[monochrome]

This Wired article puts to the fork all arguments about dSLR Video - good, bad and indifferent.

The iPhone 6′s New Camera Could Forever Change Filmmaking

[RGlasel]

I don't think the camera in the iPhone 6 is going to change anything; every mobile device on the planet is capable of producing the most unskilled, uninteresting and unintelligent video imaginable. If you have the craft and creativity to make videos other people will pay to watch, why waste your time and resources on tools that are only marginally better than absolute garbage? We are already suffocating under mountains of video you couldn't pay me to watch, if the latest smartphone camera enables the production of longer crap in higher resolution, it doesn't make it any easier to move those mountains. The whole concept of making art has been turned on its head; as output expands exponentially, the value of it shrinks even faster. Just like everyone is not a musician, everyone is not a videographer.

What the hoopla about a better camera in the iPhone will do is allow iPhone users to accumulate more faux creativity. Faux creativity is the false impression that a material object gives the holder of it special powers to create. And it is better for the holder of that material object to simply imagine creating something, instead of actually attempting to produce anything of intrinsic value with it. Far more satisfying in the short term and far less disappointing in the long term.

[markdesmarais]

Not sure you read the article- it is coming from the other direction, talking about skilled film makers looking for lower cost tools, and finding a lot of capability there. Allows them to make high quality projects on a shoestring.

(not an iphone user, but a wired reader)

[RGlasel]

talking about skilled film makers looking for lower cost tools

I did read the article, it wasn't that long. My point is that a decked out iPhone has zero technical advantages over a dedicated video camera, and even if your budget is only $10,000, you have no business trying to save $500 by using an iPhone. It's no different than taking photographs with a duct tape camera. If you want to do it for your own enjoyment, fine, but no matter what your aptitude as a photographer is, you can produce better work with better equipment. It's not art if your goal is to produce something recognizable as video (or even still photography) for the lowest possible expenditure on tools. If you have the skill and inspiration to produce something that is recognizable as art, don't waste that on toy media. Even if you want to create art to be used in daily life, the materials you use should suit the intended purpose and not take away from your artistic abilities. In any case, whether you use a smartphone camera or $100,000 film cameras, your work doesn't have artistic merit because of the camera you used.

[monochrome]

We REAAAAALY need a sarcasm tag.

[RGlasel]

We REAAAAALY need a sarcasm tag.

You really got me worked up, intentional or not. This whole, deliberately going lo-tech to make art, business pushes me off the deep end. If "artists" want to do it for spit and giggles, fine, but when it becomes an excuse to be lazy and hides a hideous lack of talent, imagination and emotional depth with a tacky veneer of fashion, find some other form of expression to waste everyone's time on. That article in Wired was written to be totally serious, without the slightest tinge of irony. Anyway, now I'm done, so back to regular programming.

[monochrome]

That article in Wired was written to be totally serious, without the slightest tinge of irony. Anyway, now I'm done, so back to regular programming.

It isn't just SmartPhones that are over-hyped. I regularly post here about my daughter who is an Operations Producer for a USA Broadcast Network News Division. (Her media career path started in a High School Photography class on a K1000).

She has told me several times that her Remote (that's On Location) camera operators tried to create broadcast B-Roll video with 5D's for easier travel, but they just couldn't pull focus well enough to make it work. The Network dished off the dSLR's and went back to traditional Sony VidCams. You and I might argue whether broadcast news is art, but there IS an artistic standard to their output (and my daughter is a tyrant about video and audio standards)..

Tools are a part of the deal - but they come after the vision, and after the skill is acquired. These camera operators are for the most part 20+ year veterans who've done their time - and Network News is best-of-breed, so we can assume they have skill.

I do get weary of all the howling about video in a K-3.

[MD Optofonik]

"... its output is probably on par with the equipment Kevin Smith used to make his $27,575 film Clerks."

A ludicrous statement that completely undermines even the slightest level of confidence in this person's opinion or knowledge of cinematography. The only analogy I can pull out of my nether regions (because one good turn deserves another) would be to consider my 2014 Chevy Spark on par with a 1967 Corvette because the Spark has a touchscreen "infotainment system", OnStar, and gets better gas mileage

Right.

---------- Post added 09-19-14 at 04:32 PM ----------

... skilled film makers... Allows them to make high quality projects on a shoestring.

Skilled filmmakers don't use iPhones for their cinematography and don't work with the kind of budgets that would necessitate the use of an iPhone because they do actually pursue "high quality projects".

I can't bash such misinformation too much, though, because it actually keeps "skilled filmmakers" employed. Ignorance and bad habits don't get on the lot, much less through the elephant doors. Okay, maybe occasionally but they certainly don't last long.

[Ash]

The camera is decent for web, but I don't rate it for any of my important photography, including family snaps. The Slo-Mo video is a great addition, but it should also include a Fast-Mo equivalent and still fails to produce the kind of quality cinematography that larger format video cameras are capable of. I do enjoy every other aspect of the iPhone 6 though.

[reeftool]

I have found my 5s camera quite capable. I'm not a video shooter but I have used the feature on occasion and the quality is pretty good but by no means anything I would consider professional. The big drawback that will always be there is control. My fat fingers find zooming difficult and keeping it steady difficult at times. I find it suitable for daily walk around shots as long as I don't have to zoom. The new phones are bigger which will likely make them easier but I think the day when phone cameras make the DSLR or pro video camera obsolete will probably never arrive. Start adding necessary features like a real zoom lens and aperture control and you will essentially have a camera that you can make calls on and browse the web on. Samsung already makes one. While a few may buy one, the average Joe isn't going to want something that large which brings us right back to where we are today.

[lithedreamer]

Tough crowd here. In a college course last winter my group decided to make an in-character video introduction to our project (everyone else was doing PowerPoint presentations), and I was the guy with the tripod and DSLR, even if it was a K-x.

While I was editing I found myself disappointed by the video quality, but we had put so much effort into it, I had to finish it up.

When the day arrived to present, everyone was pleasantly surprised. People were able to share our vision through planning, video, and editing; no one was counting megapickles. The Wired article is discussing film festival movies, and it sounds like they want to share their vision with people, if they do it right hopefully there won't be many people who care about the megapickles.

[RGlasel]

People were able to share our vision through planning, video, and editing;

Nothing wrong with that, and I congratulate you for adapting (or adopting) a different medium to more clearly express yourself. The general public has been making home movies since Kodak released Double 8mm film in 1932, and when it was impossible to produce anything without the application of forethought, effort and practice, home movies had tremendous value and meaning for their intended audiences. The Wired article was trying to make out that having more sophisticated video apps in the iPhone6 is something historically noteworthy, when in fact it is just a minor incremental change that only encourages people to make more junk. I had my suspicions that Monochrome was trying to start a debate, and I was more than happy to join in. I like to think motion photography falls along a continuum from craft to art, like any other form of expression, and it takes skill guided by purpose to produce anything worthwhile anywhere on that continuum. The concept that artists can leapfrog the craft stage simply because they have declared themselves to be artists is even older than home movies, and it persists in spite of contributing nothing of lasting value to humankind. A magazine article masquerading as thoughtful commentary is just like waving a red cape to get this old bull to snort and paw the ground.

[lithedreamer]

it is just a minor incremental change that only encourages people to make more junk. I had my suspicions that Monochrome was trying to start a debate, and I was more than happy to join in. I like to think motion photography falls along a continuum from craft to art, like any other form of expression, and it takes skill guided by purpose to produce anything worthwhile anywhere on that continuum.

I mostly agree with you, the more accessible a medium is the more junk will be created. I can't help but think this will also create more quality films, too.

[LaurenOE]

iPhone - <sigh> - whatever.
When they include a grip, optical viewfinder, real buttons and somehow make my hands accept a device, suited for talking primarily, is when I will think of a phone as a serious tool for photography.

Humans use cameras as they are because their form follows their function.

My desktop computer makes awesome phone calls via Skype...but I don't put my desktop computer against my ear to do it.

iPhones and other phones will never become serious tools for photography or film making because they are phones first.

When that changes, they won't be phones.

[RGlasel]

I mostly agree with you, the more accessible a medium is the more junk will be created. I can't help but think this will also create more quality films, too.

That's a philosophy that has lots of champions, but I strongly disagree with it. Very few people had access to the tools to write and perform symphonic music in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but that was the period of time when the all-time classics (pun intended) were written. There is probably more music being written for symphonies today than there was 200 years ago, but nothing at the same level as Beethoven.