or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Behind the scenes of Bentley's iPhone-filmed, iPad Air-edited ad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Behind the scenes of Bentley's iPhone-filmed, iPad Air-edited ad - Page 2

post #41 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

I understood what you wrote. I was just sharing a related story about video cameras and CRTs. In both situations the solution was to match the frequency of one device to that of the other. In the case of the LED driving lights in this video it is not so easy because the videographers probably had no clue what the LED frequency was and also had no way to adjust the camera to match it. Perhaps someone should have suggested that the mechanics simply disconnect the power from the LEDs. No one would have noticed, especially since it was converted to black and white. Annoying flickering like that would probably be unacceptable in a traditional cinematic production.

 

Well one advantage to a pro-workflow (i.e., a Mac Pro with all the expensive apps) is that you can fix that kind of thing in post.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #42 of 90
Does this once and for all mean iOS is the Rolls-Royce of operating systems? So to speak.....
post #43 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 
Well one advantage to a pro-workflow (i.e., a Mac Pro with all the expensive apps) is that you can fix that kind of thing in post.

True, but that would require frame by frame editing and most likely access to Photoshop which was not part of the criteria in this production. I have been looking at a lot of car ads today to compare and every other brand has somehow fixed the issue on their videos. I can't find any professionally produced ads that exhibit the problem, although I have found several amateur video clips which show the same flickering phenomena .

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #44 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaba View Post

It must piss you off if the phone rings during filming or you get an iMessage. Just a thought.
I would likely think they turn it on airplane mode, use a device simply for this, or warn people before filming.
post #45 of 90

Very cool indeed...

post #46 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestAppleFan View Post

While this is very cool, it is very similar to giving your kid a Stradivarius. The Stradivarius is a very cool piece of equipment and the very best violin in the world. Let you kid play on it and see how good the music is.

The iPhone is cool and has some very competent capabilities, but most of us reading this blog are not going out tomorrow and producing this kind of results. There is a very talented team with years of skill and knowledge making this happen.

It is still cool to know it can be done, but there tends to be an unspoken theme coming from Apple that anyone can go out and make content like this. That is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

 

Good analogy, but I don't think the article was trying to imply this was a quick job that any one with an iPhone can do.

 

  It actually kind of goes out of its way to highlight this *can't* be done on just an iPhone.  It took a professional production crew with @$5500 in add-on accessories (not sure how much a 'modified Schneider lens' runs but I'd guess quite a bit over the $220 standard ones).  Its only when you start to read the user comments that you'd think the phone gets all the credit.

 

So yes, if you give any of the users on this forum an iPhone alone, exactly 0 of them will be able to produce anything of comparable quality to this video- I think the point is that the iPhone has entered the zone of competence where something like this video is even possible.  That alone is very impressive.

 

I would guess the same pro crew with $5500 to buy accessories for a high end android phone could make something pretty impressive too- but would lean toward the iPhone having the better capabilities currently.

post #47 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 
Well one advantage to a pro-workflow (i.e., a Mac Pro with all the expensive apps) is that you can fix that kind of thing in post.

I've been studying it more carefully and they have indeed fixed the problem of the flickering LEDs in some scenes but not in all which leads me to believe they may not be entirely forthcoming in how the video was edited and produced. I'm suggesting they may now be using more advanced work stations to perfect it, The whole concept was flawed from the beginning in my opinion.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 90

Shows what can be done on a budget and also attracts the attention of design conscious Apple customers to their design conscious automobile. It's really the skill of the people not the equipment.

post #49 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestAppleFan View Post

While this is very cool, it is very similar to giving your kid a Stradivarius. The Stradivarius is a very cool piece of equipment and the very best violin in the world. Let you kid play on it and see how good the music is.

The iPhone is cool and has some very competent capabilities, but most of us reading this blog are not going out tomorrow and producing this kind of results. There is a very talented team with years of skill and knowledge making this happen.

It is still cool to know it can be done, but there tends to be an unspoken theme coming from Apple that anyone can go out and make content like this. That is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

I believe it's saying something of you can make such a quality video using standard Apple hardware and software. Sure the people shooting the video were highly skilled, but they used the same stuff you and I own and use. Usually such shoots are done with professional hardware most of us can't even identify or afford.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #50 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


I believe it's saying something of you can make such a quality video using standard Apple hardware and software. Sure the people shooting the video were highly skilled, but they used the same stuff you and I own and use. Usually such shoots are done with professional hardware most of us can't even identify or afford.

 

I'd say the $5500 in add-on equipment used tends to put the majority of the stuff outside what most Apple users would want to afford, and more on the scope of professional gear (a professional cinema camera capable of shooting ultra HD 4k video can be had for under $3500).  The phone does deserve major props, but trying to downplay the extensive role of professionals and adding equipment that costs 10 times more than the price of the phone itself is a little silly.

 

It's a little like claiming the iPhone is amazing because it can teleport you halfway across the globe, surround you in luxury, and put dozens of servants at your beck and call*  It is achievable with a standard iPhone and a few third party accessories that any Apple user can afford.

 

*iPhone used to book travel arrangements.  Additional $5500 in plane tickets, luxury hotel accomadations, and use of trained pilots played a minor role in achieving this result.

post #51 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

I'd say the $5500 in add-on equipment used tends to put the majority of the stuff outside what most Apple users would want to afford, and more on the scope of professional gear (a professional cinema camera capable of shooting ultra HD 4k video can be had for under $3500).  The phone does deserve major props, but trying to downplay the extensive role of professionals and adding equipment that costs 10 times more than the price of the phone itself is a little silly.

It's a little like claiming the iPhone is amazing because it can teleport you halfway across the globe, surround you in luxury, and put dozens of servants at your beck and call*  It is achievable with a standard iPhone and a few third party accessories that any Apple user can afford.

*iPhone used to book travel arrangements.  Additional $5500 in plane tickets, luxury hotel accomadations, and use of trained pilots played a minor role in achieving this result.

I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. My point is that the Apple iPhone and MBA are good enough in their own right to allow professionals to complete the shoot. For example, if the iPhone lens were of an inferior quality, then any additional lenses added to the camera would not give professional quality results, no matter the skill of the photographer. Were the MBA too wimpy of a computer to run the programs needed to edit the captured video, then again the professional would be stymied in completing the project. The essential elements of technology were met by the iPhone and Apple's low-end MBA. THAT impressed me!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #52 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 
Annoying flickering like that would probably be unacceptable in a traditional cinematic production.

 

I think it may depend on how you define "cinematic production." The production values on "Top Gear" are perhaps not as stringent as a Hollywood feature but are very good by episodic TV standards and the flicker is frequently seen on that show.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #53 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


I will be the first to admit that I steadfastly refused to believe that 100% of all the video/audio pre/post-production work was done solely on iOS devices.  I believe that somewhere in there there was an iMac or MacPro being used, if even just for some light polishing.


I knew they were being used for some pretty amazing commercials and even to film certain segments of big-budget movies, but there were always workstations behind the scenes to put it all together and make it production quality.


So this video surprised even me, an avid iOS fan into full believer-mode that production-quality scenes can be done.  Of course, even the best gear doesn't mean squat if the person using it is clueless.  It makes the field really open up to more joe-consumers.  This is exciting.


I've been an avid underwater photographer for 10+ years (non-professional) and I'm amazed at how technology is bringing all this power to the average consumer.  It won't replace my trusty 35mm DSLR, but the next 5 years of this kind of light-speed optics advancement will be fun to see.

Interesting usage of a less-common adjective on your part, since Avid Technology has been a long-time industry leader in professional software-based non-linear editing systems. Coincidence?

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #54 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestAppleFan View Post

While this is very cool, it is very similar to giving your kid a Stradivarius. The Stradivarius is a very cool piece of equipment and the very best violin in the world. Let you kid play on it and see how good the music is.

The iPhone is cool and has some very competent capabilities, but most of us reading this blog are not going out tomorrow and producing this kind of results. There is a very talented team with years of skill and knowledge making this happen.

It is still cool to know it can be done, but there tends to be an unspoken theme coming from Apple that anyone can go out and make content like this. That is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.
The fact is anybody can. The cost to produce something like this has dropped to within reach of 'normal' people. What Apple does not say or suggest is that if you are only half interested, half arsed, or are not fully committed, you can produce this kind of stuff.

Like Stradivarius example above. But the cost of entry has never been lower.

Re: the phone going off during a take. I can guarantee that none of the iPhones used were 'phone enabled'. They were cameras only. Letting your own phone go off during a take is unforgivable.

What's more, with due diligence, you, too, can play a Stradivarius; you don't need to be born rich.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #55 of 90
Rule #16: under no circumstances shall an iOS device or Apple receive credit or praise when demonstrated in a professional context (music, stage or video production) or when used by professionals in a commercial or creative role. Resident trolls are encouraged to engage the Apple community by posting alternative views which magnify the credit given to everything else (e.g. professional equipment or the skill of the professionals involved, review the applicable article for specifics). If details of the production are not known, it is acceptable to post vague doubts that professional results could be obtained with iOS devices. Do not use absolute, clear, or falsifiable statements, always be sure to include vague qualifiers such as "most people" or "a lot of". If proven wrong later, ignore calls for mea culpa and continue trolling by modifying your arguments around any facts (do not directly attack the facts), or shift tactics. Admitting wrong will seriously undermine your effectiveness as a forum troll or contrarian (see also, Rule #23 on being caught lying). If you run out of attack vectors, disengage from the thread and simply wait for the next opportunity to re-engage the forum community. For general help in finding the applicable attack vector(s), see Appendix A for a list of common logical fallacies and Appendix C for a list of troll memes. (A more up-to-date list of memes is also available in the AppleInsider Forum Troll Support app, available free from the Google Play store)

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #56 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What it shows is the power of a $4.99 app, FilmiC.

I think you're giving credit to the tip of the iceberg for the rest of the iceberg. The app merely allows the user to access and exploit the full capabilities of the underlying hardware.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #57 of 90

While I do appreciate the point that giving full credit to iPhone/iPad for the quality of the Bentley ad is somewhat "rich", given the expense of add-ons (and professional expertise of the users), at least they did use Apple hardware.

 

This Bentley ad is hardly as fraudulent as the Nokia 920 ad, of a couple years ago:

http://www.zdnet.com/nokia-admits-to-faking-lumia-920-ad-7000003842/

post #58 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. My point is that the Apple iPhone and MBA are good enough in their own right to allow professionals to complete the shoot. For example, if the iPhone lens were of an inferior quality, then any additional lenses added to the camera would not give professional quality results, no matter the skill of the photographer. Were the MBA too wimpy of a computer to run the programs needed to edit the captured video, then again the professional would be stymied in completing the project. The essential elements of technology were met by the iPhone and Apple's low-end MBA. THAT impressed me!

 

He misses the point that many talented people, small companies (Apple Insider?), startup's and schools from high school to college can afford to produce very good content with talented people at the helm using Apple hardware and software, which has been true since the mid eighties.

post #59 of 90
"Wall Street already knows Android has 80% of the smartphone market share" Constable Odo where do you get your "facts" from. Wall Street already knows that this is not the case because it includes "sticks", and sundry other devices at have been registered multiple times and are not used for internet access as evidenced by the fact that iOS devices garner 80% of mobile internet use.
post #60 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post

"Wall Street already knows Android has 80% of the smartphone market share" Constable Odo where do you get your "facts" from. Wall Street already knows that this is not the case because it includes "sticks", and sundry other devices at have been registered multiple times and are not used for internet access as evidenced by the fact that iOS devices garner 80% of mobile internet use.

You missed Constable Odo's sarcasm tag. You are right, though, much of the Android "product shipped" only happened in the analyst's mind. My personal opinion is that Apple is enjoying their stealth position of shipping a larger percent of the iDevice market then the analyst's report. One of these days the truth will come out and by then it will be too late to ever catch Apple's real share...
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #61 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestAppleFan View Post

While this is very cool, it is very similar to giving your kid a Stradivarius. The Stradivarius is a very cool piece of equipment and the very best violin in the world. Let you kid play on it and see how good the music is.

The iPhone is cool and has some very competent capabilities, but most of us reading this blog are not going out tomorrow and producing this kind of results. There is a very talented team with years of skill and knowledge making this happen.

It is still cool to know it can be done, but there tends to be an unspoken theme coming from Apple that anyone can go out and make content like this. That is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

 

Good analogy, but I don't think the article was trying to imply this was a quick job that any one with an iPhone can do.

 

  It actually kind of goes out of its way to highlight this *can't* be done on just an iPhone.  It took a professional production crew with @$5500 in add-on accessories (not sure how much a 'modified Schneider lens' runs but I'd guess quite a bit over the $220 standard ones).  Its only when you start to read the user comments that you'd think the phone gets all the credit.

 

So yes, if you give any of the users on this forum an iPhone alone, exactly 0 of them will be able to produce anything of comparable quality to this video- I think the point is that the iPhone has entered the zone of competence where something like this video is even possible.  That alone is very impressive.

 

I would guess the same pro crew with $5500 to buy accessories for a high end android phone could make something pretty impressive too- but would lean toward the iPhone having the better capabilities currently.

Sure-currently meaning: for the past seven years.

iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #62 of 90

Great article from Apple Insider.

 

You mentioning Bentley's ownership by Volkswagen made me think: the Volkswagen app is the best one, hands-down, in the UK App Store, of all the car manufacturer apps. I think I've tried most of them. To that extent, they are the most Apple-friendly of the automobile industry. And yet, no CarPlay! Go figure.

iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #63 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 
Annoying flickering like that would probably be unacceptable in a traditional cinematic production.

 

I think it may depend on how you define "cinematic production." The production values on "Top Gear" are perhaps not as stringent as a Hollywood feature but are very good by episodic TV standards and the flicker is frequently seen on that show.

Nice to know. I spent hours looking for every car commercial I could find and not once did I see even a single LED flicker. Kia, Hyundai, Mazda and Jeep all flickerless. Of course BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Jaguar all clean as well.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #64 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What it shows is the power of a $4.99 app, FilmiC.

I think you're giving credit to the tip of the iceberg for the rest of the iceberg. The app merely allows the user to access and exploit the full capabilities of the underlying hardware.

I replied to someone who was giving all the credit to a 64 bit operating system. I feel that my 32 bit iPhone 5 has hardware capable of producing equivalent video but without the FILMiC app you cannot shoot in 24 frames as far as I know and the crew specifically mentioned the app as really important to the production. In fact they mentioned almost everything else except the Apple hardware as being instrumental to the production, although that aspect of the production was probably taken for granted..


Edited by mstone - 5/18/14 at 4:53pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #65 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


I'm unsure of the point you are trying to make. My point is that the Apple iPhone and MBA are good enough in their own right to allow professionals to complete the shoot. For example, if the iPhone lens were of an inferior quality, then any additional lenses added to the camera would not give professional quality results, no matter the skill of the photographer. Were the MBA too wimpy of a computer to run the programs needed to edit the captured video, then again the professional would be stymied in completing the project. The essential elements of technology were met by the iPhone and Apple's low-end MBA. THAT impressed me!

 

I'm impressed too, and I agree with you as well that if the iPhone and MBA were not outstanding devices, even with the rest of the pricey gear they would not be able to produce a result near this good.  But I also agree with the article itself- results this good would also not be possible with just the iPhone/MBA without the pricey supporting gear.  As much as people here seem to want to read hate into that statement there simply isn't any.

 

These results are stellar.  You could show me this and another ad done on even more expensive traditional professional quality gear and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

post #66 of 90
What a ridiculous setup. With these accessories they've just as easily use a fourth thirds camera like the GX7 or a BMPCC. Then they would have had a much better codec and the ability to use decent lenses.

That being said, camera's in general are just accessories just a lens or stabilizer. You can now shoot 4K Raw for $6K, most likely pro lenses set you back for $20K
post #67 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

What a ridiculous setup. With these accessories they've just as easily use a fourth thirds camera like the GX7 or a BMPCC. Then they would have had a much better codec and the ability to use decent lenses.

That being said, camera's in general are just accessories just a lens or stabilizer. You can now shoot 4K Raw for $6K, most likely pro lenses set you back for $20K

I don't know who makes it, but there is also an Android phone available that shoots 4K.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #68 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


I don't know who makes it, but there is also an Android phone available that shoots 4K.

 

The Note 3, Galaxy S5 and Sony Xperia Z2 all shoot 4k, whether it is any good is another story.

 

There are probably others among the Chinese OEM's, it's the latest number to throw on a specs sheet.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #69 of 90

That's a really nicely done film/ad, and the iPad integration is brilliant.

 

What is not surprising is that when you have a professional director, cinematographer and editor combined with thousands of dollars worth of support equipment and optics, you get professional results out of a phone camera. They could have gone even less expensive/higher quality and used an old $250 Canon 550D running Magic Lantern. Using an iPhone, while creating fine results, is a bit of a gimmick, but I imagine that will be lost on most.

post #70 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post
 

That's a really nicely done film/ad, and the iPad integration is brilliant.

 

What is not surprising is that when you have a professional director, cinematographer and editor combined with thousands of dollars worth of support equipment and optics, you get professional results out of a phone camera. They could have gone even less expensive/higher quality and used an old $250 Canon 550D running Magic Lantern. Using an iPhone, while creating fine results, is a bit of a gimmick, but I imagine that will be lost on most.

 

It was the iPhone's camera which processed what came through the lens and the iPad's 64 bit processor that handled all the editing.

 

Those are the important points.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #71 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

It was the iPhone's camera which processed what came through the lens and the iPad's 64 bit processor that handled all the editing.

 

Those are the important points.

 

You think the sensor and editing software are the biggest contributor to the ad's brilliant look and feel? The devices didn't hold them back, but much more went into this great piece than a camera sensor and a tablet processor.

 

I would say that the important point equipment-wise would be the $5k worth of support equipment. That did more for this ad than any other equipment.

post #72 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The Note 3, Galaxy S5 and Sony Xperia Z2 all shoot 4k, whether it is any good is another story.

There are probably others among the Chinese OEM's, it's the latest number to throw on a specs sheet.

I had a 10 megapixel Nikon CoolPix pocket camera from several years back where the actual picture resolution was no where near 10MP, more like 2MP, after all the digital compression, geometry correction, and poor, tiny optics where done mangling the image.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #73 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 
I spent hours looking for every car commercial I could find and not once did I see even a single LED flicker. Kia, Hyundai, Mazda and Jeep all flickerless. Of course BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Jaguar all clean as well.

 

I wonder if that's the result of ad producers having a vested interest in taking the time and effort to "fix" the flicker so it's not evident in the commercial, or a case of modulation frequency versus camera frame rate? Perhaps some tail lights show visible flicker at some frame rates while others don't?

 

Or maybe it's a conversion artifact. Top Gear shoots a lot of its segments on film, which is probably (but not certainly) running at 24 frames per second. That's then converted to 25 frames per second for British TV, then converted AGAIN to 30 fps for North American broadcast. Maybe somewhere in that mess the tail lights go squirrely!

 

I suspect it's probably being corrected for the ads.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #74 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 
I don't know who makes it, but there is also an Android phone available that shoots 4K.

 

Am I the only person in the industry who thinks that 4K will look WORSE than current HD?

 

First, jamming more pixels into a given image size raises both light requirement and noise levels. For a 4K sensor to look better than a 1080 sensor it has to be WAY bigger.

 

Second, the biggest issue affecting image quality is data compression. Increasing resolution will require even more compression to fit into existing pipelines, so any benefits of increased resolution will be swamped by increased compression artifacts.

 

The net result of "affordable" 4K will be poor low-light performance and noisier images with more banding and "jelly" effects. Yay.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #75 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

I wonder if that's the result of ad producers having a vested interest in taking the time and effort to "fix" the flicker so it's not evident in the commercial, or a case of modulation frequency versus camera frame rate? Perhaps some tail lights show visible flicker at some frame rates while others don't?

 

Or maybe it's a conversion artifact. Top Gear shoots a lot of its segments on film, which is probably (but not certainly) running at 24 frames per second. That's then converted to 25 frames per second for British TV, then converted AGAIN to 30 fps for North American broadcast. Maybe somewhere in that mess the tail lights go squirrely!

 

I suspect it's probably being corrected for the ads.

 

This would have been easy to correct with a DSLR (even cheap old $250 models that shoot HD). If you go to a manual aperture and shutter setting, you can dial the shutter speed until the flicker is gone, then dial the aperture to get the correct exposure.

post #76 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

 

Am I the only person in the industry who thinks that 4K will look WORSE than current HD?

First, jamming more pixels into a given image size raises both light requirement and noise levels. For a 4K sensor to look better than a 1080 sensor it has to be WAY bigger.

Second, the biggest issue affecting image quality is data compression. Increasing resolution will require even more compression to fit into existing pipelines, so any benefits of increased resolution will be swamped by increased compression artifacts.

The net result of "affordable" 4K will be poor low-light performance and noisier images with more banding and "jelly" effects. Yay.

You seem to know a thing or two about video. Can you tell me why it is that close-ups of running water always look blurry in HD? I presume it's because it can't cope with the motion; it's one area in which analogue is superior.
iPad a Dream.
Reply
iPad a Dream.
Reply
post #77 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


You seem to know a thing or two about video. Can you tell me why it is that close-ups of running water always look blurry in HD? I presume it's because it can't cope with the motion; it's one area in which analogue is superior.

 

A lot of it depends on your source. Compression is the major factor. If a quality OTA signal, like NOVA on PBS decided to show video of running water, it would be spectacular. Cable and dish signals are heavily compressed, but the compression varies based on what you're watching and when you're watching it. NBA playoff games are going to be compressed less than soap opera reruns, even if the source video is the same HD quality.

 

Generally, digital media has a huge compression problem with dark colors. If you watch the intro to House of Cards streaming on Netflix, the night scenes of DC are incredibly muddy in low contrast areas. There is a similar issue with light colors in many instances, for the same reasons. Within a given frame of highly compressed HD video, you will see the higher contrast areas exhibit more detail (less compression), but the gradients of a night sky or a large shadow are very heavily compressed and result in a lot of muddiness and banding.

 

Even with the low compression cable stuff though, it's still pretty bad with artifacts. If you pause a frame of an NBA game where the camera is panning, you'll see the crowd is made of of relatively large rectangles that have some tonal change to them. Really bad compression artifacts.

post #78 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It is hard to tell but those iPads don't look like they would be easily removed. You know, like you carry an iPad all the time anyway and then pop it into a holder while in the car. They look more like a permanent installation. If so, why use an iPad at all? The configuration looks more like a MacBook instead. It doesn't seem to me that they are using the main advantage of an iPad, its portability.

It is an amusing idea to use iOS devices to film iOS devices but still just a publicity stunt. I would have thought Bentley was above such a gimmick. Cracks me up that a "Pro" lens can go for $37.95. Using an iPhone camera for professional filming only makes sense, if you need extreme portability,  the space is really constrained or the device is expendable, as in an action scene. Otherwise, it makes more sense to use real professional rigs. Just my opinion. I know most on this forum think that iOS can do anything and is always the best tool for the job.

I thought Apple using iPhone to shoot their documentary was brilliant though.

The iPads are always connected and eminently usable without a keyboard. I don't know why there isn't an option to include cell and gps chips in laptops. I'm willing to bet the pads are easily removable. Is it a problem that equipment they used can be purchased for $37.95? Would you have preferred that everything be thousands or tens of thousands? I'm sure that would have been a bigger laugh/problem/issue for people like yourself. Now that this quality of production can be achieved with a multifunction device that over a twelfth of the planet owns, it's a gimmick. Why not criticize all other promotional films for using out of reach, insanely expensive equipment. You could try this at home with your android device, or do you not have the talent or ability to do anything except bitch about people who do? There are youtoob vids showing how to make almost free steadycams, or you could buy a real one for less than $200 (I tried one at a trade show on my old 4 and it was amazing, especially after treatment with a $2 app).
Just my "opinion", or possibly even fact.
post #79 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 
You seem to know a thing or two about video.

 

Ha! Fooled 'em again! :)

 

Audio is actually my area of expertise, but since the sound I do is for TV I'm forced to listen to the vidiots blather on about picture. Since they aren't any smarter than I am, take whatever hearsay I spout with an appropriate serving of salt.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 
Can you tell me why it is that close-ups of running water always look blurry in HD? I presume it's because it can't cope with the motion; it's one area in which analogue is superior.

 

You're right, except that it's not HD per se, it's probably the data compression being applied to the product in order to get it down to a file size and data rate suitable for delivering it to you. Probably. There are other potential causes.

 

TV production is trending towards cheaper and cheaper equipment, and one of the sacrifices made with less-expensive cameras is a compromised ability to track fast moving objects accurately.

 

It may also be an optical decision made at the time of the shoot. A consequence of a 500 channel universe is a need to fill those channels with<*ahem*> "affordable" content. This is a market of opportunity for budding filmmakers who may not have quite as much expertise (or equipment) as their Hollywood-type contemporaries. Choices of aperture and shutter may result in the effect you describe, particularly when just left on "auto."

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #80 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets View Post

You think the sensor and editing software are the biggest contributor to the ad's brilliant look and feel? The devices didn't hold them back, but much more went into this great piece than a camera sensor and a tablet processor.

I would say that the important point equipment-wise would be the $5k worth of support equipment. That did more for this ad than any other equipment.

Yet they didn't choose to use a different brand. Scamsung is probably trying to offer Bentley any number of devices as we speak, and will have to make their own Bentley lookalike after being repeatedly rebuffed, criticising Bentley owners as dumb sheep. Btw, $5000 worth of filming hardware is less than peanuts, barely making a petty cash voucher. It's also unlikely that people with taste or talent would choose devices that make their work more difficult or compromise results. Nokidow devices could probably have been used to capture, but their post production options would not have been "in house". Interestingly, Bentley didn't choose to feature Surface devices either. That must also make them stupid sheep or cultists as no other explanations are logical.
Try try buying an SLR or similar with suitable lens(es) and mounting equipment for less than $5k, and then make phone calls, spreadsheets, web surf, etc with it.
Edited by macyourday - 5/20/14 at 4:54pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Behind the scenes of Bentley's iPhone-filmed, iPad Air-edited ad