Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

IS THE IPHONE NOW A NETWORK CAMERA?

N

Nick Fury

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yep... been happening for a while here in AUS as well

I taught a fellow that was following politicians around during the last election here, He does on the spot news interviews and quick tv ad's. His cameramen broke his ankle tripping in a pot hole during filming... was out for 2 weeks, they couldn't get another guy in the short term... so I showed the jurno how to create good looking content via his iphone with a rode lapel mic connected to the phone.
You seriously would never know what the interviews were shot from.. Looks like a typical 2/3 inch eng HD camera output.
And when they finish the inteview they edit in the phone or ipad then send the final via WIFI to his network seconds later... in HD

When simple tools are that powerful, they are there to be used.

Now that the cameraman is back, they have had a big rethink, but know that a iphone can't shoot anymore than simple interviews for them...the moment they needed to zoom into a shot, the iphone idea came crumbling down.

but the sound you hear...... Is the future coming at you quickly....
 
Network camera? Absolutely.

We just launched Vizzywig 4.0 which invents "automatic facial switching" and remote mic. Set up 3 iPhone 5's on Tripods and hold a 4th with a pro mic attachment as a remote mic. Vizzywig's Multi-Camera automatically live switches to whichever camera the reporter is looking at and uses the 4th for audio. Each device sends high-res when recording stops and editable multi-clip is created.

I own 2 RED One's, 2 Epic's and a Nikon D800. My current priority is connecting those cameras to iPhones and iPads via Teradek and LiveShell to record proxy footage for later replacement with 4K and 6K on the desktop.

See the interview here. We also remotely control a robotic cameraman.

GeekBeat.tv Vizzywig 4.0 Interview

Michael Zaletel
Founder, i4software
 
Jason Comparetto said:
"The race to the bottom is accelerating."
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it a race to the bottom. I would call it the democratization of consumer video production. Remember that these tools can be used to augment high end tools as part of an overall solution. Imagine being able to add 50 iPhone camera angles to a concert that is primarily being shot with EPIC's. Imagine affordable "bullet time" for everyone. Also, keep in mind that as the Smartphone evolves, it will primarily be a software control center for the most expensive cameras on the market. Apple has no intention of putting a $1,000 sensor in an $800 phone. I will say that the $100 sensor of tomorrow may be better than the $1,000 sensor of today due to economies of scale and mass production (Imagine how much less RED could sell the Scarlet for if they could place a manufacturing order in China to fulfill "stand-in-line" demand for 100 million units) but there will always be a need for more storage, swappable lenses, video out and all of the other things that make pro cameras so important to professional production.

Michael Zaletel
 
Mondo Ghulam said:
not quite network television, but Burberry shot their London Fashion Week show on 14x iphone 5s:

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/123...15-minute-video-shot-with-14-iphone-5s-phones
Click to expand...

As expected, the quality is pretty low. The 5S is a step-up, but let's face it, Apple buys the camera modules in the iPhone 5's by the millions for $18.

Shadows are murky. Highlights are blown. Color is flat.

However, they are getting better all the time it is always in my pocket and ready to shoot.

-Michael
 
"In your pocket and ready to shoot" seems to me the real argument for smartphone camera's - quality has improved but everyone on this forum knows the limitations you're going to have with smartphone 1um pixel sizes (as well as their cost constraints). I've been really impressed with what they've managed to massage out of these cameras (and I think they'll eventually kill the <$100 point and shoot market)... but a 35mm sensor has a LOT more potential than one that's a couple mm's. Then there's optics. Even so... I guess I don't see how the 'in your pocket' argument works for pro shooters though (who makes a living lugging a camera around), looks more like a financial call to me. If the footage is going on their website then likely it's not a problem, but I hope they didn't show that interview footage on their HD channel. Edit: the Burberry footage looks terrible... I can see talking head interviews done with iPhones being workable for non-HD broadcast, but fashion footage... no way.
 
David Kuhn said:
"In your pocket and ready to shoot" seems to me the real argument for smartphone camera's - quality has improved but everyone on this forum knows the limitations you're going to have with smartphone 1um pixel sizes (as well as their cost constraints). I've been really impressed with what they've managed to massage out of these cameras (and I think they'll eventually kill the <$100 point and shoot market)... but a 35mm sensor has a LOT more potential than one that's a couple mm's. Then there's optics. Even so... I guess I don't see how the 'in your pocket' argument works for pro shooters though (who makes a living lugging a camera around), looks more like a financial call to me. If the footage is going on their website then likely it's not a problem, but I hope they didn't show that interview footage on their HD channel. Edit: the Burberry footage looks terrible... I can see talking head interviews done with iPhones being workable for non-HD broadcast, but fashion footage... no way.
Click to expand...

Excellent points David.

The iPhone 5S does have a 1.5um pixel size which is a step in the right direction but I agree that the Burberry footage highlights the limitations.

Our Video Filters app was created to help make 1080p iPhone footage more palpable. When you apply a bleach bypass, green-channel grayscale or etc. grade to even the footage from a 4S, it can become fairly usable. You just have to apply the filters after recording and never during recording as the hardware can't keep up and frames are dropped or quality is lost.

I completely agree that iPhone footage is ONLY for the web and I almost always scale 1080p footage down to 720p footage to get best results. However, most Pro shooters find themselves in situations where they only have their iPhone and something incredible happens in front of their eyes. At that point, something is better than nothing...is what I meant.

I even played around with that Nokia 40MP Windows phone the other day. I couldn't believe how bad the quality was.

-Michael
 
I've not looked into the 40mp camera much... it smacks so much of specsmanship that I discounted it out of hand (I wouldn't be surprised to find they're doing interpolation of a lower resolution sensor). I've got the 36mp D800... and it's a great camera so I'm all for "Mo Pixels" when the rest of the package can support them, but I'd much rather see an 8MP smartphone camera that actually has solid consumer camera quality than a camera that has a big number for flashy adverts. I've got a Canon Powershot PRO1, 8MP, 9 years old... that I'd use over ANY smartphone camera for stills because it takes MUCH better pictures... even though it's ancient.
 
michael zaletel said:
Network camera? Absolutely.

We just launched Vizzywig 4.0 which invents "automatic facial switching" and remote mic. Set up 3 iPhone 5's on Tripods and hold a 4th with a pro mic attachment as a remote mic. Vizzywig's Multi-Camera automatically live switches to whichever camera the reporter is looking at and uses the 4th for audio. Each device sends high-res when recording stops and editable multi-clip is created.

I own 2 RED One's, 2 Epic's and a Nikon D800. My current priority is connecting those cameras to iPhones and iPads via Teradek and LiveShell to record proxy footage for later replacement with 4K and 6K on the desktop.

See the interview here. We also remotely control a robotic cameraman.

GeekBeat.tv Vizzywig 4.0 Interview

Michael Zaletel
Founder, i4software
Click to expand...

Auto-cutting is about as low-end and artless as it gets - there have been Premiere Pro scripts to do this for a long time.. This is really a solution for people aiming at the very bottom of the bottom of the feeding trough.
 
michael zaletel said:
I wouldn't call it a race to the bottom. I would call it the democratization of consumer video production. Remember that these tools can be used to augment high end tools as part of an overall solution. Imagine being able to add 50 iPhone camera angles to a concert that is primarily being shot with EPIC's. Imagine affordable "bullet time" for everyone. Also, keep in mind that as the Smartphone evolves, it will primarily be a software control center for the most expensive cameras on the market. Apple has no intention of putting a $1,000 sensor in an $800 phone. I will say that the $100 sensor of tomorrow may be better than the $1,000 sensor of today due to economies of scale and mass production (Imagine how much less RED could sell the Scarlet for if they could place a manufacturing order in China to fulfill "stand-in-line" demand for 100 million units) but there will always be a need for more storage, swappable lenses, video out and all of the other things that make pro cameras so important to professional production.

Michael Zaletel
Click to expand...

Democratization in practice = no one makes money, standards and work quality lower, producers think that because a camera is cheaper, your grip suddenly does not have the same rent to pay anymore, or family to feed.
 
David Kuhn said:
"In your pocket and ready to shoot" seems to me the real argument for smartphone camera's - quality has improved but everyone on this forum knows the limitations you're going to have with smartphone 1um pixel sizes (as well as their cost constraints). I've been really impressed with what they've managed to massage out of these cameras (and I think they'll eventually kill the <$100 point and shoot market)... but a 35mm sensor has a LOT more potential than one that's a couple mm's. Then there's optics. Even so... I guess I don't see how the 'in your pocket' argument works for pro shooters though (who makes a living lugging a camera around), looks more like a financial call to me. If the footage is going on their website then likely it's not a problem, but I hope they didn't show that interview footage on their HD channel. Edit: the Burberry footage looks terrible... I can see talking head interviews done with iPhones being workable for non-HD broadcast, but fashion footage... no way.
Click to expand...

Youtube in 1080p is as high quality as broadcast TV in many cases. "On your website" means nothing anymore - the web can deliver superb video quality. Burberry did it for the hype and the Apple cross-promotion - it was not a measured technical decision.

Many types of production have no unplanned shots at all - this is purely the domain of no-budget documentary and Phillip Bloom old-people-at-random-bus-stations. I don;t see a big client nor audience demand for random shots of public transit users and/or the cinematographers daughter. So what you happen to have in your pocket is irrelevant.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
Auto-cutting is about as low-end and artless as it gets - there have been Premiere Pro scripts to do this for a long time.. This is really a solution for people aiming at the very bottom of the bottom of the feeding trough.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between auto-cutting in Premiere and our patent-pending live-auto-switching based upon facial recognition technology and other sensor input. Saying that solo news production using auto-facial-switching is artless is a bit like saying cutting an entire album by yourself with a keyboard in Pro Tools is artless. Does an artist need a studio full of musicians and a full size grand piano to make quality art? Did Michelangelo need a team? Art in it's purest form is the expression of a single individual working alone.

Imagine how long it would take me on opening morning at CES or NAB to record, edit and post a 3-camera interview covering some hot new product launch with my EPIC gear? I can do the same thing alone with Vizzywig and 4 iPhones (one as remote mic) in under 4 minutes and be the first to post online when that's all that matters. More importantly, I can hit the next booth in 60 seconds.

Soon, I will have real-time auto-facial switching working with my EPIC's connected to my iPads through Teradek Cubes and uploading to YouTube in minutes. Then replace with 6K on my laptop with very minimal post editing required. Best of both worlds.

Regarding democratization affecting incomes..did desktop publishing put advertising agencies and design firms out of business? No, it put machine operators that were not contributing to the art out of business. If someone is nothing more than a machine operator or equipment hauler, they should be concerned, if one is an artist, they have nothing to fear. Focus pullers might want to start spending time learning how to use touch gestures to pull focus on an iPad. The tools will change but their eye, their art won't change. The smartest ones will get involved in creating the software that makes the process more automatic.

Michael Zaletel
Founder, i4software
 
Michael,

I tried to send you a PM.... I think you're like me... you don't clear it out that much! ;) I too live in Phoenix! It would be cool to hook up, talk shop and that kind of thing!
 
Curt Pair said:
Michael,

I tried to send you a PM.... I think you're like me... you don't clear it out that much! ;) I too live in Phoenix! It would be cool to hook up, talk shop and that kind of thing!
Click to expand...

Hi Curt,

I just cleared some space, please send again.

-Michael
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
Youtube in 1080p is as high quality as broadcast TV in many cases. "On your website" means nothing anymore - the web can deliver superb video quality. Burberry did it for the hype and the Apple cross-promotion - it was not a measured technical decision.

Many types of production have no unplanned shots at all - this is purely the domain of no-budget documentary and Phillip Bloom old-people-at-random-bus-stations. I don;t see a big client nor audience demand for random shots of public transit users and/or the cinematographers daughter. So what you happen to have in your pocket is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much what I meant when I said "I don't see how it works for pro's", In your pocket is great for the unexpected police brutality opportunity... not so much for a paying gig. I'll give you that youtube has come a long way, it wasn't long ago that their '1080p' was compressed so badly that it was laughable, now I only giggle a bit at the blocky shadows - a huge improvement .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top