Blackmagic Camera for iPhone(blackmagicdesign.com)
blackmagicdesign.com
Blackmagic Camera for iPhone
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccamera
277 comments
I was surprised to see this was free. On top of that, with an impressive feature set for an initial release. Considering Blackmagic’s reputation, this will easily beat any other half-baked camera apps or paid apps in no time. This is awesome for film school students. Already recommended it to a few of my friends who are into film.
Free or not free, I am surprised to see that this includes absolutely no phone-home of any kind. “Data not collected.”
Kudos to Blackmagic.
(Resolve can also work 100% offline, with the license dongle, and is buy-once, not subscriptionware like Premiere. I am a very happy Blackmagic customer.)
Kudos to Blackmagic.
(Resolve can also work 100% offline, with the license dongle, and is buy-once, not subscriptionware like Premiere. I am a very happy Blackmagic customer.)
The thing that most impresses me about Blackmagick is how they seem to scale with you from tiny projects to pretty big stuff. From the ATEM Mini all the way to big consoles, from the pocket cameras up to the Ursa etc.
This just looks like it’ll drop the low end of that range even lower.
This just looks like it’ll drop the low end of that range even lower.
“No data collected” is the tag I want to see on the app store next to the one that tells you if there are in-app purchases.
This is present in the App Store. It's not a short line-item similar to in-app puchase presence, instead it's a full-width card that indicates details on what information is collected.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/app-privacy-details/
The only caveat is that it's developer-published information that Apple doesn't verify.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/app-privacy-details/
The only caveat is that it's developer-published information that Apple doesn't verify.
Better yet, let’s have a prominent app category called “No data collected”. This is what I really want from every program I use including desktop. Major letdown from Mozilla on this front contrary to their marketing.
> The only caveat is that it's developer-published information that Apple doesn't verify.
Well you can guess what would happen if you get caught lying or cheating. Apple didn't hesitate to remove Epic's or Facebook's apps in the past.
Well you can guess what would happen if you get caught lying or cheating. Apple didn't hesitate to remove Epic's or Facebook's apps in the past.
If you buy a BMD camera, you get a free license for the full version of Resolve.
Hope they get compensated for their generosity
Blackmagic’s reputation took a major hit after their infamous CinemaDNG bait-and-switch.
They made true interoperable raw video format a selling point of their BMPCC lineup, only to irreversibly cripple units later by removing CinemaDNG support after the fact. This dramatically narrowed toolchain options (mostly to Blackmagic’s own software suite), effectively making cameras useless for enthusiast FOSS videographers. Furthermore, the hush-hush way they pulled it off using a firmware update says something about their ethical standards, so as a rule I’m not using their products anymore.
The fact that they offer a cheap software product of their own (even with a free version) in no way justifies removing features (especially support for an open format with a thriving FOSS ecosystem) in a camera that they already sold.
They made true interoperable raw video format a selling point of their BMPCC lineup, only to irreversibly cripple units later by removing CinemaDNG support after the fact. This dramatically narrowed toolchain options (mostly to Blackmagic’s own software suite), effectively making cameras useless for enthusiast FOSS videographers. Furthermore, the hush-hush way they pulled it off using a firmware update says something about their ethical standards, so as a rule I’m not using their products anymore.
The fact that they offer a cheap software product of their own (even with a free version) in no way justifies removing features (especially support for an open format with a thriving FOSS ecosystem) in a camera that they already sold.
Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn...
It's not clear if this was a choice. RED has a patent on in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed, and have been aggressively going after other camera makers (including Nikon) for offering the feature.
To my knowledge, Nikon and RED are the only brands that offer in-camera compressed loseless RAW, and Nikon settled with RED [1].
BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless).
Other RAW formats from brands in video are not compressed in-camera.
[1]: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-ag...
It's not clear if this was a choice. RED has a patent on in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed, and have been aggressively going after other camera makers (including Nikon) for offering the feature.
To my knowledge, Nikon and RED are the only brands that offer in-camera compressed loseless RAW, and Nikon settled with RED [1].
BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless).
Other RAW formats from brands in video are not compressed in-camera.
[1]: https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/04/28/red-patent-lawsuit-ag...
> in-camera loseless RAW that is compressed
CinemaDNG doesn’t have to be compressed.
> BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless).
BM chose to go not from compressed CDNG to uncompressed CDNG, but from compressed CDNG to no CDNG at all. This is a significant reduction in processing pipeline options for those using open-source or truly free raw photography software in their work.
> The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon
Assuming that’s true, what they have done is they made their customers pay for their legal snafu. Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look. Based on their course of action and their (almost nonexistent) communication on this issue, it’s very difficult to have any sympathy towards the company.
CinemaDNG doesn’t have to be compressed.
> BRAW is okay as it is lossy (not loseless).
BM chose to go not from compressed CDNG to uncompressed CDNG, but from compressed CDNG to no CDNG at all. This is a significant reduction in processing pipeline options for those using open-source or truly free raw photography software in their work.
> The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon
Assuming that’s true, what they have done is they made their customers pay for their legal snafu. Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look. Based on their course of action and their (almost nonexistent) communication on this issue, it’s very difficult to have any sympathy towards the company.
> Perhaps it’s legal in your jurisdiction to sell a product advertising a specific feature and then remove that feature post-fact (in hardware people already own!), but it’s certainly not a great look.
This is the downside to patents and patent infringement. It happened with Google home speakers and Sonos, where I used to be able to tell google to play a song "whole home" and now I cannot do that any longer. I think this might be a bit of a new normal, and I'm sure this is allowed by the license agreement to ensure that patent infringements are not death sentences.
This is the downside to patents and patent infringement. It happened with Google home speakers and Sonos, where I used to be able to tell google to play a song "whole home" and now I cannot do that any longer. I think this might be a bit of a new normal, and I'm sure this is allowed by the license agreement to ensure that patent infringements are not death sentences.
Your speaker didn’t come with a promise that you can tell Google to play a song. This particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration. The best illustration would be that it did not warrant a line in technical specs.
On the other hand, capture format is a principal consideration when audio or photo equipment is concerned. Decisions are literally based on whether, say, an audio recorder supports WAV and whether it’s 24 or 32 bit.
It’s hard to draw a parallel with a consumer device, but imagine if Sonos completely removed Google Assistant, Alexa, or AirPlay 2 support (based off the specs section of Sonos One). Their legal department didn’t do their research, they didn’t feel like paying licensing fees, so they thought they’d just implement a similar platform themselves. They’d issue a firmware update where they wouldn’t mention this at all, you’d apply it and lo and behold. Would you be sympathetic to their cause? Knowing that they were also in the business of selling high-margin, very expensive professional-grade equipment to Hollywood studios, would you consider this kind of treatment something other than a ripoff? Would you still consider them “awesome” and their CEO “fantastic” if they just provided you with a free version of their commercial closed-source software (some features behind a paywall)?
On the other hand, capture format is a principal consideration when audio or photo equipment is concerned. Decisions are literally based on whether, say, an audio recorder supports WAV and whether it’s 24 or 32 bit.
It’s hard to draw a parallel with a consumer device, but imagine if Sonos completely removed Google Assistant, Alexa, or AirPlay 2 support (based off the specs section of Sonos One). Their legal department didn’t do their research, they didn’t feel like paying licensing fees, so they thought they’d just implement a similar platform themselves. They’d issue a firmware update where they wouldn’t mention this at all, you’d apply it and lo and behold. Would you be sympathetic to their cause? Knowing that they were also in the business of selling high-margin, very expensive professional-grade equipment to Hollywood studios, would you consider this kind of treatment something other than a ripoff? Would you still consider them “awesome” and their CEO “fantastic” if they just provided you with a free version of their commercial closed-source software (some features behind a paywall)?
> his particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration.
That feature was advertised on the in-store endcap display where I bought the google speaker. It was the only reason I bought five of them.
The rest of the story is identical. Ship an infringing product, be forced to retract the feature to mitigate damages and so on.
> Would you be sympathetic to their cause?
I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that takes a feature away for customers to mitigate damages in a patent dispute. It really sucks to be a customer when it happens. But I do understand how it happens, and why, ultimately Google had no choice but to remove the feature. I'm also glad they did the right thing because in the case of Google, Sonos could have went after Google's customers, too... and I don't ever want a free patent lawsuit with my $29 speaker.
That feature was advertised on the in-store endcap display where I bought the google speaker. It was the only reason I bought five of them.
The rest of the story is identical. Ship an infringing product, be forced to retract the feature to mitigate damages and so on.
> Would you be sympathetic to their cause?
I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that takes a feature away for customers to mitigate damages in a patent dispute. It really sucks to be a customer when it happens. But I do understand how it happens, and why, ultimately Google had no choice but to remove the feature. I'm also glad they did the right thing because in the case of Google, Sonos could have went after Google's customers, too... and I don't ever want a free patent lawsuit with my $29 speaker.
> his particular feature may have been your low-key expectation, but it’s unlikely it was your principal consideration.
This is like saying that an ad for a camera means you will be granted pretty models to take photos of.
Again, it is not a tech spec for a smart speaker, and never was. If you sincerely believe so, I am sympathetic; modern life is hard. If you don’t then try responding to my analogy instead.
> I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that takes a feature away
Again, in this case RED did not take any feature away after the fact—BM simply didn’t do their research ahead of time. They made a buck selling cameras by advertising a specific feature, then took it away when things got hot. Meanwhile, another camera manufacturer keeps selling cameras with this exact feature for years. There’s just nothing to be said and no passing the buck can make it look good.
This is like saying that an ad for a camera means you will be granted pretty models to take photos of.
Again, it is not a tech spec for a smart speaker, and never was. If you sincerely believe so, I am sympathetic; modern life is hard. If you don’t then try responding to my analogy instead.
> I'm not sympathetic to Google or any other company that takes a feature away
Again, in this case RED did not take any feature away after the fact—BM simply didn’t do their research ahead of time. They made a buck selling cameras by advertising a specific feature, then took it away when things got hot. Meanwhile, another camera manufacturer keeps selling cameras with this exact feature for years. There’s just nothing to be said and no passing the buck can make it look good.
There is literally no difference in removing whole home/multiroom audio from Google speakers and what happened with RED. Both Google and BM made the exact same mistake and fixed it the same way.
1) Google challenged Sonos, won, and apparently reinstated[0] the feature;
2) Google had to remove the patented feature. I don’t know how many times it should be reiterated in this thread that Blackmagic did not have to remove CinemaDNG support—again, it’s not a patented feature, there are cameras using it just fine. This move (removing support for the only open raw video standard) is anti-FOSS and designed in order to lock users into their proprietary ecosystem.
People keep drawing parallels with other patent lawsuits (and I for some reason keep wasting time looking into it—try doing own research, please), yet inevitably it only highlights how bad Blackmagic’s move was. There’s just nothing to be said and no passing the buck can make it look good for them.
[0] https://completemusicupdate.com/google-restores-functionalit...
2) Google had to remove the patented feature. I don’t know how many times it should be reiterated in this thread that Blackmagic did not have to remove CinemaDNG support—again, it’s not a patented feature, there are cameras using it just fine. This move (removing support for the only open raw video standard) is anti-FOSS and designed in order to lock users into their proprietary ecosystem.
People keep drawing parallels with other patent lawsuits (and I for some reason keep wasting time looking into it—try doing own research, please), yet inevitably it only highlights how bad Blackmagic’s move was. There’s just nothing to be said and no passing the buck can make it look good for them.
[0] https://completemusicupdate.com/google-restores-functionalit...
> 1) Google challenged Sonos, won, and apparently reinstated[0] the feature;
I just did a hey google, "play my favorites playlist whole home"
Google's reply:
"Sorry, I can only play music on one speaker at a time."
I just did a hey google, "play my favorites playlist whole home"
Google's reply:
"Sorry, I can only play music on one speaker at a time."
> Edit: The CEO confirmed it was due to patent infringement claims by Nikon: https://ymcinema.com/2019/03/19/the-obsolescence-of-cinemadn...
Neither Nikon nor RED are mentioned in the source you link.
Neither Nikon nor RED are mentioned in the source you link.
I have both the original BMPCC and the 4k Pocket. When the BRAW firmware came out (forced by RED patents - they for some obscure reason have been able to patent compressed raw video) I did extensive tests - there is no discernible difference at the higher BRAW settings. And you can always keep your old firmware or downgrade to it later - there was no crippling of units.
While I wish they would have been able to keep the compressed CDNG, BRAW is great to work with. Sigma FP (great camera too), as you mentioned elsewhere, does uncompressed CDNG. The data rates fo 4k 12bit uncompressed CDNG are pretty shocking - 2400Mbit/s. At that point you can't record it internally anymore and can only record on a fast SSD. It could be nice to have that as an option on Blackmagic cameras too, but to be honest I don't miss it since BRAW arrived - the files get huge.
It's a shame RED was awarded a patent for in-camera lossless compressed RAW video. Even Apple tried to sue them and lost.
While I wish they would have been able to keep the compressed CDNG, BRAW is great to work with. Sigma FP (great camera too), as you mentioned elsewhere, does uncompressed CDNG. The data rates fo 4k 12bit uncompressed CDNG are pretty shocking - 2400Mbit/s. At that point you can't record it internally anymore and can only record on a fast SSD. It could be nice to have that as an option on Blackmagic cameras too, but to be honest I don't miss it since BRAW arrived - the files get huge.
It's a shame RED was awarded a patent for in-camera lossless compressed RAW video. Even Apple tried to sue them and lost.
> And you can always keep your old firmware or downgrade to it later - there was no crippling of units.
From what I remember from when this was happening, new 4K Pocket units started shipping that could not be downgraded a few months after the change. Many people were upset because the product pages or boxes still advertised CinemaDNG, but the cameras were incapable of it.
From what I remember from when this was happening, new 4K Pocket units started shipping that could not be downgraded a few months after the change. Many people were upset because the product pages or boxes still advertised CinemaDNG, but the cameras were incapable of it.
Indeed. IIRC firmware was available via some unofficial links, and downgrading worked for certain units but not for others—impossible to determine in the usual circumstances of acquiring a camera from a store.
My only issue with BRAW is that afaik it's the least open video format in common use. Undocumented and supported only via obfuscated binaries. So free tools like ffmpeg that support "everything" do not support BRAW.
That’s kind of the point. These cameras are not point-and-shoots; most people buy units for a specific workflow they already use or have in mind. With CinemaDNG, this workflow can be based on almost any tool capable of working with raw capture. With CinemaDNG sneakily removed after the fact, those cameras turned into useless bricks unless one adopts a new workflow based on Blackmagic’s own tools (closed and paid with feature-limited free versions). You can see how it benefits BM’s bottom line and hurts FOSS.
Yes, I am a happy fp user now. I edited that out from the original comment as I thought it’s not that relevant, it merely demonstrates that a camera with a larger sensor in a smaller (AFAIK) body can record CinemaDNG in 14 bit FHD to an SD card (and UHD to an SSD) just fine.
> forced by RED patents - they for some obscure reason have been able to patent compressed raw video
RED’s patent is a travesty, but no one forced BM to drop CDNG. They could go for uncompressed CDNG, or pay RED (like what I assume Apple has done in order to implement ProRAW). Perhaps they could even do their research before they advertised and sold all those units. Their haphazard decision to drop CDNG post-fact in favour of their own proprietary format without any communication shows lack of forethought at best, scammy tendencies at worst, and in any case blatant disregard for their paying customers.
> the files get huge.
The files are huge either way. BRAW doesn’t mean you don’t have to buy that new HDD if you want to work with raw video. Besides, converting a DNG to a compressed DNG without any loss would have been a trivial production step.
What matters is losing an open format and the entire software toolchain that works with it. Even if you personally didn’t use FOSS raw development software, it was an option with a lot of potential. BM silently took away such option, leaving only BM’s own proprietary toolchain.
> forced by RED patents - they for some obscure reason have been able to patent compressed raw video
RED’s patent is a travesty, but no one forced BM to drop CDNG. They could go for uncompressed CDNG, or pay RED (like what I assume Apple has done in order to implement ProRAW). Perhaps they could even do their research before they advertised and sold all those units. Their haphazard decision to drop CDNG post-fact in favour of their own proprietary format without any communication shows lack of forethought at best, scammy tendencies at worst, and in any case blatant disregard for their paying customers.
> the files get huge.
The files are huge either way. BRAW doesn’t mean you don’t have to buy that new HDD if you want to work with raw video. Besides, converting a DNG to a compressed DNG without any loss would have been a trivial production step.
What matters is losing an open format and the entire software toolchain that works with it. Even if you personally didn’t use FOSS raw development software, it was an option with a lot of potential. BM silently took away such option, leaving only BM’s own proprietary toolchain.
I can understand BackMagic's position from the perspective that often a licensing agreement prohibits incorporation into any form of a free product - after all, there's no royalty when a product is free.
We can thank Microsoft for this clause in modern licensing agreements, because that little "it's a free product, you get no royalties! haha!" is what Microsoft did to the original 3rd party developer of Internet Explorer, when Microsoft introduced the concept of free web browsers, and then free enterprise class corporate software in a competitive move against their competitors.
We can thank Microsoft for this clause in modern licensing agreements, because that little "it's a free product, you get no royalties! haha!" is what Microsoft did to the original 3rd party developer of Internet Explorer, when Microsoft introduced the concept of free web browsers, and then free enterprise class corporate software in a competitive move against their competitors.
I have a nagging suspicion that you don’t quite understand what you are talking about. It’s professional photography hardware, and it’s very far from being free.
Their software is free. Which means they have complications trying to incorporate certain licensed components into their product, those that are traditionally handed by a revenue sharing agreement on the sale of the product. When there is no revenue in the "sale" or distribution of a product that means some other non-traditional license needs to be agreed upon for the revenue share expecting 3rd party. Many, many licensing based business models do not afford the added expense of attorneys for custom license agreements, so they are simply refused. Therefore, free software often has to use nontraditional and custom licensing agreements or agree to some prior licensing business model approved method of paying them without them having to create a custom license enforcement mechanism for various clients. The free yet ad revenue supported game type software fits into an easily policed revenue stream a revenue share expecting 3rd party can be expected to accept. But BlackMagic's software is both free and not ad supported, so where is there revenue? Some share of the BlackMagic Cloud revenue? That'd be a custom agreement.
There is no limitation for CinemaDNG support. It is an open standard that requires no licensing fee. There is plenty of both free and commercial software supporting it. There are cameras supporting it. The patent under discussion doesn’t prevent BM from implementing it.
Furthermore, BM’s software is not free. It is a commercial suite that currently costs $300 (an inexpensive price point, likely subsidized by selling $xxx–$xxxxx hardware controllers without which Resolve is moderately painful to use). They do offer at no cost a limited version where certain features spawn a “please buy” pop-up; in return for that limited version they collect plenty of personal data including your full name, email, phone number and the company you work for. I know this all because I have in fact used Resolve (frankly it’s been somewhat buggy on macOS though), have you?
Furthermore, BM’s software is not free. It is a commercial suite that currently costs $300 (an inexpensive price point, likely subsidized by selling $xxx–$xxxxx hardware controllers without which Resolve is moderately painful to use). They do offer at no cost a limited version where certain features spawn a “please buy” pop-up; in return for that limited version they collect plenty of personal data including your full name, email, phone number and the company you work for. I know this all because I have in fact used Resolve (frankly it’s been somewhat buggy on macOS though), have you?
> have you?
Yes. It's not my active solution, but I've used it. Have in one of my systems.
If so, you should probably know that they have in fact incorporated support for CinemaDNG into Resolve, including the free version, but your comment doesn’t seem to acknowledge that.
Blackmagic are awesome, run by a fantastic founder-CEO. They give a bunch of software away for free (Resolve basic version) - I guess enough of it converts to users of their paid stuff like the hardware and Blackmagic Cloud and Resolve Studio.
Been a user of their hardware and software for years, nothing but good things to say about it.
Been a user of their hardware and software for years, nothing but good things to say about it.
It’s not just the direct conversion.
If every little kid trying to edit game clips or home movies does so in Davinci Resolve because it’s easier and safer than cracking Premiere or Final Cut, it eventually becomes cheaper for companies to also use Resolve, rather than retrain people.
For the same reason, Microsoft never really aggressively curtailed Windows piracy. Better to have a pirated user demanding Windows at the workplace than a user demanding macOS.
If every little kid trying to edit game clips or home movies does so in Davinci Resolve because it’s easier and safer than cracking Premiere or Final Cut, it eventually becomes cheaper for companies to also use Resolve, rather than retrain people.
For the same reason, Microsoft never really aggressively curtailed Windows piracy. Better to have a pirated user demanding Windows at the workplace than a user demanding macOS.
My take as well. Why not make windows free if it’s trivial to pirate already? Well, because you aren’t the target consumer.. not yet, anyway
You're the target consumer, all right, but you're not the customer.
Same, it's even used in large public UK broadcasters as it's good gear.
It's not just free to install, basically everything is free except for cloud service they provide.
It's designed as a loss leader for their other products. Most notably their cloud storage.
You're right. And I think a side effect it's being gateway product for their hardware software ecosystem like their PCI cards, color correction surfaces and cameras.
Maybe I missed it, but is there maybe a side-by-side comparison of the footage that usually comes out of an iPhone camera versus how it can look (with light, simple controls) out of this Blackmagic app?
And question for others, while I'm at it. What was it about Blackmagic cameras or software (or company) that "broke the curve of what you could get for the same $" versus like RED or whoever expensive studio cameras? Did they do something clever with the hardware and controls to get much more out of consumer grade sensors? Or did they make tradeoffs that you eventually hit against when you try to use their cameras for real professional high-duty purposes?
And question for others, while I'm at it. What was it about Blackmagic cameras or software (or company) that "broke the curve of what you could get for the same $" versus like RED or whoever expensive studio cameras? Did they do something clever with the hardware and controls to get much more out of consumer grade sensors? Or did they make tradeoffs that you eventually hit against when you try to use their cameras for real professional high-duty purposes?
Blackmagic was essentially started by a hacker in Grant Petty, and you can tell. RED took the existing ethos of the industry that says everything must be expensive and reserved for the elites. Sony is just Sony, and Alexa came from Arri which doubles the price of anything to put its name on it. BMD is the ultimate in "disruptor" category to me. Fuck your Uber or Musk examples, Grant Petty is a gawd! /s Really, though, he's pretty damn cool. Urban legend says that he even wrote the first drivers of his competitor AJA boards.
When BMD bought Da Vinci, they got a huge acquihire leg up on color science. Recording RAW at the sizes cinema cameras do requires fast storage that just wasn't cheap when RED/Alexa came about. Even with cheap storage, neither of those companies are going to debase themselves by lowering prices. There's a lot of technical reasons why BMD cameras can be cheaper, but the main reason is corporate ethos at BMD is totally different than other players.
When BMD bought Da Vinci, they got a huge acquihire leg up on color science. Recording RAW at the sizes cinema cameras do requires fast storage that just wasn't cheap when RED/Alexa came about. Even with cheap storage, neither of those companies are going to debase themselves by lowering prices. There's a lot of technical reasons why BMD cameras can be cheaper, but the main reason is corporate ethos at BMD is totally different than other players.
BMD does amazing work for the price, but it's decidedly still not Arri quality and only Sony is competitive there. I work with footage from all these cameras as well as celluloid etc and have for over a decade. While BMD absolutely can look fantastic, it's typically much more work to get it there. If you're in a difficult situation, then it's not even close to how superior Venice or Alexa are.
I mostly work in Resolve so I'm partial to BM and appreciative of their work if it helps to establish neutrality (though I'm also experienced in baselight, flame, etc).
Reach for the tools you can! BMD can create great looking imagery when treated properly.
I mostly work in Resolve so I'm partial to BM and appreciative of their work if it helps to establish neutrality (though I'm also experienced in baselight, flame, etc).
Reach for the tools you can! BMD can create great looking imagery when treated properly.
RED took the existing ethos of the industry that says everything must be expensive
It's hilarious to read this since the opposite was true in the beginning; Red was the one cutting corners to reach really low prices.
It's hilarious to read this since the opposite was true in the beginning; Red was the one cutting corners to reach really low prices.
>to reach really low prices.
really low when compared to what? $50k USD for a camera body is not really low prices. $1500 USD for a memory card is not really low.
really low when compared to what? $50k USD for a camera body is not really low prices. $1500 USD for a memory card is not really low.
When the Red One was released in 2007 it started at $17500. Arri's Alexa started closer to $65000 at the time.
What they're doing with pricing today, I have no idea, but when Red hit the scene in 2007, not only did the price get a lot of attention, but it motivated the entire industry to take 4k digital video seriously. Every major manufacturer of professional cinema cameras would soon release their own competitive cameras with similar features to the Red One.
What they're doing with pricing today, I have no idea, but when Red hit the scene in 2007, not only did the price get a lot of attention, but it motivated the entire industry to take 4k digital video seriously. Every major manufacturer of professional cinema cameras would soon release their own competitive cameras with similar features to the Red One.
>Sony is just Sony
They make the sensors found in nearly every Blackmagic camera and are now taking a large part of the market with Venice and the FX9. No one has ever accused Arri of being arbitrarily expensive because their product is simply the best, perfectly manufactured, and totally reliable
Blackmagic is excellent for the industry and I use Resolve professionally
They make the sensors found in nearly every Blackmagic camera and are now taking a large part of the market with Venice and the FX9. No one has ever accused Arri of being arbitrarily expensive because their product is simply the best, perfectly manufactured, and totally reliable
Blackmagic is excellent for the industry and I use Resolve professionally
The app gives you control over things like the color space, codecs, lens correction, LUT, etc., as well as better monitoring and manual adjustments. For that reason I think it’s not really useful to show a straight out of camera comparison, as the results very much depend on how you use these options and whether or not you intend to do color grading. Without adjusting the defaults, you’ll get a 4K h256 rec.709 video, whereas the default app will give you an HDR video, which might look better straight out of the camera, provided that the exposure and camera work are equally good.
The iPhone's AVAsset* framework system is... intense. For "simple" stuff nowadays it seems like the amount of work you have to do just to get bootstrapped is a lot. But it also seems insanely powerful for all kinds of stuff and would make it possible to do a whole heck of a lot without having to hardware hack.
> What was it about Blackmagic cameras or software (or company) that "broke the curve of what you could get for the same $" versus like RED or whoever expensive studio cameras?
They pack a lot of features for cheap that usually are found in more expensive cameras. Check feature comparisons for the Pocket 4K or 6K with pricier cameras like the A7S III or later. Their camera UI is by far one of the best designed ones compared to Sony or Panasonic. You get to use their efficient BRAW codec. And they include a copy of the Studio version of DaVinci Resolve.
They pack a lot of features for cheap that usually are found in more expensive cameras. Check feature comparisons for the Pocket 4K or 6K with pricier cameras like the A7S III or later. Their camera UI is by far one of the best designed ones compared to Sony or Panasonic. You get to use their efficient BRAW codec. And they include a copy of the Studio version of DaVinci Resolve.
Resolve is free, which is a massive deal to amateur filmmakers.
The BMPCC4k prioritised having RAW, 4k, and being affordable. They cost 2-3k new at the time, competing with cameras that cost 15k and up. Raw is a massive, massive deal, and I argue is the thing separating pro gear from amateur.
Their image quality and color science is arguably "less good" than Arri or RED, but the difference is imperceptible for 99% of people.
Unless you're shooting someone juggling fire in a pitch black room, the images coming out of their cameras are as good as you can hope for.
I shoot documentary, and I just do not see a reason to buy another camera. It's just "chefs kiss"
The BMPCC4k prioritised having RAW, 4k, and being affordable. They cost 2-3k new at the time, competing with cameras that cost 15k and up. Raw is a massive, massive deal, and I argue is the thing separating pro gear from amateur.
Their image quality and color science is arguably "less good" than Arri or RED, but the difference is imperceptible for 99% of people.
Unless you're shooting someone juggling fire in a pitch black room, the images coming out of their cameras are as good as you can hope for.
I shoot documentary, and I just do not see a reason to buy another camera. It's just "chefs kiss"
> Resolve is free, which is a massive deal to amateur filmmakers.
Also, Resolve Studio¹ is just a $300 one-time payment. So far, updates have always been free.
¹ https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/stu...
Also, Resolve Studio¹ is just a $300 one-time payment. So far, updates have always been free.
¹ https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/stu...
They’re an order or magnitude two cheaper thanks to innovative and cost-effective engineering solutions from Melbourne, and offer professional connectivity alongside the ability to work with uncompressed or lightly-compressed codecs. Repurposing Off-the-shelf parts too, such as image sensors designed for other uses (such as smartbombs and guided missiles) rather than developing everything in-house. Their FPGA and high-speed dsp engineering is first-class too, and they seem to get this done with fewer,smarter people than say Sony, who have buildings full of engineers spending much of their lives writing design documents and then specifying things correctly at length before building - Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work.
> Repurposing Off-the-shelf parts too, such as image sensors designed for other uses (such as smartbombs and guided missiles)
Interesting. Do you have any sources on this? Afaik smart bombs don't use cutting edge professional cinema camera class sensors but aerospace ones which are much older, lower-res and rudimentary but well tested over the years.
Interesting. Do you have any sources on this? Afaik smart bombs don't use cutting edge professional cinema camera class sensors but aerospace ones which are much older, lower-res and rudimentary but well tested over the years.
> Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work.
This isn't even remotely true. Nobody at that scale just hacks it together. That sort of approach works for articles on various hardware hacking websites, not for real-life design and manufacturing of products.
This isn't even remotely true. Nobody at that scale just hacks it together. That sort of approach works for articles on various hardware hacking websites, not for real-life design and manufacturing of products.
You'd be amazed...
They're hacking together extremely professionally, but I'd imagine many engineers at BMD consider themselves hacking and what they do to be hacking, but I don't have access to any. I'd say my general premise is true though.
They're hacking together extremely professionally, but I'd imagine many engineers at BMD consider themselves hacking and what they do to be hacking, but I don't have access to any. I'd say my general premise is true though.
> You'd be amazed...
I am amazed...by some of the comments.
This isn't a garage operation with a bunch of dudes hacking on a plywood workbench. This is a real engineering organization with a well-optimized process and enough vertical integration to deliver excellent products at scale. That's how you do what they do.
It is always interesting to watch people on HN, who obviously know very little about anything outside of hacking software, talk about making physical products. There's another thread on the first page about the realities of making a single plastic part. Read it. <sarcasm>It was obviously hacked together.</sarcasm>
I am amazed...by some of the comments.
This isn't a garage operation with a bunch of dudes hacking on a plywood workbench. This is a real engineering organization with a well-optimized process and enough vertical integration to deliver excellent products at scale. That's how you do what they do.
It is always interesting to watch people on HN, who obviously know very little about anything outside of hacking software, talk about making physical products. There's another thread on the first page about the realities of making a single plastic part. Read it. <sarcasm>It was obviously hacked together.</sarcasm>
Well, I used to work there… so I at least have first-hand experience of the unorthodox methods and flexible working culture, one that is focussed on solutions rather than academic-type rigour. You’d be surprised how small the teams can be that design these products, ready for manufacture in Singapore.
> Well, I used to work there…
Good for you. Don't confuse an optimized process for "hacking". Don't diminish their accomplishments that way.
I have lots of history with this company, including being personal friends with one of the founders for the last twenty years (as in, I stay at his home when I visit). They don't hack shit together. They have optimized an efficient engineering and manufacturing process.
There's a simple reality in physical product engineering: The engineering process is directly related to product quality and reliability, which, in turn, is directly connected to failure rates and support/service load. A product that is hacked together will, at scale, invariably result in a bad quality and reliability along with a massive support load. This is not a financially viable approach at scale, not at all.
Sure, one can hack things together during initial ideation and product definition. This, in the context of a solid product development process, is a normal aspect of almost any engineering organization, from consumer to aerospace. However, once enough is learned about the available solutions and approaches, not entering into a well-run engineering process is a costly mistake. No successful organization at scale hacks products together, it just doesn't happen.
Good for you. Don't confuse an optimized process for "hacking". Don't diminish their accomplishments that way.
I have lots of history with this company, including being personal friends with one of the founders for the last twenty years (as in, I stay at his home when I visit). They don't hack shit together. They have optimized an efficient engineering and manufacturing process.
There's a simple reality in physical product engineering: The engineering process is directly related to product quality and reliability, which, in turn, is directly connected to failure rates and support/service load. A product that is hacked together will, at scale, invariably result in a bad quality and reliability along with a massive support load. This is not a financially viable approach at scale, not at all.
Sure, one can hack things together during initial ideation and product definition. This, in the context of a solid product development process, is a normal aspect of almost any engineering organization, from consumer to aerospace. However, once enough is learned about the available solutions and approaches, not entering into a well-run engineering process is a costly mistake. No successful organization at scale hacks products together, it just doesn't happen.
I think you have some preconceived notions of what "hacking" is and isn't. Most on Hacker News do not use "hack" as a pejorative. I suspect in this case it's just an engineering / practicality focused ethos that can be applied as opposed to "design by committee."
Hacking something together - and then refining it - is how many good products are designed.
Hacking something together - and then refining it - is how many good products are designed.
The line I was responding to was:
"Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work"
That is patently false.
"Blackmagic just hack it together and make it work"
That is patently false.
I agree with the poster above, that you're taking umbridge with my use of the verb "hack" - I mean this in a respectful way towards engineers who devise clever solutions to problems, and iterate quickly and knowledgeably, rather than "designing by committee". I'm sure Grant would confirm that (as happening for the lifetime of his brilliant company) so go ask him next time you get a chance to hop off your high horse and go for a sleepover.
An effect of BMD's "hacking" is that on occasion obvious bugs have crept into their products, such as the infamous "black hole sun" issue in the early cameras, whereby extreme overexposure caused by pointing the camera at the sun resulted in the capture of it showing it as black rather than white - https://neiloseman.com/blackmagic-production-camera-field-re... Issues like this can be avoided with more rigorous testing in development rather than fixes in firmware and in Resolve after the fact, which was what was suggested. No doubt an artefact caused by the hack-y nature of the products at the time.
Plus the clue is in the name - it's Blackmagic.
Finally, go into the office if you're such an intimate. "a garage operation with a bunch of dudes hacking on a plywood workbench" will be pretty close to what you find. Just once those dudes have banged their heads together, they write phenomenal code late into the night to get the thing made.
An effect of BMD's "hacking" is that on occasion obvious bugs have crept into their products, such as the infamous "black hole sun" issue in the early cameras, whereby extreme overexposure caused by pointing the camera at the sun resulted in the capture of it showing it as black rather than white - https://neiloseman.com/blackmagic-production-camera-field-re... Issues like this can be avoided with more rigorous testing in development rather than fixes in firmware and in Resolve after the fact, which was what was suggested. No doubt an artefact caused by the hack-y nature of the products at the time.
Plus the clue is in the name - it's Blackmagic.
Finally, go into the office if you're such an intimate. "a garage operation with a bunch of dudes hacking on a plywood workbench" will be pretty close to what you find. Just once those dudes have banged their heads together, they write phenomenal code late into the night to get the thing made.
given that line
> such as image sensors designed for other uses (such as smartbombs and guided missiles)
I'd assume comment above was satire
> such as image sensors designed for other uses (such as smartbombs and guided missiles)
I'd assume comment above was satire
Not entirely! I think some of the large 35mm-size sensors used in the early cameras were designed with those kinds of applications in mind. I know BMD didn't design the sensors in-house, and used off-the-shelf parts, that in a couple of cases were actually larger than the desired sensor size, so they used it anyway but discarded part of the image produced from the sensor in order to make it 35/16mm format.
As a non-film person, can someone explain what it means to create the same cinematic ‘look’ as Hollywood feature films? What is Blackmagic doing when recording video to make the video feel more professional?
Marketing aside, cinematic in this context means more or less "manual control".
Something that makes a video look amateurish, it's the phone trying its best to prioritise a 'clear image', but that means changing parameters mid-recording.
Now, this isn't bad, it's ideal for someone who doesn't want to lose the moment without worrying about choosing the right setting (imagine a parent recording their child's recital or soccer game). But the trade-off is that it looks choppy.
But if you're in a controlled environment, you can set a fixed exposure (balance between ISO, shutter speed and aperture), framerate, bit-depth, focus distance, colour temperature and microphone gain depending on your intent.
As an example, image you want to have a high-contrast image with a dark silluette of someone and a bright background like a sunset, the default phone camera app will try to guess whether you want to focus on the subject or the background, and will switching between the two randomly. With manual control, you can chose, whatch you want.
Something that makes a video look amateurish, it's the phone trying its best to prioritise a 'clear image', but that means changing parameters mid-recording.
Now, this isn't bad, it's ideal for someone who doesn't want to lose the moment without worrying about choosing the right setting (imagine a parent recording their child's recital or soccer game). But the trade-off is that it looks choppy.
But if you're in a controlled environment, you can set a fixed exposure (balance between ISO, shutter speed and aperture), framerate, bit-depth, focus distance, colour temperature and microphone gain depending on your intent.
As an example, image you want to have a high-contrast image with a dark silluette of someone and a bright background like a sunset, the default phone camera app will try to guess whether you want to focus on the subject or the background, and will switching between the two randomly. With manual control, you can chose, whatch you want.
> Something that makes a video look amateurish [...] changing parameters mid-recording
A prime example of this is leaving autofocus on when you're moving about. There's many YouTubers who haven't yet learnt this lesson and it can make the video unwatchable.
A prime example of this is leaving autofocus on when you're moving about. There's many YouTubers who haven't yet learnt this lesson and it can make the video unwatchable.
Yes. It’s very rare to see the focus change during a movie or TV show. The main exception is when the focus switches between two people talking, when their positions are known in advance and dialled in so there isn’t any visible hunting
You can actually see focus changes quite often in movies and TV shows - but they're usually done intentionally to accentuate something, e.g. a focus pull from a foreground object to an actor in the background.
But it's a slow and smooth motion without any focus breathing intended to highlight an object or an actor, not just autofocus hunting to find something
But it's a slow and smooth motion without any focus breathing intended to highlight an object or an actor, not just autofocus hunting to find something
This is probably an elementary question, but are those focal shifts still done manually, with a camera guy turning the ring by hand? Or do they set the two points in advance and hit a button to start a motorized transition?
Behind the scenes, look for when they are "marking," which is leaving little piece of tape or otherwise on the ground where the actors are standing. The focus puller will make indications on their focus ring to match these; as long as the actor "hits their mark" the focus will be dead on. A majority of time the operation is fully manual (though possibly remote to the camera)
That's how I remembered it too. And that's also then one of the major differences between this app and an actual professional camera - because on a smartphone you only have autofocus. Which works most of the time, but I've had some recordings of concerts with weird lighting, smoke and other stuff which were out of focus for quite a few seconds. One of the most stupid things is when you try to take a picture of a bird or airplane in flight and your smartphone can't focus on it because it's too small. Why can't it just default to focus to infinity if it can't find anything to focus on?
>because on a smartphone you only have autofocus
Focus can be controlled manually on the iPhone (in 3rd party apps).
Focus can be controlled manually on the iPhone (in 3rd party apps).
Focus pullers at work in case anyone is interested:
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5cfTuy6lNaM
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ZlEp_s8yHYA
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=5cfTuy6lNaM
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=ZlEp_s8yHYA
Kind of both? You've usually got a small motor connected to the lens that turns the focus ring.
A dedicated person, called a focus puller, has a remote with a wheel on the side. By turning this wheel the focus puller can remotely control the focus ring of the lens.
The remote usually allows the focus puller to set the maximum range of motion with A/B points. The system doesn't automatically execute the focus pull, but with the hard stops at the A/B points the focus puller can make sure they don't overshoot the target.
A dedicated person, called a focus puller, has a remote with a wheel on the side. By turning this wheel the focus puller can remotely control the focus ring of the lens.
The remote usually allows the focus puller to set the maximum range of motion with A/B points. The system doesn't automatically execute the focus pull, but with the hard stops at the A/B points the focus puller can make sure they don't overshoot the target.
At that point it sounds easier to have the focus switch executed automatically with all relevant parameters preset, e.g. duration or curve. Sort of like CSS transition or MIDI automation.
look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AsGgR9oZak
Back then the focus puller would use a remote connected by a cable, which is why you see a focus puller running behind the steadicam op in that video.
That's why while you've got A/B points set and marks set on the focus control, you still need a human.
Back then the focus puller would use a remote connected by a cable, which is why you see a focus puller running behind the steadicam op in that video.
That's why while you've got A/B points set and marks set on the focus control, you still need a human.
there's a dedicated person usually called a focus puller.
Having worked as a loader/2nd AC and getting thrown into the focus puller chair on some b-roll - focus is changing constantly. On a movie set, it’s pretty much an entire person’s job.
Does the focus change during a shot?
Unless the distance of the camera and the subject do not move at all, the focus will be actively changing - yes.
Depending on various conditions (lighting, lens choice, etc) there might be a very large distance range that is in focus - or it might just be a few inches. Even if the focus puller isn’t doing any big focus swings, they are likely making small adjustments.
Depending on various conditions (lighting, lens choice, etc) there might be a very large distance range that is in focus - or it might just be a few inches. Even if the focus puller isn’t doing any big focus swings, they are likely making small adjustments.
It's not rare at all. It is just deliberate in movies/shows, not something algorithm on camera constantly fiddles with.
With “Cinematic” video mode on the iPhone you can edit focus in post with the iPhone Photos app. It does a good job for this two person talking scenario.
I’ve seen enough videos with otherwise high production values to make me suspect there is a valid trade-off to keeping autofocus on.
It depends if you have a cameraman or not. If you don't, and you're walking away from the camera, it's probably best to leave it on and hope it tracks you.
If Apple wanted to put an engineering team on solving this problem, they could record all the raw sensor data for the video, with the regular 'auto' settings, then, after the clip is recorded, decide what shutter speed, iso, etc to use, and then reprocess that raw data to simulate what that moment in time would have looked like with a different shutter speed.
I''m sure modern neural nets would do a decent job of simulating what a frame taken with one iso/shutter/focus would look like with a slightly different iso/shutter/focus.
I''m sure modern neural nets would do a decent job of simulating what a frame taken with one iso/shutter/focus would look like with a slightly different iso/shutter/focus.
First, I doubt users ask for this though. Those who want it, are going to use a manual videography app like OP. The 99.9% wants a camera that just works.
Second, modern neural nets are good, but not perfect. I can reliably tell if something was shot with real bokeh, or simulated via software. For serious productions like a commercial shoot, nobody wants to change the shutter speed, aperture, etc in shoot: the DP already knows what look they want before they start filming.
Second, modern neural nets are good, but not perfect. I can reliably tell if something was shot with real bokeh, or simulated via software. For serious productions like a commercial shoot, nobody wants to change the shutter speed, aperture, etc in shoot: the DP already knows what look they want before they start filming.
How could you change the shutter speed in post?
I think a neural network could do it. You just train it on a bunch of videos with different shutter speeds, and then you ask it to convert a given video from one speed to another.
I'm sure it would quickly learn to add/remove motion blur on moving things as appropriate.
I'm sure it would quickly learn to add/remove motion blur on moving things as appropriate.
But in addition to determining motion blur, shutter speed also massively affects which areas of the images are above/below the brightness range the sensor is capable of picking up.
Tangent that kind of seems relevant here¹:
Read the Foreword written by Gerald Sussman (SICP author) of the book The Little Schemer.
The most beautiful Foreword I have ever read so far.
¹(The Foreword talks about photography a little bit).
Read the Foreword written by Gerald Sussman (SICP author) of the book The Little Schemer.
The most beautiful Foreword I have ever read so far.
¹(The Foreword talks about photography a little bit).
The TLDR; version of this is the progression from amateur to expert: 1/ controls are set wrong in the first place, 2/ computer changes controls during the shot but it's distracting and obvious, 3/ controls are set right in the first place and everything looks good and consistent, 4/ expert modifies the controls mid-shot (and the shot requires this) and it looks awesome because everything is changing which allows the shooter's expertise to shine through.
[deleted]
[deleted]
More than anything it's about color correction and color grading.
This video explains it nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh83khT1no
If you are starting out with good data (e.g. 32bit exr workflow), you would be amazed how powerfully and easily you can control what you want and what the possibilities are, with tools like MagicBullet (which offer presets to get you the cinema look with just a mouse click). But if you work long enough in this area you can discover your own workflow and pull it off without these tools, e.g. play with hue&sat, white balance adjustments, the curves, introducing an S-curve for example, color wheels, etc.
This video explains it nicely I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAh83khT1no
If you are starting out with good data (e.g. 32bit exr workflow), you would be amazed how powerfully and easily you can control what you want and what the possibilities are, with tools like MagicBullet (which offer presets to get you the cinema look with just a mouse click). But if you work long enough in this area you can discover your own workflow and pull it off without these tools, e.g. play with hue&sat, white balance adjustments, the curves, introducing an S-curve for example, color wheels, etc.
> More than anything it's about color correction and color grading.
to my (literal) perception, using a framerate of 24 frames per second is an even more significant requirement to get the "cinematic Hollywood look".
to my (literal) perception, using a framerate of 24 frames per second is an even more significant requirement to get the "cinematic Hollywood look".
Isn't the 180 degree shutter angle more crucial than the distinction between 24 and 30?
Both. The 180 degree rule just makes sure motion blur looks as intended and is a mostly artistic choice that can vary depending on the scene. E.g. for action sequences or particularly smooth motion in a dreamy scene, you can break this rule. Or, if there's moving water, you might want to choose a particular shutter in relation to the preset frame rate.
The overall frame rate gives you the distinction between a typical movie vs a TV-style documentary. The overall frame rate stays fixed across a movie and should normally not be changed.
The overall frame rate gives you the distinction between a typical movie vs a TV-style documentary. The overall frame rate stays fixed across a movie and should normally not be changed.
My artistic choice is shooting 60FPS at 360 degrees (shutter: 1/60th of a second). It gives motion blur more comparable to 30FPS (which is closer to 24FPS), with the responsiveness and fluidity of 60FPS.
Why 24 fps format is still being used? I personally can't stand it. It's like watching a slide show.
I can't wait when Hollywood moves to 120fps or better.
I can't wait when Hollywood moves to 120fps or better.
For movies and TV, I absolutely prefer it -- as do most people in tests, which is why it continues to be dominant.
For whatever psychological reason, 24 fps "suggests" reality but without "being" reality, kind of like being in a dream, and our brains pay attention to story and action.
While 60+ fps "approaches" reality and it simply starts to feel both uncomfortably real and uncomfortably fake. Uncomfortably real because it feels too much like real-life and we don't have enough of a mental distinction between fantasy and reality, and uncomfortably fake because it looks like a bunch of actors acting and moving in ways that aren't the ways people act and move in real life. It's uncanny valley.
Nobody really knows why our brains respond this way psychologically. They just do.
So for fictional movie/TV content, higher fps is not better. 24/30 is chosen for a very good reason.
(On the other hand, news and sports do great with higher fps, because there's nothing fake trying to be passed off as real.)
For whatever psychological reason, 24 fps "suggests" reality but without "being" reality, kind of like being in a dream, and our brains pay attention to story and action.
While 60+ fps "approaches" reality and it simply starts to feel both uncomfortably real and uncomfortably fake. Uncomfortably real because it feels too much like real-life and we don't have enough of a mental distinction between fantasy and reality, and uncomfortably fake because it looks like a bunch of actors acting and moving in ways that aren't the ways people act and move in real life. It's uncanny valley.
Nobody really knows why our brains respond this way psychologically. They just do.
So for fictional movie/TV content, higher fps is not better. 24/30 is chosen for a very good reason.
(On the other hand, news and sports do great with higher fps, because there's nothing fake trying to be passed off as real.)
Every now and then somebody makes a high frame rate movie and everybody complains it looks bad, so they don't do it again.
Reminds me I was playing games at 320x240 and then going to 1024x768 resolution. Suddenly everything started looking "basic", whereas at lower resolution, brain could somewhat "fill in the blanks" so to speak so it felt better.
I guess it is similar for higher frame rates - it just shows the shortcomings.
I think if the film industry committed to higher frame rates we would have seen massive improvements over the years.
I guess it is similar for higher frame rates - it just shows the shortcomings.
I think if the film industry committed to higher frame rates we would have seen massive improvements over the years.
IMO a 48 fps movie at 1/48 shutter speed looks just as dreamy as a 24fps movie at 1/48 shutter speed, but is much less stuttery.
I think 48 fps gains more detail but makes things look cheaper. The Hobbit looked like a BBC TV show compared to LOTR. That said, I don't pay enough attention to film these days so maybe people have gotten better at it and I'm watching 48 fps all the time.
The hobbit had a 1/96 shutter, which is what made it feel like a TV show. The actual fps barely had an effect on its look.
I have heard it claimed that because historically high-budget hollywood films were shot on film at 24fps, while low-budget TV content was shot on tape at 30fps interlaced to 60fps, people came to think the lower framerate is "cinematic" and that higher framerates "don't look right"
Personally I'm not enough of a film buff to notice the difference. Apparently film enthusiasts do notice, and care a great deal, though.
Personally I'm not enough of a film buff to notice the difference. Apparently film enthusiasts do notice, and care a great deal, though.
It's a cheaper safer option to get something that looks "right". It's not so trivial to have 120 fps video look like a smoother 24 fps. Even capturing at 1/120 shutter speed it does look different. There's an experiment I want to do that involves taking 120 1/120 video and stacking windows of 3 frames to emulate shooting at 120 fps with 1/40 shutter speed.
I'm sure the people masking shit out frame by frame can't wait to do it in 120 FPS either!
They don't exactly have any job security. They will eventually be employed doing something else.
In this case its software that treats the iphone as a camera of their own. Looking at the screenshots, the UI/UX is extremely similar to current blackmagic cinema cameras. So you can have two camera operators, or the iphone on a tripod or whatever, and each camera operator will know which settings their camera has and to typically match both the film cameras. Like a quick visual check that both cameras are at the same shutter speed or shutter angle, resolution, white balance and tint, and having the same style of histogram so they can match exposure on both cameras.
Its actually fairly neat and cool that they put time and money into this app to further their ecosystem. I guess theres a large overlap of people that film with iphones and also want to buy a legitimately good, budget cinema camera in the pocket 4k/6k.
I don't know HN's opinion of blackmagic, but they do some pretty cool stuff. With the purchase of a camera they include Davinci Resolve which is a fully featured Adobe Premier Pro rival. For reference premier pro is $21 a month, and the cheapest blackmagic cinema cam is the pocket 4k which comes in at $1200, after 5 years you have a free camera (thats still actively updated) if you consider Resolve to be equivalent to Premier Pro. Also they've constantly pushed the industry to be more affordable. They were pretty much the first that let you use a consumer usb c SSD to record raw formats. When the camera released, you could get 1tb samsung T5's for around $100, while one of their rivals RED cameras made you purchase a proprietary SSD that still costs $1500 for 480GB. Also in terms of affordability, it wasn't unheard of for a cinema camera to charge thousands of dollars to be able to use a cinemaDNG raw or ProRes, yet blackmagic cameras came with multiple raw recording options for free.
Its actually fairly neat and cool that they put time and money into this app to further their ecosystem. I guess theres a large overlap of people that film with iphones and also want to buy a legitimately good, budget cinema camera in the pocket 4k/6k.
I don't know HN's opinion of blackmagic, but they do some pretty cool stuff. With the purchase of a camera they include Davinci Resolve which is a fully featured Adobe Premier Pro rival. For reference premier pro is $21 a month, and the cheapest blackmagic cinema cam is the pocket 4k which comes in at $1200, after 5 years you have a free camera (thats still actively updated) if you consider Resolve to be equivalent to Premier Pro. Also they've constantly pushed the industry to be more affordable. They were pretty much the first that let you use a consumer usb c SSD to record raw formats. When the camera released, you could get 1tb samsung T5's for around $100, while one of their rivals RED cameras made you purchase a proprietary SSD that still costs $1500 for 480GB. Also in terms of affordability, it wasn't unheard of for a cinema camera to charge thousands of dollars to be able to use a cinemaDNG raw or ProRes, yet blackmagic cameras came with multiple raw recording options for free.
I’ve been using the free version of Resolve for about a year now. It’s absolutely outstanding and well worth the steep learning curve (cos of the massive functionality). Don’t buy a Premiere Pro subscription until you’ve tried it out. Apart from its technical excellence there are zero dark patterns associated with free sign up and use.
> With the purchase of a camera they include Davinci Resolve
That's also included with the speed editor, which is ~$400 and provides an awesome input device for Resolve.
That's also included with the speed editor, which is ~$400 and provides an awesome input device for Resolve.
1. They are giving you all the tools needed to work in a professional way in a professional setting. This includes many things like being able to set all the camera settings manually, good metering to avoid clipping the sensor, audio metering to avoid clipping the recorder, timecode synchronization with other cameras & audio recorders, LUT preview, etc.
2. The "cinematic look" comes from a combination of things:
- good lighting (using professional lights in most situations)
- 180 degree shutter angle (aka "24fps"), or slow motion where appropriate
- careful and artistic color grading
- taking time to set up the scene in advance & good framing
- good lenses
- good camera sensors (mainly, high dynamic range)
- holding the camera still or moving it smoothly through the scene (except when deliberately not, as in for instance The Office)
- music
- and, more important than you'd think: very high quality audio (good mics, appropriately mic'd, low noise, dubbed in post if needed, SFX added)
3. In short, what creates the "cinematic look" is many factors (and, usually, people) coming together as a system. This app lets your phone be part of that system.
4. What makes this app unique: (1) it integrates directly with Davinci Resolve in a way that's probably more convenient than Filmic Pro for that workflow and (2) it's free.
People have been making films and TV shows on iPhones for years, so this is more of an incremental event in the industry.
2. The "cinematic look" comes from a combination of things:
- good lighting (using professional lights in most situations)
- 180 degree shutter angle (aka "24fps"), or slow motion where appropriate
- careful and artistic color grading
- taking time to set up the scene in advance & good framing
- good lenses
- good camera sensors (mainly, high dynamic range)
- holding the camera still or moving it smoothly through the scene (except when deliberately not, as in for instance The Office)
- music
- and, more important than you'd think: very high quality audio (good mics, appropriately mic'd, low noise, dubbed in post if needed, SFX added)
3. In short, what creates the "cinematic look" is many factors (and, usually, people) coming together as a system. This app lets your phone be part of that system.
4. What makes this app unique: (1) it integrates directly with Davinci Resolve in a way that's probably more convenient than Filmic Pro for that workflow and (2) it's free.
People have been making films and TV shows on iPhones for years, so this is more of an incremental event in the industry.
No attempt at real answer, but some hints from watching youtube videos on the topic:
Lightning:
- Edge or back lightning, if dramatic
- Wraparaound (cradle) lighting, if for pleasantness
- Low key look for interiors (no white walls)
- Artificial light needs to be motivated as much as possible
Set design
- Add bankers light for any money related film, normal table light for anything else
Lens
- Anamorphics to avoid perspective distortion typical to spherical lenses, also for the "rich depth of field" effect
- Surprisingly the best lens technically don't give the most "pleasing" (at least in "hollywood" terms) image. They are even called "clinical" or too sharp. A lot of DP's like lens with a "character", altough some artifacts are regarded universally ugly (like the longitudinal chromatic aberration, which pukes green and cyan fringes around the image)
Camera
- High dynamic range camera, no clipping of highlights or blacks (add light, if necessary)
- Must be able to retain true image details, any digital sharpening in the source footage immediately puts things off
Color grading:
- Good tone mapping: should look "good" in black and white, mostly solved with lighting
- Pleasing color palette: color harmonies, gradients in good perceptual color space, like okmap. Mostly solved by set design, character and dress design
- Even saturation: previous point should cover "nice colors", but the saturation is one of the most overlooked aspects. It can be highly or sparingly saturated, but too much variation in a single frame quickly makes for a garbage image. Also, one has to fight most software color manipulation tools, which tends to brighten up highly saturated parts, where in reality, they should go darker
That's a whole package of things, for a camera control specifically, typical operator or AC wants:
- Manual focus pull
- Way to judge "exposure", measured in IRE
- Some way to approximate highlight to shadow exposure ratio; 2:1 for "happy" look, 4:1 for dark, 5:1 or more for Batman
- Highlight clipping warning (especially important on talent's skin)
- Shutter angle control (typically 180 or 90 degrees), instead of the shutter time used in photography
Lightning:
- Edge or back lightning, if dramatic
- Wraparaound (cradle) lighting, if for pleasantness
- Low key look for interiors (no white walls)
- Artificial light needs to be motivated as much as possible
Set design
- Add bankers light for any money related film, normal table light for anything else
Lens
- Anamorphics to avoid perspective distortion typical to spherical lenses, also for the "rich depth of field" effect
- Surprisingly the best lens technically don't give the most "pleasing" (at least in "hollywood" terms) image. They are even called "clinical" or too sharp. A lot of DP's like lens with a "character", altough some artifacts are regarded universally ugly (like the longitudinal chromatic aberration, which pukes green and cyan fringes around the image)
Camera
- High dynamic range camera, no clipping of highlights or blacks (add light, if necessary)
- Must be able to retain true image details, any digital sharpening in the source footage immediately puts things off
Color grading:
- Good tone mapping: should look "good" in black and white, mostly solved with lighting
- Pleasing color palette: color harmonies, gradients in good perceptual color space, like okmap. Mostly solved by set design, character and dress design
- Even saturation: previous point should cover "nice colors", but the saturation is one of the most overlooked aspects. It can be highly or sparingly saturated, but too much variation in a single frame quickly makes for a garbage image. Also, one has to fight most software color manipulation tools, which tends to brighten up highly saturated parts, where in reality, they should go darker
That's a whole package of things, for a camera control specifically, typical operator or AC wants:
- Manual focus pull
- Way to judge "exposure", measured in IRE
- Some way to approximate highlight to shadow exposure ratio; 2:1 for "happy" look, 4:1 for dark, 5:1 or more for Batman
- Highlight clipping warning (especially important on talent's skin)
- Shutter angle control (typically 180 or 90 degrees), instead of the shutter time used in photography
How do you reduce the severe oversharpening with iphones?
Is there an app that can take footage without oversharpening?
Is there an app that can take footage without oversharpening?
I really don't know, if that even is possible.
That's main reason, why cinema cameras are picked.
I suspect that it could be possible now, to an extent. We have quite good image restoration tools, some based on neural networks. Maybe one could be trained for iPhone specifically.
That's main reason, why cinema cameras are picked.
I suspect that it could be possible now, to an extent. We have quite good image restoration tools, some based on neural networks. Maybe one could be trained for iPhone specifically.
I'm a non-film person as well, but I've been playing with this a bit. One key ingredient of the cinema look is the shutter speed. The iPhone standard camera app is constantly adjusting the shutter speed and the ISO depending on how much light the camera is getting.
Movie cameras work differently with a shutter speed fixed at 24 fps, except for some scenes with specific requirements (for example slow motion). The light is controlled using the ISO, the aperture, the lighting, and ND filters.
A nice trick people are using with smartphones to get the cinema look is to use an app like Blackmagic Camera, lock the shutter speed at 24 fps, and mount a variable ND filter on the smartphone to control how much light is received by the sensor, since we can't control with the aperture.
Movie cameras work differently with a shutter speed fixed at 24 fps, except for some scenes with specific requirements (for example slow motion). The light is controlled using the ISO, the aperture, the lighting, and ND filters.
A nice trick people are using with smartphones to get the cinema look is to use an app like Blackmagic Camera, lock the shutter speed at 24 fps, and mount a variable ND filter on the smartphone to control how much light is received by the sensor, since we can't control with the aperture.
Imagine the difference between say a sit-com and a movie with the sound off. The movie will have range and intentionality to the scenes. Light, dark, vibrant, dull, perciptible and intentional changes from one to another to match the story. The sitcom is just clear and bright. The camera phone on auto is just going to aim for sitcom all the time wheras this app allows you to be intentional in order to look cool and tell a story.
Tweak the color scale to be all blue/orange
Why do project managers always insist adding chat to the app? I wonder if anybody uses the chat feature at all. Personally I find the integrated chat in every util useless waste of resources.
Also a further fragmentation of communication platforms for any collaboration simply makes me not want to collaborate unless I'm paid handsomely to use the yetannotherchatplatform. (just finishing some project and getting rid of several chat platforms i was forced to use because of them)
Also a further fragmentation of communication platforms for any collaboration simply makes me not want to collaborate unless I'm paid handsomely to use the yetannotherchatplatform. (just finishing some project and getting rid of several chat platforms i was forced to use because of them)
This one might make sense for production crew. Easy reference of specific clips/shots, maybe lossless video clip transfers, things like that
It's common to have external crew, who might not be on your team's Teams/Slack.
or who might not have access to the video cuts at all. Maybe a costume artist or a person organizing the catering does not need (or should not have at all, from an IP protection standpoint) access to the video clips, cuts. And you are back to the multiple chat apps (at least the producers/managers/organizers however they are called in that industry), or the limited access service accounts to the team's Teams/Slack with dedicated channels.
Though I guess the productions recorded with an iPhone might not have so big and logistically complicated crew. But back to my original point: I think these small projects are organized on other, more personal channels already, so the in-app chat is redundant. For larger projects, like those I was pondering in the previous paragraph: they are already beyond this in-app chat, so the in-app chat is redundant.
I think these in-app chats are very rarely used, and are generally not worth the effort to develop, or from a user/organization standpoint to learn and adopt. (Not to mention the closed nature of them).
And this does not want to belittle this app and its chat feature, I'm just generally wondering about the phenomenon this app has particularly made me think about.
Though I guess the productions recorded with an iPhone might not have so big and logistically complicated crew. But back to my original point: I think these small projects are organized on other, more personal channels already, so the in-app chat is redundant. For larger projects, like those I was pondering in the previous paragraph: they are already beyond this in-app chat, so the in-app chat is redundant.
I think these in-app chats are very rarely used, and are generally not worth the effort to develop, or from a user/organization standpoint to learn and adopt. (Not to mention the closed nature of them).
And this does not want to belittle this app and its chat feature, I'm just generally wondering about the phenomenon this app has particularly made me think about.
Can someone please ask Blackmagic to have the app rotate and shoot landscape by default even if I have set my phone to never auto-rotate its orientation? I never needed to use my phone in Landscape except for shooting photos and videos. I can orient my phone landscape to shoot photos and videos but not with this App!
This doesn't totally solve the issue, but if you unlock your phone's orientation, rotate to landscape, then go to settings, you'll find a "lock current orientation" setting.
If your video demands are not complex, this app should work for you:
https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/horizon-camera/id778576249
https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/horizon-camera/id778576249
This is a forward thinking strategy for a camera maker. Instead of trying to fight the iPhone, they realized that this is a segment of the market they wouldn't capture regardless of the form factor they would adopt for Blackmagic cameras.
We have 4 Blackmagic cameras at xTribe studios and they are great, but when Gen-Z podcasters come in, they'll often just put an iPhone and a Rode shotgun mic on a SmallRig cage.
We have 4 Blackmagic cameras at xTribe studios and they are great, but when Gen-Z podcasters come in, they'll often just put an iPhone and a Rode shotgun mic on a SmallRig cage.
The iOS camera API is pretty limited in terms of giving you raw access to everything the built in camera has access to.
Things like the parameters for the optical image stabilization algorithm aren't settable.
I'm therefore surprised a 3rd party can make a camera app that 'beats' the built in one.
Things like the parameters for the optical image stabilization algorithm aren't settable.
I'm therefore surprised a 3rd party can make a camera app that 'beats' the built in one.
First, the APIs don't expose raw controls for everything, but it exposes a heck a lot more than the stock camera app.
Second, for high-value developers like Blackmagic, Adobe, etc, there are very regular communication between engineers and product managers in both respective companies. I wouldn't expect private APIs (although they have certainly happened in 3P apps over the years; just check undocumented entitlements of IPAs from major developers), but these apps can be years / iOS releases in a making with a lot of Apple support.
Second, for high-value developers like Blackmagic, Adobe, etc, there are very regular communication between engineers and product managers in both respective companies. I wouldn't expect private APIs (although they have certainly happened in 3P apps over the years; just check undocumented entitlements of IPAs from major developers), but these apps can be years / iOS releases in a making with a lot of Apple support.
> Cell phones often have 3 rear lenses ranging from 13mm, 24mm and 77mm telephoto, plus a front lens.
I’m wondering if this was done by the copywriter or the UI person who needed to add more text so that every section has the same amount of “content”. Node.js/NPM devs do this too
I’m wondering if this was done by the copywriter or the UI person who needed to add more text so that every section has the same amount of “content”. Node.js/NPM devs do this too
I recorded two takes with exact same settings except one was ISO ~1500 and the other ISO ~3000. Shouldn't the second take be around twice as bright as the first one? The change in brightness is hardly noticeable.
I suppose this is the same case as every other camera app I've ever tested on Android and iOS, such granular settings like ISO are just not accessible by the system APIs available to the app. In that case though, I'd expect the app to at least not lie to me.
Can someone confirm or deny this? I don't know much about photography nor iOS so I might just be confused.
I suppose this is the same case as every other camera app I've ever tested on Android and iOS, such granular settings like ISO are just not accessible by the system APIs available to the app. In that case though, I'd expect the app to at least not lie to me.
Can someone confirm or deny this? I don't know much about photography nor iOS so I might just be confused.
You can see the brightness change when you fiddle with the ISO,
so I'm not sure where you'd draw the conclusion that the system APIs don't give apps access to that.
Moving from ISO 1500 to ISO 3000 doubles the sensor's sensitivity to light, but doesn’t inherently make the scene appear twice as bright.
Moving from ISO 1500 to ISO 3000 doubles the sensor's sensitivity to light, but doesn’t inherently make the scene appear twice as bright.
To add to the other commenters: when you tweak the sensors sensitivity for light, the aperture will compensate by letting less light in – unless it is fixed. So there should be no noticeable difference in brightness unless you set a fixed aperture.
This is a smartphone camera, so of course the aperture is fixed. Playing around with the app, it does not seem to automatically adjust shutter speed to match changes in ISO. Reducing the ISO does make the image darker – presumably just not as much as OP expected.
ISO is linear scale and perception is log scale. Doubling the ISO (while keeping the shutter speed the same) increases the exposure by only one stop, which won’t seem twice as bright.
Isn't "one stop" defined log-wise to be "twice as bright" perceptually?
No, it's twice as bright physically (in the sense that the lux value doubles). For example, doubling the shutter speed increases the exposure by one stop. Similarly, increasing the diameter of the aperture by a factor of √2 (thus doubling the area of the aperture and letting twice as much light in) increases the exposure by one stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law#:~:t....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber%E2%80%93Fechner_law#:~:t....
If all else is kept the same. Usually with auto exposure, it will compensate by changing the integration time ("shutter speed") or aperture in order to try and keep the exposure to the same level.
> such granular settings like ISO are just not accessible by the system APIs available to the app
...what? Every non dumbified enough app has ISO and shutter controls in the manual mode since forever.
Eg:
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/
...what? Every non dumbified enough app has ISO and shutter controls in the manual mode since forever.
Eg:
https://f-droid.org/en/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/
Remember, this is iOS. A system where apps can't even record continuous framerate footage.
>> as every other camera app I've ever tested on Android and iOS
So I assumed...
> this is iOS. A system where apps can't
picard.jpg
So I assumed...
> this is iOS. A system where apps can't
picard.jpg
ISO is supposed to be the sensitivity of the film to light, and the numbers were set by a standards organisation so I'm not sure you can double the number to double the effect.
Also, how does this even work on a digital camera? Surely we can't actually adjust how sensitive the sensor is to light, so is it just a simulation?
Also, how does this even work on a digital camera? Surely we can't actually adjust how sensitive the sensor is to light, so is it just a simulation?
It's complex. Many modern cameras have dual or triple gain amplifiers, with various range setups. Some ISO settings might be just a digital multiplier on the highest setting of the lower gain stage before switching to the higher gain (which may result in having better snr at higher iso for some settings).
Remember that "digital" sensors are mostly analog devices (dealing in continuous voltages).
Remember that "digital" sensors are mostly analog devices (dealing in continuous voltages).
> Also, how does this even work on a digital camera?
It’s signal gain of the sensor.
“In digital camera systems, an arbitrary relationship between exposure and sensor data values can be achieved by setting the signal gain of the sensor. (…) For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating—commonly called ISO setting—is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure.”
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_IS...
It’s signal gain of the sensor.
“In digital camera systems, an arbitrary relationship between exposure and sensor data values can be achieved by setting the signal gain of the sensor. (…) For digital photo cameras ("digital still cameras"), an exposure index (EI) rating—commonly called ISO setting—is specified by the manufacturer such that the sRGB image files produced by the camera will have a lightness similar to what would be obtained with film of the same EI rating at the same exposure.”
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_IS...
Kind of the same it works on film cameras: you change the sensitivity of the emulsion on them, you change the sensitivity of the sensor by raising the gain on the others.
Or think of it like changing the gain on an microphone pre-amp before going into a Analog-to-Digital convertor.
Or think of it like changing the gain on an microphone pre-amp before going into a Analog-to-Digital convertor.
We can configure the gain of the analog amplifiers
Probably auto-exposure adjusted the shutter speed to compensate
Insta download. Kudos to the developers who made it to not collect any data from the app, you deserve a raise.
Maybe a silly question - but on the app itself, is there some sort of... tutorial of sorts? Really curious to learn how this world works but unsure where exactly to start on this app.
I am surprised that Apple allows such control of the camera (or anything). Is this all exposed via APIs or do developers of camera apps have direct access to the hardware?
I am consistently disappointed with the iPhone’s video quality. It looks like the bitrate is simply too low, either to keep file size down or because the phone can’t encode 4K that fast. However shooting in ProRES is simply not practical for me. Can apps like this improve the HEVC video quality, or do they simply reuse the Apple defaults with a new UI? Or is there a ProRES workflow I could be using on the phone?
Context: I'm in the middle of adding Apple Log support to my photo/video processing app.
The iPhone has incredible video quality, but you're right that the default Camera app botches it (or requires you to shoot ProRes HQ which is objectively overkill). I've been using Blackmagic Camera to shoot 4K Apple Log into a 10bit HEVC file, and it works really well. The files are easy to grade, and the bitrate is enough for everyday use. Footage from the Blackmagic app is clean, clear and not over sharpened. I really hope Apple adds an HEVC Log option!
The iPhone has incredible video quality, but you're right that the default Camera app botches it (or requires you to shoot ProRes HQ which is objectively overkill). I've been using Blackmagic Camera to shoot 4K Apple Log into a 10bit HEVC file, and it works really well. The files are easy to grade, and the bitrate is enough for everyday use. Footage from the Blackmagic app is clean, clear and not over sharpened. I really hope Apple adds an HEVC Log option!
What’s your app?
>I am consistently disappointed with the iPhone’s video quality.
Compared to what? An Arri? Bebause on its own, as far as smartphone video goes, it's quite fine. You can also trivially shoot a higher bitrate (not ProRes) in Filmic Pro and other apps.
Compared to what? An Arri? Bebause on its own, as far as smartphone video goes, it's quite fine. You can also trivially shoot a higher bitrate (not ProRes) in Filmic Pro and other apps.
I don’t really have anything to compare it to as I have never used a proper video camera. So I’m just comparing it to the average YouTube video quality I guess.
The main problem that I see is compression artefacts, especially in complex scenes with a lot of motion. For example filming a person or pet moving against a background of grass or gravel, or the camera panning across complex terrain. I even got it really badly just filming waves going in and out on the beach.
I know these are tough situations for to handle but it feels like bumping the bitrate would help a lot.
The main problem that I see is compression artefacts, especially in complex scenes with a lot of motion. For example filming a person or pet moving against a background of grass or gravel, or the camera panning across complex terrain. I even got it really badly just filming waves going in and out on the beach.
I know these are tough situations for to handle but it feels like bumping the bitrate would help a lot.
> So I’m just comparing it to the average YouTube video quality I guess.
Dude this isn’t 2011. The “average YouTuber” these days is shooting on full frame Sonys, Blackmagic, or even RED.
Dude this isn’t 2011. The “average YouTuber” these days is shooting on full frame Sonys, Blackmagic, or even RED.
If you don’t have any constructive input why reply?
He has though: that "youtuber quality" can be misleading as a criterium for iPhone video quality, as major youtubers nowadays use high end devices.
If you don't have video experience, then you might find it subpar when actually you compare it to impossible standards and 10x more expensive gear and lenses.
If you don't have video experience, then you might find it subpar when actually you compare it to impossible standards and 10x more expensive gear and lenses.
Sorry, it seemed to me that you didn't realize that you were comparing your phone to the same cameras used for actual film productions.
YouTube is not a shoestring operation anymore, filmed with whatever point and shoot digital camera is at hand, and for most even semi-popular creators it hasn't been like that for some time now.
I thought it would be constructive to point out that most pro or semi-pro YouTubers are now using top of line kit, with full post-production pipelines tailored to YouTube.
If you know this already and yet still expect your iPhone to match up, then ok, perhaps you're right and there isn't a constructive conversation here.
YouTube is not a shoestring operation anymore, filmed with whatever point and shoot digital camera is at hand, and for most even semi-popular creators it hasn't been like that for some time now.
I thought it would be constructive to point out that most pro or semi-pro YouTubers are now using top of line kit, with full post-production pipelines tailored to YouTube.
If you know this already and yet still expect your iPhone to match up, then ok, perhaps you're right and there isn't a constructive conversation here.
Considering how large tha camera bump has gotten, you could probably put a single large 1" sensor in there as one of the Xperia phones did. Then you'd get much better image quality and wouldn't have to rely as much on AI to fix the sensor's limitations.
And even ignoring the limitations of the sensor, the iPhone isn't even the best smartphone. Due to the fact that it can only record variable framerate video it's basically unusable for professional work, even with the Pro model in ProRes.
And even ignoring the limitations of the sensor, the iPhone isn't even the best smartphone. Due to the fact that it can only record variable framerate video it's basically unusable for professional work, even with the Pro model in ProRes.
> Then you'd get much better image quality and wouldn't have to rely as much on AI to fix the sensor's limitations.
Interesting, I've always thought the iphone camera produces extremely good results. Subject to the obvious limitations like not being able to replace the lens! What sort of benchmarks should I be looking at, to really measure the camera's limitations?
Interesting, I've always thought the iphone camera produces extremely good results. Subject to the obvious limitations like not being able to replace the lens! What sort of benchmarks should I be looking at, to really measure the camera's limitations?
Take a look at the RAW images at full scale. Compare that with even a cheap Sony APS-C camera's RAW images.
The quality difference is massive, and not in favour of the iPhone. Apple has awesome algorithms to post-process these images, but garbage in, garbage out, you can only fix so much.
A larger sensor means you naturally get much better low light capabilities, much better bokeh, and the ability to increase the dynamic range without losing resolution.
What e.g. Google Pixels call "HDR+" is what high end Canon cameras can do at 24 frames a second, due to the higher dynamic range of their sensors and the integration of two independent gain circuits.
The quality difference is massive, and not in favour of the iPhone. Apple has awesome algorithms to post-process these images, but garbage in, garbage out, you can only fix so much.
A larger sensor means you naturally get much better low light capabilities, much better bokeh, and the ability to increase the dynamic range without losing resolution.
What e.g. Google Pixels call "HDR+" is what high end Canon cameras can do at 24 frames a second, due to the higher dynamic range of their sensors and the integration of two independent gain circuits.
I don’t think the sensor is the limiting factor for me. I am happy with the photo quality on the 15 pro. It’s the video compression. Or maybe the speed at which the sensor can offload video data.
The phone has to do a significant amount of post-processing to get the sensor data to look as good as it does. With a better sensor, you'd actually have less work to do in post.
May I ask why ProRes isn't practical for you? Would help others to suggest a workflow that would work better than what you tried before.
My main use case is family/holiday videos. Saving massive pro-res files would fill up the space quickly and I’m not sure how to process them into HEVC quickly and simply.
Higher bitrate HEVC won't be any smaller than the same bitrate ProRes.
Why would you think that it would be?
Why would you think that it would be?
You must not have tried ProRes on the iPhone. ProRes HQ consumes around 1.7GB per minute, which is an order of magnitude more than the HEVC bitrates.
Apple: "ProRes files are up to 30 times larger than HEVC files." [1]
[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212832
Apple: "ProRes files are up to 30 times larger than HEVC files." [1]
[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212832
I don't even have a clue how to force HEVC to use the same bitrate a ProRes file would use. HEVC is very efficient, and does not always use the full amount of bitrate being allowed. That's its the entire point for being. Trying to get "high bitrate" HEVC is one of those "you're holding it wrong" moments.
HEVC, and H264 for that matter does have an "optimal quality" mode, which depends greatly on the source media, you could get full bitrate for highly active footage with tons of movement or you could get tiny bitrate if you are just shooting a still image for 20minutes.
They also both have inter and intra frame compression modes.
HEVC or H264 at the same bitrate in interframe mode would produce the same size files as Prores.
Regarding the comment that Apple Prores on iPhone is huge... We aren't discussing an Apple product here unless Apple bought Blackmagic while I wasn't looking.
Prores has it's use cases, go look them up, if you really just want to quickly shoot family vacation videos and not have it take up a ton of storage open the Apple camera app and hit record, the blackmagic app and Prores is likely not for you.
They also both have inter and intra frame compression modes.
HEVC or H264 at the same bitrate in interframe mode would produce the same size files as Prores.
Regarding the comment that Apple Prores on iPhone is huge... We aren't discussing an Apple product here unless Apple bought Blackmagic while I wasn't looking.
Prores has it's use cases, go look them up, if you really just want to quickly shoot family vacation videos and not have it take up a ton of storage open the Apple camera app and hit record, the blackmagic app and Prores is likely not for you.
>Regarding the comment that Apple Prores on iPhone is huge... We aren't discussing an Apple product here unless Apple bought Blackmagic while I wasn't looking.
Whathahuh? BMD just released an iOS app to use their software on an iPhone. So, which device are we talking about that isn't an Apple device?
>Prores has it's use cases, go look them up
Thanks, but I'm well aware of what ProRes is. At this point, I'm just assuming you're a troll.
Whathahuh? BMD just released an iOS app to use their software on an iPhone. So, which device are we talking about that isn't an Apple device?
>Prores has it's use cases, go look them up
Thanks, but I'm well aware of what ProRes is. At this point, I'm just assuming you're a troll.
Video encoding is a software feature, the sensor doesn't pick up Prores or HEVC therefore the product you are talking about is the software. The hardware has very little to do with it the video encoding other than possibly provide acceleration.
As I said in the other comment in this thread, if you don't need prores you probably don't need to use the BMD app since the footage captured in HEVC on the stock app is likely good enough for your use case.
As I said in the other comment in this thread, if you don't need prores you probably don't need to use the BMD app since the footage captured in HEVC on the stock app is likely good enough for your use case.
I think this is just wrong. I don’t want “the same bitrate as ProRes”, I just want higher bitrate HEVC. For example YouTube has recently added a “high bitrate 1080p” option, which is still 1080p but less compressed and therefore better quality.
To understand you correctly, you want an app designed to shoot video for videographers in ProRes who usually shoot video in ProRes or raw to add low bitrate HEVC, the same low bitrate HEVC you can get in the stock camera app?
Sounds like scope creep not targeted at their intended audience.
Likewise what would be the difference between adding a 45mbps ProRes option vs adding a 45mbps hevc option? That fact it is hevc? They would take up the same storage space.
Sounds like scope creep not targeted at their intended audience.
Likewise what would be the difference between adding a 45mbps ProRes option vs adding a 45mbps hevc option? That fact it is hevc? They would take up the same storage space.
Bitrate definitely is an issue for me when I use slomo. It drops frames like crazy and looks choppy.
It'd be nice to have a straightforward way to feed it over the network into OBS for live broadcast.
Glad to have a separate camera app for ‘pro’ settings so I can continue to use my regular Camera app for optimal settings when not retouched.
I'm super excited at timecode support (for automatic timeline alignment) and hopefully gyro data for stabilization in Davinci Resolve!
Hey Blackmagic - you may be benefited by reviewing your copy once more on this page. You have a LOT of exclamation marks in these descriptions, and while I get that it’s an exciting product, the copy starts to get a little tiring.
I generally like BMD and own one of their cameras, but they need to pull up their big-boy pants and support ProRes Raw in Resolve.
They support other raw formats, so continued ass-dragging on this is just... petty.
They support other raw formats, so continued ass-dragging on this is just... petty.
This is great.
I'm a native Firefox with extensions away from moving to iPhone after never having one, so every further bit of support by third parties is good.
I really hope the EU forcing the opening up of Apple brings Firefox
I'm a native Firefox with extensions away from moving to iPhone after never having one, so every further bit of support by third parties is good.
I really hope the EU forcing the opening up of Apple brings Firefox
How is one additional camera app related to that?
Every additional third party improvement I see shows me how other companies are still investing in the iPhone. It's been a few years now since Google seems to be on a constant decline, and the latest Pixel phones only seem to go further on that path.
It's the contrast between an ecosystem on a decline, and one still being invested in by others.
Not that Apple are perfect, the single biggest blocker to my cohort of friends all replacing their Android with iOS within a few weeks remains the lack of a native third party browser with adblocking extensions.
It's the contrast between an ecosystem on a decline, and one still being invested in by others.
Not that Apple are perfect, the single biggest blocker to my cohort of friends all replacing their Android with iOS within a few weeks remains the lack of a native third party browser with adblocking extensions.
I use the Orion browser with Firefox extensions on iOS and generally it works great.
[deleted]
Blackmagic's software is extremely powerful and totally overkill for casual users. But the target audience is advanced/pro users, so that's not an issue.
I was wondering about device compatibility. Looks like it will run on anything back to an iPhone XS/XR, although some of the features need newer hardware.
Doesn't seem to be able to reduce the iphones severe oversharpening.
Would pay good money for an app that accomplish that.
Would pay good money for an app that accomplish that.
I haven't heard of Blackmagic, but apparently many people understand the value here.
What I found strange is the images on their website have an AI generated look to them, rather than looking like they were shot with a real camera. Am I the only person who's seeing it that way?
What I found strange is the images on their website have an AI generated look to them, rather than looking like they were shot with a real camera. Am I the only person who's seeing it that way?
Yeh I think there's some heavy-handed compositing going on. I doubt it's AI-generated, but each image has definitely been through cut and paste hell.
Take this image for example: https://images.blackmagicdesign.com/images/products/blackmag...
Notice the side table leg next to the coffee cup? It's wrong because it shouldn't go over the foreground table. Looks like a composite mistake to me. The woman is also looking over the monitors not at them. Perhaps there is some elements of AI-generation used in the image.
Take this image for example: https://images.blackmagicdesign.com/images/products/blackmag...
Notice the side table leg next to the coffee cup? It's wrong because it shouldn't go over the foreground table. Looks like a composite mistake to me. The woman is also looking over the monitors not at them. Perhaps there is some elements of AI-generation used in the image.
I agree it likely isn't AI generated, as they have logos and words, but it's definitely over filtered.
I was referring more to the snowboarding photos.
You're right, there is something strange about the leg in that table. There is a reflection, which I think is causing part of the problem, but also looks like a cut-line which shouldn't exist.
I was referring more to the snowboarding photos.
You're right, there is something strange about the leg in that table. There is a reflection, which I think is causing part of the problem, but also looks like a cut-line which shouldn't exist.
Does apple allow 3rd party apps to use entire camara libraries?
that's a lot of functionality, for free. how are they making money from this?
i didn't see a pro/paid version - unless they're planning to offer a post-processing cloud subscription later on...
i didn't see a pro/paid version - unless they're planning to offer a post-processing cloud subscription later on...
DaVinci Resolve (a very popular Color correcting and video editing software) is needed to work effectively with some of the ProRes Color schemes. Its basic version is free but there are paid upgrades to it. This app is likely a funnel to their software and other peripherals
Blackmagic also sells a lot of hardware. They may not be making money directly with this app, but they are going to earn loyalty.
Another comment earlier mentioned how Davinci resolve may start gaining market share for the very reason that it's free and kids learning to edit are more likely to go with them instead of cracking adobe these days (and then using the former when they enter the workforce).
Another comment earlier mentioned how Davinci resolve may start gaining market share for the very reason that it's free and kids learning to edit are more likely to go with them instead of cracking adobe these days (and then using the former when they enter the workforce).
>> it's free and kids learning to edit are more likely to go with them instead of ...
I like that :)
I like that :)
Looks like another photoshop/phtotos adjusting app for videos
Can someone please ELI5 why this link deserves to be the top on hacker news?
I think it’s because BM has a cult following and part of that is because BMs software is notoriously high quality and they seem to be doing things the right way bg avoiding subscriptions and putting real resources into engineering effort for their cameras but also the software.
I, for one, was excited to see a BM product available on my iPhone now so I can see why others are just as excited. Google has made the front page for less noteworthy apps before I’m sure.
I, for one, was excited to see a BM product available on my iPhone now so I can see why others are just as excited. Google has made the front page for less noteworthy apps before I’m sure.
[deleted]
People vote for it. There is no such thing as “deserve to be at the top”. If the HN crowd show interests and upvote, then it rises.
That's only true if you believe that every vote on HN is honest.
I don’t think that’s necessary for the system to work. If topics the community find interest in can reach the front page, and “toxic” subjects are contained well enough, then the system works.
It doesn’t really matter if upvoters are honest or not. If you can cheat in a way that makes your post reach and stay on the front page, it’s very likely that people are interested in discussing the topic.
So far HN system has been working pretty good. Not for all topics of course, some result in really toxic exchanges or annoy some people. But you almost never see spam or obviously astroturfed content in the front page (at least compared to Reddit and other places).
It doesn’t really matter if upvoters are honest or not. If you can cheat in a way that makes your post reach and stay on the front page, it’s very likely that people are interested in discussing the topic.
So far HN system has been working pretty good. Not for all topics of course, some result in really toxic exchanges or annoy some people. But you almost never see spam or obviously astroturfed content in the front page (at least compared to Reddit and other places).
HN moderation is super heavy handed and we like it this way. Alternatives are predictably enshittified.
Moderation has no ability to affect a coordinated voting campaign.
HN does apply negative weight to submissions that seem to be astroturfed. Part of it is automated, part of it is manual reports or admin actions. Similar to what is done for sensitive topics.
My perspective:
Blackmagic has great, mostly professional hardware (cameras and more) with high-quality, stable software again focused on pro-market. They also have amateur or entry-level stuff, but even those have excellent quality.
So Blackmagic deciding to create an app for iPhone might say they consider the iPhone camera good enough for them. And this is a message worth considering.
Blackmagic has great, mostly professional hardware (cameras and more) with high-quality, stable software again focused on pro-market. They also have amateur or entry-level stuff, but even those have excellent quality.
So Blackmagic deciding to create an app for iPhone might say they consider the iPhone camera good enough for them. And this is a message worth considering.
> What to Submit
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
A lot of the world is creating content, and this includes hackers. My most recent TikTok was about password managers.
Timecode makes this a gamechanger, especially for the casual filmer.
I've been messing around with crappy action cams for things like recording my kids performances and the like. I've been using two cameras (it's nice to have a second PoV, especially when someone walks in front of the camera), but it is a world of pain on these cameras.
I came *this close* to buying a pair of GoPro Hero 12s this past week because they finally have fully baked timecode into the firmware, but it seems like they also have problems with overheating when recording for 25 minutes inside (let alone in the sun).
This release means I can use a couple old iPhones I have retired, and likely get pretty good timesync out of it, automatically, without having to go into the videos and spend literally hours syncing multiple camera angles and dealing with drift from different cameras.
Timecode makes this a gamechanger, especially for the casual filmer.
I've been messing around with crappy action cams for things like recording my kids performances and the like. I've been using two cameras (it's nice to have a second PoV, especially when someone walks in front of the camera), but it is a world of pain on these cameras.
I came *this close* to buying a pair of GoPro Hero 12s this past week because they finally have fully baked timecode into the firmware, but it seems like they also have problems with overheating when recording for 25 minutes inside (let alone in the sun).
This release means I can use a couple old iPhones I have retired, and likely get pretty good timesync out of it, automatically, without having to go into the videos and spend literally hours syncing multiple camera angles and dealing with drift from different cameras.
Our discussion is certainly contributing to keeping it there longer than necessary
Because once upon a time people made software instead of training models and some of those people still like to see what’s going on in the world of actual software development.
hackernews is about what's important to the one posting
I'm surprised too. Isn't this essentially an ad? I guess it's OK because it's a free app.
So many things on HN could be considered ads. People often post about even non-major releases of SaaS products. The launch of a brand new powerful app and the entry of a big company into a new market seems a lot more newsworthy than most of those.
Isn’t everything an ad? Even when someone posts a GitHub link to their project?
Yes but they're not trying to sell their open source project to us
Please remember to put the download link at the top of the article or promotional material for quick access. I had to scroll down to the bottom of this 200 screen article and wasn’t sure I’d even find a download button when I got to the bottom.
I didn't even find it and resorted to searching the in App store for it.
Is it only me the one who finds the usability of cameras on smartphones unbearable? I'm not talking about the software but the hardware: smartphones are thin and not as easy to grab/handle as real cameras. Anything that takes more than a few pictures is uncomfortable.
A bit off-topic: why does Blackmagic keep Davinci Resolve free? Is it a case of commoditizing your compliment because they sell hardware?
There's a solid opportunity for a good free video editor for hobbyists and creators, who might not want to spend any money just yet. If you get these users on your software, you're much more likely to convert a sale.
The free version of Resolve is still limited for more serious / professional applications; e.g. not making use of hardware acceleration, not having certain effects, and not processing certain professional workflow codecs.
With this strategy, Resolve is essentially the "go-to" for newbies into video editing.
What's so great about Resolve licensing is their lifetime license. Pay $295 once, get it forever. For commercial productions, Blackmagic gets their $$$$$ from their cameras, physical control panels and hardware, etc. These, again range from good value (for entry and mid level) to expensive.
The free version of Resolve is still limited for more serious / professional applications; e.g. not making use of hardware acceleration, not having certain effects, and not processing certain professional workflow codecs.
With this strategy, Resolve is essentially the "go-to" for newbies into video editing.
What's so great about Resolve licensing is their lifetime license. Pay $295 once, get it forever. For commercial productions, Blackmagic gets their $$$$$ from their cameras, physical control panels and hardware, etc. These, again range from good value (for entry and mid level) to expensive.
So I work daily in resolve. I had a project come up at home, where i was like oh ill just use resolve as it has everything we need.
Within 2 minutes, I was running into features i needed to pay for. Within 20 minutes I had bought a home copy because of how integral it is to my workflow.
They get people in by being able to do the basics, but anything remotely complex, you pay for.
Within 2 minutes, I was running into features i needed to pay for. Within 20 minutes I had bought a home copy because of how integral it is to my workflow.
They get people in by being able to do the basics, but anything remotely complex, you pay for.
I think a lot of users acquire the Studio license similar to myself as well, being a free user for a long time and when I finally went looking for my own shooting device, BlackMagic Pocket Cinema was a no brainer and includes a Studio license.
One word: Freemium.
Blender and Unreal Engine comes to mind. Similar formula.
They make their money on very nice, very expensive professional control surfaces, cameras, and lots of other gear. Davinci Resolve is free because they realize funneling people into their ecosystem, having them learn how to use Resolve, instead of Avid/FCP/Lightworks/Premier/etc, which means that's what they're going to go with when they have the money to spend on gear. It'll just work better together. Like if you buy all Apple products instead of random company's stuff.
I'd think it also incentivizes Adobe et al. to make sure their software doesn't break the BlackMagic hardware, because there's a viable alternative (especially with the Studio version being included with the hardware).
Blackmagic is primarily a hardware company, yes, but the free version of Resolve doesn’t cut it for professional work. As soon as you start doing anything serious, you need Studio. It is, however, only $299 one time and works for all versions including upgrades.
The free version doesn't allow GPU accelerated playback or editing or rendering which is a must for any serious user / business.
They get people in the door with a really powerful free editing software, and once you've invested time into learning it and made it part of your workflow, you want to pay the £300 to upgrade because it's too much hassle to learn a new editor, and Resolve is awesome, but you reallly don't want to keep waiting 3hrs to generate 1/8th res optimized media for your whole project before you can preview at more than 10fps on an i7 Extreme Edition (that's how they got me, if you couldn't tell).
It's an effective free -> paid product-led conversion path to acquire customers. Being on HN and presumably working in tech/SaaS, this is a familiar and effective business strategy.
They get people in the door with a really powerful free editing software, and once you've invested time into learning it and made it part of your workflow, you want to pay the £300 to upgrade because it's too much hassle to learn a new editor, and Resolve is awesome, but you reallly don't want to keep waiting 3hrs to generate 1/8th res optimized media for your whole project before you can preview at more than 10fps on an i7 Extreme Edition (that's how they got me, if you couldn't tell).
It's an effective free -> paid product-led conversion path to acquire customers. Being on HN and presumably working in tech/SaaS, this is a familiar and effective business strategy.
Yes, while many serious users will need to go up to the paid version of Resolve, mainly they want to sell you cameras, capture and playback hardware, vision switchers (like the ISO ones that record the individual streams and then create a Resolve project for you to re-edit it if you want).
[deleted]
My friend, please stop giving them ideas. Anyways, I'm not a professional and Davinci Resolve (free) is the good enough editor for me. I think this is macOS, iOS is free but Apple sells hardware kinda free.
[deleted]
why make this iPhone specific though... locked in proprietary hardware is not nice.
Is this just... does it just add a filter to give it film grain?
No, that would be some app like "Super 8" and others.
This one adds pro-like controls (with similar layout and features to expensive professional Blackmagic cameras), and control of the more professional features like log recording, various prores options, 10bit color, LUT preview, and so on.
This one adds pro-like controls (with similar layout and features to expensive professional Blackmagic cameras), and control of the more professional features like log recording, various prores options, 10bit color, LUT preview, and so on.
Blackmagic isn't exactly a company that identifies with film grain...
No.
Blackmagic Camera app might add fancy controls to the iPhone, but it can't match the quality of real professional cameras.
Of course not, but it sure beats the hell out of getting a cheap or even probably moderately priced action cams.
If I understand it correctly, this is postprocessing software?
Why is it called "camera" and tied to the iPhone?
Shouldn't this be a website where you upload a photo, adjust it, and then download it again?
Why is it called "camera" and tied to the iPhone?
Shouldn't this be a website where you upload a photo, adjust it, and then download it again?
There seem to be 2 types of camera apps for the iPhone: those aimed at adding filters and post-processing; and those removing all processing & automatic controls that the stock camera app wants to add (by default the iPhone software will want to apply lots of corrections, "improvements" and change settings on the fly that can make a video or photo look terrible).
This is the latter, handing back control of the camera settings to the user, which is what you want for consistency of the look of a video whilst subjects move, the camera pans, etc...
This is the latter, handing back control of the camera settings to the user, which is what you want for consistency of the look of a video whilst subjects move, the camera pans, etc...
In that case, you don’t understand it. This isn’t preprocessing software.
It’s mostly aimed at getting the right shot in the first place, and giving skilled users enough control to make better shots.
So that’s why it’s called camera.
It’s mostly aimed at getting the right shot in the first place, and giving skilled users enough control to make better shots.
So that’s why it’s called camera.
Because it is not postprocessing software, it's a camera app
Also seems to allow setting manual settings during filming. Not sure if that is possible in the native camera app on iPhone.
No, it's a full on camera app.
I don’t get it.
Surely if you want to shoot professional footage, you use a professional camera, with an actual lens, with a full frame sensor - not something which has been scaled down to the extent that it relies on digital hallucinations to make an acceptable looking image.
Surely if you want to shoot professional footage, you use a professional camera, with an actual lens, with a full frame sensor - not something which has been scaled down to the extent that it relies on digital hallucinations to make an acceptable looking image.
I don't get it.
Surely if you want to watch movies, you go to the cinema, with an actual projector, with a full frame film - not something which has been compressed down to the extent that it relies on digital trickery to make an acceptable looking image.
^ that
Surely if you want to watch movies, you go to the cinema, with an actual projector, with a full frame film - not something which has been compressed down to the extent that it relies on digital trickery to make an acceptable looking image.
^ that
Turns out the recent iPhone camera hardware (especially in the Pro models) is simply good enough to shoot 'professional footage'. Not everywhere, not all the time and especially not in all lighting conditions - but it is good enough more often than not.
If you have a real professional bank account, you own (not rent) all the $100,000 camera systems you could possibly want (5-10?), but for everyone else, money is fairly limited. To be able to take advantage of the video cameras you do have to get extra camera angles for a scene, configured with the proper settings - ISO/shutter/white balance, is easily worth the $50 tripod and using your phone.
100k is a cheap pro camera such as a 50k will get you a Red 8k package but minus the frame and other gear to go with it. A Sony Venice 2 8K is 60k just for the main body. Lenses aren't cheap either.
Gyroscopic stabilization for iPhone is cheap and doable: DJI Osmo is <$100. 2 axis ones that run ~$200.
Real microphones with dead cat wind covers also improve indoor and outdoor interview dialog quality immensely. ~$100 item per person.
Most indoor lighting is shit for still or motion digital photography. Get real lighting and flood the scene. Lights are cheap, but take time and coordination to setup and tear-down.
Gyroscopic stabilization for iPhone is cheap and doable: DJI Osmo is <$100. 2 axis ones that run ~$200.
Real microphones with dead cat wind covers also improve indoor and outdoor interview dialog quality immensely. ~$100 item per person.
Most indoor lighting is shit for still or motion digital photography. Get real lighting and flood the scene. Lights are cheap, but take time and coordination to setup and tear-down.
One thing is brand onboarding: film students don't rent the big guns for everything and if they can do a quick "shot on phone" but with a blackmagic workflow, it will be hugely attractive for them. Think of it as cosplay if you like, but it can have powerful long term effect for the brand if new generations start out on their tools. Or in terms of computers, ca year 2000, think about it as leaning C++ instead of getting good at Excel VBA.
The other thing is consistency: if you do use the big ones, but have a shot where the big camera simply cannot be used, allowing an iPhone to stand in with processing defaults defaults set up to make the footage as consistent with the regular takes as possible can be worth a lot. Sony has created the RX0 line essentially for that, as a support gadget for their film cameras. Sales to consumers are merely opportunistic side income.
Same (super convenient to easily get consistent setting) for takes that are what in software development would be considered a bugfix, takes that happen when primary filming is over. All the rental equipment has been returned, the order of the day is getting least bad results with what you have. If blackmagic has tools for this contingency and competitors don't, blackmagic will be more attractive.
The other thing is consistency: if you do use the big ones, but have a shot where the big camera simply cannot be used, allowing an iPhone to stand in with processing defaults defaults set up to make the footage as consistent with the regular takes as possible can be worth a lot. Sony has created the RX0 line essentially for that, as a support gadget for their film cameras. Sales to consumers are merely opportunistic side income.
Same (super convenient to easily get consistent setting) for takes that are what in software development would be considered a bugfix, takes that happen when primary filming is over. All the rental equipment has been returned, the order of the day is getting least bad results with what you have. If blackmagic has tools for this contingency and competitors don't, blackmagic will be more attractive.
Depends on who you are and what you want to achieve. If you're a beginner and/or don't have access to professional gear, it's great to have a way of shooting "the professional way" on whatever you happen to have around. You get most of the manual control a proper camera gives you with an interface very similar to that of a Blackmagic camera, so when you finally find yourself in front of a real one, you already have some experience with it.
And while the image quality definitely doesn't compare to that of cinema cameras, 90 % of the time, it doesn't have to.
And while the image quality definitely doesn't compare to that of cinema cameras, 90 % of the time, it doesn't have to.
> with an actual lens
This kind of hyperbole isn’t exactly helping your argument. Smartphone cameras have very sophisticated lenses.
This kind of hyperbole isn’t exactly helping your argument. Smartphone cameras have very sophisticated lenses.
Steven Soderbergh made two movies entirely on iPhones. The first was with iPhone 8.
"Anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on the phone. That’s not part of the conceit... There’s a philosophical obstacle a lot of people have about the size of the capture device. I don’t have that problem. I look at this as potentially one of the most liberating experiences that I’ve ever had as a filmmaker, and that I continue having."
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/steven-soderbergh...
"Anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on the phone. That’s not part of the conceit... There’s a philosophical obstacle a lot of people have about the size of the capture device. I don’t have that problem. I look at this as potentially one of the most liberating experiences that I’ve ever had as a filmmaker, and that I continue having."
https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/steven-soderbergh...
The best camera is the one you have with you
> full frame sensor
why? I mean, with film, anamorphic Super35 is a thing, but so is Super16. With digital, why would all the footage taken on professional MFT cameras be "not professional"?
why? I mean, with film, anamorphic Super35 is a thing, but so is Super16. With digital, why would all the footage taken on professional MFT cameras be "not professional"?
[deleted]
Use what you have.