End of the consumer camcorder

[ned c]

http://mashable.com/2011/03/28/films-sh ... le-phones/

Have a look at these; perhaps this is the future!!

ned c

[Peter Copestake]

Colin asked -

There again is a local bigwig going to be impressed with someone who turns up to interview him with a £400 consumer camcorder?

Let's play this game a bit longer.

As he will probably have had experience of professional interviews, maybe not, but if it's on a tripod and he is miked and trouble taken with the position/location, and has seen some of your work, he'll probably accept the size.

When I first went digital I wanted a camcorder that would run for 90 minutes or more without having to stop for tape changes, for church services etc. I'd probably have been better with a pair of cheaper camcorders but fell for the widely praised DSR300. When the Duke of Kent was told I was a local amateur he said "with that camera, surely not". And when I was asked to bring my big camera for a press photo to publicise a local event it was apparent that I had been noticed and was regarded as an asset to the occasion. What they didn't know is that it doesn't do widescreen so is definitely dated!

As for the general public, I ask, really wanting to know and as a matter of interest, when you are filming with a phone does anyone ask if it's going to be on TV? I assure you people do respect your motives if you've got better-looking kit.
But I look forward to seeing a film, not just footage, taken with a phone. If it is really worth watching, as I've said, I'll be convinced.

But really, Tom has answered for all us so-called Luddites, because if he can't do it, who can?

[TimStannard]

Peter, your post so perfectly illustrates the point I was making in my first post here - it is as likely as anything I've seen to put newcomers off!

Your challenge about seeing a film worth watching taken with a phone is interesting. You have added the rider "not just footage", presumably because Ned's links have persuaded you that the footage is usable. So if the footage is usable why can't one make a film?

Let me answer for you - because a film is about so much more than the footage. I agree.
But everything else applies equally well to an HMC151, and EX1 or whatever your chosen camera is.
Sound - rarely does one obtain reasonable sound with an on-camera mic so a camcorder has no real advantage there
Stabilisation - as one who does not particularly like hand-held shots, I'd be using a tripod anyway.

It is (or should be) evident that camcorders make it easier to get a good shot and therefore filming on a phone is much more of a challenge. Surely we should be applauding and encouraging those who manage to take good footage (even if the subject matter does not appeal) rather than turning our noses up at them.

As phone cameras become better, the need for entry level/consumer cameras will diminish (as has been noted in the initial post). Before long there will be a massive jump in cost between what you can get for free with your phone and entry level camcorders which will probably start at around the £2500 mark, simply because of the smaller market and the sheer cost of putting lots of buttons and connectors on the bodies to make them erganomically useful. This means that very few people will make that leap. If I was starting now, it is highly unlikely I'd ever progress to anything beyond a phone camera and I suspect that's the same for many. Those who do progress will most likely go to DSLR. And then they'll enhance that kit and end up with so much invested in it they will never go to a camcorder.

We need to embrace these people and help them to make better films, not keep suggesting that modern technology is a barrier to making good films.

[Roy1]

I am certainly not against advancing modern technology and have always changed equipment as modern advancement has been made. However there has always been the proviso that the new equipment had been proved to actually improve on the item it is replacing. So with the advent of the phone video camera, if it can be proved that this developement is an obvious improvement on camcorders, I will consider using one when camcorder replacements are a thing of the past. That is if I'm still around. I like to think that I am go ahead as I was the first in my then club to change from Standard 8 to Super 8 film, despite being called a fool for doing so by the president. When I entered a competition the Chairman apologised for the fact that I was using Super 8mm and made the excuse I didn't know any better After I had won the comp. he and the president quickly changed to Super 8mm. I was the first in the club to change from VHS to SVHS, again with the same people derided it. I left the club and advanced to HD. As far as I know those same people are rubbishing HD. At least a couple of members are using HD. One of the members until a couple of month's ago would not entertain widescreen although his camera was made to film in that format. So if that attitude is repeated throughout the country, I can see the problems that "progresive filmmakers" have in getting their message across. But the proof is in the pudding and I await to see the outcome. END OF RANT.

[Dave Watterson]

Good rant!

[TimStannard]

I am certainly not against advancing modern technology and have always changed equipment as modern advancement has been made. However there has always been the proviso that the new equipment had been proved to actually improve on the item it is replacing.

Peter, I am not advocating that we should all welcome all new technology by blindly switching to it. Neither am I suggesting that it is necessarily an improvement in all aspects. What I AM advocating is that we should not be so dismissive of it just because it produces lesser quality material in our hands.

Phones are not replacing entry-level camcorders by design, they are replacing camcorders because they are effectively "free" and the market is voting with its wallet. The improvement over the camcorder is not in image quality, it is in price.

If the choice for a novice film maker is between a phone and nothing, obviously the phone will produce better material. We have a potential new enthusiast and therefore a potential new member. If he comes here and only reads people belittling films made on phones, if we haven't managed to put him off film making forever, we will at least have put him off joining the IAC. (Remind me, what is the purpose of the IAC?)

But let's look at other aspects of improvement.

DSLRs can now produce visuals which are a great improvement on similarly priced camcorders, however ergonomically they are way behind. So they're not an improvement in that aspect.

On the other hand, phone cameras can be used in places and at time where camcorders cannot - either when you want a sneaky shot or simply because you have it in your pocket (the best camera is the one you have available). So this is a definite improvement.

Just to reiterate, my comments are not prompted by any desire to persuade anyone that phones make great videos (although I believe that in the right hands they can), neither am I trying to suggest that they are in any way preferable to camcorders. I would take a lot of persuading to switch from camcorder to either phone or DSLR.

However, more people than ever are shooting video - but on phones rather than camcorders.
The majority of what they shoot is rubbish, both in terms of content and quality.
Some, however, will want to improve that and they are not going to be encouraged to do so by an IAC which won't entertain the idea of films made on phones (which, of course produce better footage than my first camcorder with which I was producing better films than some fellow club members of cameras costing ten times as much - in my opinion, of course ).

Of course I'm not suggesting that you are not entitled to voice your opinion, just trying to add a bit of balance.

[col lamb]

Before anyone else rubbishes using iPhones and the like to make a movie have a look at the link in Ned's post

Some movies great, you will there find

Its the movie that matters not the kit

Maybe if the IAC introduces categories in BIAFF for mobile phone camera/action cam shot movies it may push more youngsters to enter and potentially join for someone has to take over from the "luddite" mentality of some existing IAC officers and members

[Peter Copestake]

Some movies great, you will there find

Its the movie that matters not the kit

Brilliant images of remarkable skills. Can't judge the films until I get faster broadband/computer.

Good idea about the competitions, Col.

[tom hardwick]

Funnily enough I used my Galaxy phone just today in its full HD movie mode. There was action happening in front of me and I knew I wouldn't be able to take enough stills or take them quickly enough, so I simply switched to movie mode and (all on the phone) took frame grabs of the bits I wanted. OK, I only have 2mp stills, but they're stills taken at the Perfect Moment. And they look good.

[ned c]

https://vimeo.com/12819723

Here is a trailer for a film shot on an iPhone with a section on behind the scenes. Also edited on an iPhone. A quick look on the internet shows smart phone film specific festivals and websites in abundance.

Proving yet again that creativity is not equipment dependent. My limited experience of clubs is that they are really "video camera clubs". Check your club and if everyone owns a camera then there is a problem because you need creatives who are not interested in the technical process but in the product of their vision. Run a script writing competition in the community; make the winning film you will be amazed.

ned c

[Ian Woodward]

Peter Copestake (26 September): “I look forward to seeing a film, not just footage, taken with a phone.”

Peter, there is already an ever-increasing opportunity to see such mobile phone productions at prestigious film festivals around the world.

For instance, the Czech Republic’s 53-year-old, longest-running short-film festival, the Brno 16, will this year devote a section in the competition to such films shot on mobile phones.

Check it out on http://www.brno16.cz/

Ian Woodward

[ned c]

http://www.redsharknews.com/

We have just started this thread when WHAM; we now have a 4K smart phone/pad combination; the Galaxy Note 3. Check out at above to view shots admittedly down-rezed to HD 1080p but quite impressive. There are lots of motion artifacts but when they resisted moving the camera; good results. I see an explosion in devices for holding smart phones for cinematography; there is all ready a Stedicam for them lots of room for more devices. Amazing.

ned c

[Try http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/ ... ingly-good - editor]

[col lamb]

Ned

Impressive, I have been fancing one of these mobiles since they came out, more for the day to day office functions that would be useful but having a 4k camcorder would be a bonus.

The downscaled HD video certainly looks OK especially when compared to my Galaxy S3 video.

The downside is that to see it in all its glory needs a £2900 monitor, £650 for a 4k GPU,..........oh but to dream.

By the way Ned in the UK the Note 3 costs £600 outright, plus sim card costs or £50 per month for two years on a 4G network with no upfront cost

[tom hardwick]

You guys may remember that I tested the Galaxy Note in Positive Image in the December 2012 issue of FVM. I loved it then as I love it now, and I'd certainly have another when my contract comes up for renewal. The Note 2 was a mild facelift, but version 3 looks to be worth the wait. It's interesting to see how the top phones (bar the iPhone 5) have all got screens in the 5'' range now, and I can confirm that I can surf the web, watch iPlayer and YouTube and shop on line with ease. A tablet would be nice, but I'd miss the phone capability and not be able to have it in my trouser pocket as I mow the lawn.

tom.

[col lamb]

Tom

It was your enthusiasm for the Note 2 when you revied it that got my interest.

Still working out whether to buy outright or via a contract