaches on what "cinematic" may mean ;- )

- EAG

[kye]

2 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Yes, Marvel is nothing about video-like, but "something" pretending to be cine-like. That is, if we're willing to ignore many different approaches on what "cinematic" may mean ;- )

- EAG

I'm not really sure what you're saying, but I can't imagine a universe where "cinematic" means anything like "it looks like someone filmed this with a phone".

If, one day, someone makes a phone that does look cinematic, then it will be described as "it looks like the images from larger, better, nicer cameras".

I think people have forgotten what cinematic images actually look like.

[Matins 2]

4 hours ago, kye said:

If, one day, someone makes a phone that does look cinematic, then it will be described as "it looks like the images from larger, better, nicer cameras".

Can't the same be said of digital cameras compared to film?

[kye]

3 minutes ago, Matins 2 said:

Can't the same be said of digital cameras compared to film?

In a sense, yes, and we acclimatise over time.  At one point colour film wouldn't have been "cinematic" because none of its predecessors were, and the same with movies with sound.  But the transition from film to digital is 20 years in, and high-budget productions destined for the cinema (as opposed to high-end corporate work) still go to great lengths to emulate film.  I heard one professional colourist make a comment that a huge amount (IIRC it was half or more) of films are graded with a Print Film Emulation LUT, and the Alexa image processing that occurs in-camera is known to be very film-like.

So yes, your point has merit, but 20 years on, digitally shot productions destined the the cinema are most likely using one or more of the below:

• Shot on a camera with proprietary image processing to emulate film
• Graded with a Print Film Emulation LUT, or employing many many techniques that mimic film
• Distributed in 2K to theatres, despite being shot on cameras up to 12K

Plus, people still shoot features on film, despite digital being better in practically every way except the authenticity of the film look, which is still almost impossible for colourists to match.  The below links might be of interest:

http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/

http://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/ReplyToRecipeRequests.html

I suspect that even in 40 years time, the only people making images that look like the iPhone video posted earlier will be doing so to emulate footage taken by a phone.

If you're still not sure, I suggest you find a movie (or the trailer) of a movie shot on film, one shot on digital where the cinematography won more than one award, and then watch the above iPhone video again, and play a game of "one of these things is not like the other...." 

[JurijTurnsek]

The Pro Max is a huge phone, so what is preventing Apple from basically cloning the Xiaomi Mi 11 Ultra? Those sensors are big enough to create this kind of "shallow" DoF on their own.

[Emanuel]

It's not only shallow DOF is about. And "cinematic" is not only what images look like...

In any case, I guess everyone will concur people will be happier when a smartphone outcome "looks like the images from larger, better, nicer cameras" ; ) despite it's true there's a trend to people "have forgotten what cinematic images actually look like" !

 

I only notice people in these boards tend to focus too much all about form, cinematography... And to end "cinematic" is far more than only that. Crucial but...

Just as an provocative example: what about cinematic sound? Do we also need much substantial larger and expensive acquisition devices for? ;- )

[kye]

21 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

It's not only shallow DOF is about. And "cinematic" is not only what images look like...

In any case, I guess everyone will concur people will be happier when a smartphone outcome "looks like the images from larger, better, nicer cameras" ; ) despite it's true there's a trend to people "have forgotten what cinematic images actually look like" !

 

I only notice people in these boards tend to focus too much all about form, cinematography... And to end "cinematic" is far more than only that. Crucial but...

Just as an provocative example: what about cinematic sound? Do we also need much substantial larger and expensive acquisition devices for? ;- )

This is a thread about an Apple device, and the video posted was an example of that product, so that's where I'm focussing my comments.

You're absolutely right that cinematic is much more than just the image out of the camera, but the video was very VIDEO in almost every other way as well, perhaps besides composition.  The movement wasn't on a slider or large rig, so bobbed around, there was no lighting beyond just whatever was happening while the person happened to be there, I didn't get much sense of story, of drama, of journey, and the music was just a nice song from a music library.  I would know, I make exactly these videos all the time when I'm travelling - they're not that interesting unless you know the people in them.

In terms of this video making the new iPhone look cinematic, older phones look more cinematic than this video as they had lower resolution, more flare when pointed into the sun, and people making "cinematic" videos put them on sliders, heavy rigs, used lighting, filters, and didn't sharpen the living daylights out of them.  

I'm not saying you can't like the image in that video, taste is personal, but don't confuse it with something that looks like what gets shown on the big screen.

[Emanuel]

I didn't even say I liked or disliked this or that sample, to be labeled by myself as "cinematic" either. They call it. Apples calls their new gimmick in the same way and you've launched the discussion I actually think fits perfectly well here :- )

[greenscreen]

Post makes them cinematic.

[Emanuel]

Stuff doesn't need to be lower res to look like cinematic. And yes, higher resolution, more details, etc. help post-production.

 

As much as something doesn't necessarily have to be "cinematic" to be appreciated, I (can only and obviously) second it : )

 

That said, composition can result in something much more cinematic than resolution, DOF or some other visual aspect per se.

[ND64]

I tested cinematic mode and it was better than I expected and instantly realized 98% of the users have no idea how to extract the most of its creative potential.

[Django]

Really? I've had the iPhone 13 for a couple weeks now and find "cinematic" mode's fake bokeh rather useless. 

 

[Emanuel]

To my eyes seems pretty clear to me that depends on the operator... Or circumstantial use. No more no less.

 

  

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

(...) Apples calls (...)

*Apple

 

:- )

[kye]

7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

I tested cinematic mode and it was better than I expected and instantly realized 98% of the users have no idea how to extract the most of its creative potential.

Can you share any examples?  Either by yourself or things you've found?

It would be great to see something, anything, other than that video in a thread about the 'cinematic' look!

[kye]

I've posted this before, but it's worth posting again.

For the people who actually make cinematic images, high resolution is desirable on capture, and undesirable on delivery.

I think the quickest way to see if someone is a film-maker or videographer is to ask about resolution.