[CONTENTEMBED=/t/179739/behind-the-scenes-of-bentleys-iphone-filmed-ipad-air-edited-ad/0_100#post_2536421 layout=inline]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">You seem to know a thing or two about video.</span>
[/CONTENTEMBED]
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.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/179739/behind-the-scenes-of-bentleys-iphone-filmed-ipad-air-edited-ad/0_100#post_2536421 layout=inline]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.[/CONTENTEMBED]
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."
Thanks for getting back. I accept what you say, but you'd think that BBC flagship nature programmes wouldn't skimp on equipment. I think what you say about compression seems most likely. Even if they film it with high-quality equipment, when they stream it on iPlayer, I guess the compression kicks in, even on their supposed HD version.
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 .
You do realize that a typical shoot for a car commercial is normally a big affair that might take one or several weeks and have a million dollar budget? When millions will be paid for TV commercial time and the images will be used for a long time, money is not as much an object. The production cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of airing the finished commercial. In such a case trucks are rented to hall huge white flags (a light reflector) just so the reflections in the body work will look "just so," to show off the car's belt line. The whole crew gets paid to be ready so images can be captured when the light is perfect. Dear amounts of cash paid to lock off impressive areas in major cities so it can be used for filming. Crews stand by to carefully wet the pavement (and not the perfectly polished car) as needed so everything looks that much better. etc. etc. Things normal people can't even imagine.
So anyway, this wasn't that kind of thing. It was probably well planned, but captured in a day or two with a very small crew.
Besides picking nits, you're beating a long decomposed horse.
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?
Actually they were hardly the "leader." Companies like Apple, Adobe, (and the software companies they purchased) dragged Avid, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Left on their own, Avid would still be selling outrageously expensive editing stations instead of software and svelte productions like the one in this article, or the last Sundance sensation, would still be well near impossible!
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.
Doesn't Samsung make that?
Hmm, where do we draw the line?
Believe me, if I cooked dinner, I get the credit, no mater who bought the groceries.
Credit for the film creation goes to the creators. Same goes for software, iPhone, and hardware creators each for their part of what they did.
The app merely allows the user to access and exploit the full capabilities of the underlying hardware.
I dunno… Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the machine running it. It may run FASTER on a certain machine but it still performs the same functions. If I buy a better computer it doesn't add capabilities to the software that weren't there before. I think the app gets the credit.
Believe me, if I cooked dinner, I get the credit, no mater who bought the groceries.
You might want to consider spreading some of that credit back out to the grocery shopper. Just sayin'. Better for your health.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
I dunno… Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the machine running it. It may run FASTER on a certain machine but it still performs the same functions. If I buy a better computer it doesn't add capabilities to the software that weren't there before. I think the app gets the credit.
Yeah, Waze is Waze between all the various devices that run it.
I dunno… Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the machine running it. It may run FASTER on a certain machine but it still performs the same functions. If I buy a better computer it doesn't add capabilities to the software that weren't there before. I think the app gets the credit.
Not necessarily. It's most likely the hardware of the iPhone 5S that allows the Filmic app to be able to record in the robust codecs (at broadcast acceptable 50mbps versus the usual c.17mbps from the Camera app) that enables the footage to then be post-processed to the level required for this kind of destination.
Yeah, Waze is Waze between all the various devices that run it.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. Are you agreeing with me that apps perform the same functions regardless of the hardware running them, or are you sarcastically disagreeing by presenting an example that contradicts what I think?
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. Are you agreeing with me that apps perform the same functions regardless of the hardware running them, or are you sarcastically disagreeing by presenting an example that contradicts what I think?
Sorry for being vague. Most apps that are supported on different devices perform as expected. When I fire up Waze on any device, it does what I expect, regardless of hardware or OS. No phone is making Waze amazing. It's amazing on its own (and with the subscribers who help with crowdsourcing)
Comments
Thanks for getting back. I accept what you say, but you'd think that BBC flagship nature programmes wouldn't skimp on equipment. I think what you say about compression seems most likely. Even if they film it with high-quality equipment, when they stream it on iPlayer, I guess the compression kicks in, even on their supposed HD version.
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 .
You do realize that a typical shoot for a car commercial is normally a big affair that might take one or several weeks and have a million dollar budget? When millions will be paid for TV commercial time and the images will be used for a long time, money is not as much an object. The production cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of airing the finished commercial. In such a case trucks are rented to hall huge white flags (a light reflector) just so the reflections in the body work will look "just so," to show off the car's belt line. The whole crew gets paid to be ready so images can be captured when the light is perfect. Dear amounts of cash paid to lock off impressive areas in major cities so it can be used for filming. Crews stand by to carefully wet the pavement (and not the perfectly polished car) as needed so everything looks that much better. etc. etc. Things normal people can't even imagine.
So anyway, this wasn't that kind of thing. It was probably well planned, but captured in a day or two with a very small crew.
Besides picking nits, you're beating a long decomposed horse.
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?
Actually they were hardly the "leader." Companies like Apple, Adobe, (and the software companies they purchased) dragged Avid, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Left on their own, Avid would still be selling outrageously expensive editing stations instead of software and svelte productions like the one in this article, or the last Sundance sensation, would still be well near impossible!
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.
Doesn't Samsung make that?
Hmm, where do we draw the line?
Believe me, if I cooked dinner, I get the credit, no mater who bought the groceries.
Credit for the film creation goes to the creators. Same goes for software, iPhone, and hardware creators each for their part of what they did.
I dunno… Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the machine running it. It may run FASTER on a certain machine but it still performs the same functions. If I buy a better computer it doesn't add capabilities to the software that weren't there before. I think the app gets the credit.
Believe me, if I cooked dinner, I get the credit, no mater who bought the groceries.
You might want to consider spreading some of that credit back out to the grocery shopper. Just sayin'. Better for your health.
I dunno… Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the machine running it. It may run FASTER on a certain machine but it still performs the same functions. If I buy a better computer it doesn't add capabilities to the software that weren't there before. I think the app gets the credit.
Yeah, Waze is Waze between all the various devices that run it.
I dunno… Photoshop is Photoshop regardless of the machine running it. It may run FASTER on a certain machine but it still performs the same functions. If I buy a better computer it doesn't add capabilities to the software that weren't there before. I think the app gets the credit.
Not necessarily. It's most likely the hardware of the iPhone 5S that allows the Filmic app to be able to record in the robust codecs (at broadcast acceptable 50mbps versus the usual c.17mbps from the Camera app) that enables the footage to then be post-processed to the level required for this kind of destination.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. Are you agreeing with me that apps perform the same functions regardless of the hardware running them, or are you sarcastically disagreeing by presenting an example that contradicts what I think?
I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by that. Are you agreeing with me that apps perform the same functions regardless of the hardware running them, or are you sarcastically disagreeing by presenting an example that contradicts what I think?
Sorry for being vague. Most apps that are supported on different devices perform as expected. When I fire up Waze on any device, it does what I expect, regardless of hardware or OS. No phone is making Waze amazing. It's amazing on its own (and with the subscribers who help with crowdsourcing)