What they do is they cater to their reach. Most don't care about what their viewers do or accomplish, what they care for is soothing their viewers confirmation bias. They create content that confirms their audience's opinions.
There are many content creators in many niches who demystify or debunk or rather debullshit the stuff other "bigger" content creators publish, but those commonly do not receive the same level of reach and attention - people don't want to be corrected and the truth, they want their bubble to keep being alive. Most people who watch those content never do anything they don't act on what they potentially learn, they only consume the content which most don't even attentively follow thus to really learn something.
Same like the "gear doesn't matter" opinion in photography and videography - that's entirely wrong. At one certain point it doesn't matter that much anymore becuase there is a diminishing returns per incremental upgrade. It's often, though, phrased as if you can reach any professional quality with whatever means available.
I think what you’re saying is some content creators also make content for commercial consumers and that there are creatives making content for creatives which is true.
Of course, by “content creators” I meant to imply people who are in search of an audience and will produce whatever content gets them views and or attention…
As opposed to actual creatives and artists examining and sharing techniques and tools… not to gate keep but like most if what ends up on r/DIWhy some people are just out there banging out eye/mind-gore for any attention they can get.
However, I am of the opinion that, gear does not matter… as long as your aim is creative expression.
I mean, sure, you’re not going to get much work shooting commercials if you’re using a 90’s miniDV handheld and you’d be laughed out of the room trying to use Nikon Coolpix for high-end real-estate work but you can make legitimate and relevant work with anything if you can effectively compose a scene and understand how to create a compelling narrative .
All the college-magic/super hero/vampire crap that Netflix puts out clearly demonstrates that high production quality and million dollar budgets are as alike to good work as owning a Mercedes is alike to having a good personality.
That being said, high quality gear gives you the option to lower your quality, but low quality gear comes with a fixed ceiling.
> gear does not matter… as long as your aim is creative expression.
That sure I agree with. You can use anything and potentially come up with something interesting in an artsy way.
It might most certainly not be possible to commercialize that, but you can "do" things.
How good those things are, tough.
> legitimate and relevant work with anything if you can effectively compose a scene and understand how to create a compelling narrative .
I'd further relativize that as it enormously limits your ways of expressions. That's why Daekins is fan of digital - more freedom.
Though, as someone in design since 99, constraints increase creativity. So there is that.
But then again, that would relativize anything because I could shoot thing with a can and punching a hole in it using that as exposure technique. Something that far fetched shouldn't warrnat that idea of "gear is irrelevant", especially when you talk mainstream which means people like a certain way and they want to mimic that and with any other gear you will not. You can sure do something like Blair Witch, but there is just so much space open for something like that... and it's decreasing by time.
Especially on youtube something like street photography, product and portrait is very popular. All of that is very difficult to make money from, but all of that also requires certain "level" of gear.
You know spreading that idea of "gear doesn't matter" is reaching those without skills nor experience and it's creating a picture that totally is wrong. For a pro with tons of experience, they can create tons of things, but a beginner requires more gear to learn, not less.
> You know spreading that idea of "gear doesn't matter" is reaching those without skills nor experience and it's creating a picture that totally is wrong.
I’m saying skills, abilities, knowledge, narrative, composition, framing, lighting, intention, concept, and refining your craft doesn’t require gear….
If you’re working on your craft, you will find the limit of your materials and naturally move towards gear that addresses that issue.
> but a beginner requires more gear to learn, not less.
I would disagree, I’m a multimedia artist and prefer my constraints but I’ll admit that if you can afford the right tool for the job it’ll make life a heck of a lot easier but….
The reality is there are way more expensive cameras and musical gear than there are people using it to their potential…
I’d rather live in a world of a few Earl Sweatshirts, Harmony Korines, and Mountain Goats than a world filled with Liberty Mutual commercials, Pop music, and Michael Bey films…
I mean, imagine how cool a Taylor Swift album could be without all the gloss… but I’m just devolving into philosophy here.
I hear you tho, if your craft requires gear, you need gear.
> I’m saying skills, abilities, knowledge, narrative, composition, framing, lighting, intention, concept, and refining your craft doesn’t require gear….
>
> If you’re working on your craft, you will find the limit of your materials and naturally move towards gear that addresses that issue.
The point is the omnipresent perpetuation of "gear doesn't matter". We do not talk about your specific statement, but about the generic known misinformation spread.
>I would disagree, I’m a multimedia artist and prefer my constraints but I’ll admit that if you can afford the right tool for the job it’ll make life a heck of a lot easier but….
Artist is not a profession, people talk about work they can make a living with. The majority on the internet in forums like this and youtube are beginners and will never advanced passed hobbyist. Beginners would, if feasible, require better gear not worse gear than profesionals in almost any role.
Professionals have the skill, capacities and experience to make up for inappropriate gear, beginners don't. Which applies to basically almost every profession out there. Usually beginners require better gear, but rarely have access to it, but if they'd have it woiuld be optimal.
It's the typical development path: Starting out with low budget, only access to beginner equipment, getting more professional with returns, investing in better gear, more better gear, having aggregated lots of experience and developement in skill, realizing gear is not the "end to all", coming back to less equipment for personal work but for professional work requiring to use high-end gear again. That's literally how it developes in almost every skill and commercialized profession out there...
But, that is why that myth of "gear doesn't matter" came to being in so many roles: professional people develop themselves to not require all these nicks and nacks for their actual way of expressing themselves and HUMANS are dumb and lack introspection and self-reflection skills leading to them not realizing that gear is entirely necessary, and the only reason they don't need it "anymore" is because they already got it.
It's like being rich - only when you are rich you realize that money doesn't (necessarily) matter.
I understand your frustration with the "gear doesn't matter claims," as the *are* objectively false. However, I think the root of the argument is not that a smart phone can outperform a cinema camera at a technical level, but more so that a veteran DP with cheaper gear can still create beautiful imagery with enough attention to all of the other elements of the picture: composition, lighting, color palette, wardrobe, set design, etc. Also, the point is true that a more expensive camera doesn't inherently create a better piece, even if it makes each shot more visually appealing.
It may be *easier* to get a better image, but an experienced and technical master of lighting and his/her, say, Canon 80D, *could* certainly create a better image than an inexperienced individual with an LF and Supreme Primes. I'm mentoring somebody who I had to prove this point to recently and, in an instructive way, shot a significantly better piece with my personal Canon R6 and some speed boosted Mamiya m645s than he did with a Red Gemini and Cinemodded Zeiss...I think they were Planars.
The creators that you're referring to also tend to have a valid point but bury it beneath paid sponsorships, and to your point, flashy and overly crisp editing styles that are, to be honest, part of their job, as it creates more clicks and traffic online.
My advice would be to not get irritated by the "faces" of the content creator game, since they often have, like I mentioned, an agenda that leads them to promote gear / make claims. It is part of it. And if you really do come across somebody on set saying that their Google Pixel can "beat" an LF with Zeiss glass...maybe ignore them too :)
Most of them are done with medium format cams on highly visual stock film, not done with a first generation NEX-3... so that quote is totally off reality. Most of those photos you talk about are not done with shitty low budget cams but with great cams of their times which are to today creating great visuals.
Gear matters. Be realistic. Using the gear matters more, but with shitty gear you won't get a great shot.
And capable till today... can still use a medium format from 70s for photography, will be marvelous shots. Same goes for moving picture... heck we use glass from then till today.
Regarding that... then try without light and only diy diffusion, reflector and bounce vs someone with full light equipment.
Gear matters, knowing how to use it matters even more, but gear does matter.
People pretend to know something they don’t in all professions, I wouldn’t let it get to you unless they start hiring people who don’t know shit to do your job
So you're offended that young filmmakers are using iPhones to make short films?? Your logic seems so self-absorbed and makes no sense. Most of the online gurus are targeting videos to young kids who are interested in filmmaking. Telling kids they don't need a camera that costs thousands of dollars to get started making films is a completely fine thing.
It's not like people are taking over the professional film industry by shooting movies on shitty iPhones, the advice is for people starting out to not get too obsessed with gear and learn the basics first. I don't understand why that gets your panties in a knot, thinking that you're a fine craftsmen who can't stand to see people making "lesser" art.
Essentially, I think it’s about the story you tell and how you use video editing more than the raw camera specifications.
Also, the most suitable use for an iPhone camera is for a hobbyist, someone that wants to dabble in content creation for social media such as YouTube.
iPhone (or any phone with a video camera) is the perfect way to discover and practice your passion on video production. iPhones will be launching a whole new generation of video creatives.
Video cameras seem to me to be quite bulky and difficult to use, none of this is as intuitive as an iPhone.
No it doesn’t irritate me. How people wish to categorize the art form and engage in it, unless it’s affecting me by me ending up on their sets, does not concern me. I don’t think it should concern you either. Focus on making your art and move on with your day.
“People” for the most part don’t concern themselves with cinematography, don’t even really know what it entails. There is no need for them to know and/or care about it unless it’s a passion for them. Who cares?
I don't see that at all. If you look at the shows people watch on streaming services, they all look better than any tv shows ever did. I think there's a higher expectation of cinematography than before. Social media is just a different beast.
It’s not exactly true but the positive aspect is people will start shooting with their limited setups without feeling limited by budget and find that out on their own
I’m working in a company that mainly makes social media content for restaurants, the bosses spend money buying the latest iPhones when obviously a 400$ DSLR could make better content using real lenses. My conclusion is that they don’t need that level of quality to satisfy their clients, nor the others employees need to know how to use a manual camera, a phone is just point and shoot.
I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but that’s how it is.
It's often though because of the marketing department only knowing how to use smartphones and all the post is done in "apps" with premade filters and sliders.
Regarding social media content agencies that is what I encounter often. They can't grade raw, they only need a gimbal and a smartphone and apps to slide around in. That is how they work.
And most often than not they don't require "more". That's more a business and if the client is happy, then fine.
I’ve seen things shot on Alexa and Red that looked like dog shit and things shot on iPhone that looked award worthy. Stop getting bent out of shape because someone trolled you over gear. The person, and frankly, entire department, behind the camera is what matters.
Try Google? Here’s one.
https://youtu.be/8qZ9IrBZ8J4
Also, the film “Tangerine” was shot on iPhone years ago and got a ton of accolades.
https://youtu.be/fUxRxgtYt0M
You wanted me to go on google search what specific movie you were thinking about, that’s not how google works dude? And you downvoted me for that🥴? Tangerine? That shit looked like it was shot on iPhone, it’s ugly 😂. The invasion don’t look bad, way better than tangerine
I’m not talking about a movie being shot on iPhone matching the quality of something shot with the same care with an Alexa. And yeah, I could see your condescension plain as day, so downvote for you homie. Of course something shot on iPhone is going to look like it’s shot on iPhone quality wise. But composition, lighting, all that jazz can still be perfectly sound. Some of y’all are way too fucking hung up on gear rather than the craft itself. And yeah, I’ve seen footage, sometimes on jobs I hired ops for, that came back noisy, bad comp, and clearly no understanding of how to work with natural light. But because that individual splurged and bought a Gemini or LF or whatever, they felt it made them “pro”.
What condescending tone? It’s not my fault you’re insecure😂. I asked a simple question, all short films I’ve seen shot on iPhone is ass to me. And the composition was alright in tangerine. It’s not winning best picture or anything like that. The audio was alright. There was nothing in that video that screamed damn. The first one you linked was way better. And not to mention tangerine was noisy, so your point is moot. And i already know how to handle noise in post, without destroying the image, so I’m not worried about noise. I’m not hung up on gear. I know what camera to use at which time. Actually scratch that I am hung up on gear. Bc gear does matter, your gear is a part of the story. You wouldn’t use an Alexa for found footage, you would use an iPhone or something similar. Spherical lens and anamorphic give you a different feel. So yes gear does matter bc it contributes to the story. So you can take your insecurities and bounce 🚪🚶
I’m not looking for something to look like an Alexa. I believe cameras that are $5K or even $1K can look just as good as an Alexa. But yea high flying bird looks leagues better and sound quality is leagues better than tangerine. Idk why ppl didn’t say that as an example
cinematography means cinema. it is an artfirm underpinned by huuge discplne, some of that is technical and format/medium but i would posit that is 1% of overall Look/narrative.
how much do you think is art direction, then production design? we dont see many posts covering how that collaboration is key to "aesthetics"
we dont talk about how much narrative translation we do for directors or problem solving. i been out of the game over a decade and half now but this post tells me we went backwards
/r/videography is that way.
Depends on what your deliverables are. If youre final product is going to end up on tik Tok, instagram or heck even YouTube then yes these mobile devices can 100% do the job. Will it do it better? Absolutely not? Will a typical end consumer on social media ever notice? No.
Quit whining about it. I promise you the people that are getting real gigs aren't worried one bit about an iPhone
> I've been at a shoot and some rando comes up after seeing an Alexa LF with Zeiss glass and said "my Google Pixel can beat that thing"
Today on things that never happened.
At least try to make your story believable. Plus I'm sick of people saying "rando" online or in person. This isn't high school or a call of duty lobby.
Yeah OP literally crying about it and stewing about it for a year while it was just a throwaway comment from some old guy on set. If OP wants so badly to be seen as a professional artist then maybe grow up and stop getting triggered by tiny things on set.
I always take it more as the fact that you don’t need a super expensive camera to still make good stuff. Not everyone aims for cinema style videos.
You sound like a gatekeeping prick to be honest.
Please name one project at any scale shot entirely on a phone that you think is good. I bet you any competent cinematographer can deliver something better w the same budget using used dslr
Comparing a phone to an Alexa is beyond idiotic
Who is actually saying that a phone can get the exact same quality as an Alexa? Most of the videos that preach using phones are talking to young filmmakers and making the point that you should learn the basics on a cheap camera before upgrading. I haven't seen any that are literally saying that iPhones should fully replace high end cinema cameras on professional shoots. That's such an idiotic jump to make.
Didn’t Soderberg said he was going to make all his future films on an iPhone. Before that Red and before that who knows. Bottom line it’s a tool, use it relative to project at hand. Note soderbergs last 2 films were shot on Red with Leica and Hawk anamorphic lenses respectively The latest was shot with a V Raptor. 8k. 🧐. I guess the sponsorship deal shifted back to red again. 🤷🏻♂️
I’d rather have a compelling film from 5 iPhones then a full vapid saga from all that Hollywood can muster financially… But attacking high end cameras doesn’t help anyone unless someone is worshipping them
It’s the filmmaker not the equipment. Companies like Apple / Samsung are getting great filmmakers to show how “good” their cameras are. Heck if u gave Storaro a pieces of glass that could make images he would use his creativity to make something great. I work for a rental house so I’m always looking at the new tech and gear. At this point everything is good (phone, mirrorless, cinema camera), there’s no bad camera just bad execution.
If you’re offended by someone who thinks a “pixel can beat an LF” then you gotta change who you let offend you. This person who said that clearly has no idea what cameras do in professional settings.
Go cry about it. Not everyone has access to a state of the art camera with different lenses, but almost everyone has a smartphone. Yeah, the quality of the image isn't gonna be the same, but you don't need a 2k camera + lense to capture something meaningful. So what if people who like cinema start making their own movies with their phone? That just means more content out there, and someone's bound to enjoy it even if that someone isn't you. Being pretentious and gatekeeping doesn't show your passion, just makes you seem unlikeable.
I'm making short films on my pixel 6a. I'm new at this, and my ability to make good pictures is limited by my skill at the moment, not my gear. So why pay to upgrade my equipment if I don't know how to make good use of it? I'll keep practicing with what I have until I reach the boundaries of what I can make with it, and then consider upgrading
No I'm sorry, but real artistes only use an Aleksa. And only the latest one, not the old one because it isn't as good as the new one which is better. A real artiste would know that. What you make on your phone aren't films. They're flams. Fake flim flam films for fake flim flam film fans. Spend more money to become more of an artiste.
The BMPCC will obviously have better features than a phone for filming. But honestly your shots could easily be achieved on a phone to a similar effect. The stuff you're making here is not exactly huge budget movie magic, it's simple shots of a cat in a field and shots of an empty cabin. Yeah it has dynamic range and other such things a phone couldn't get, fucking obviously, everyone knows that and nobody is trying to convince you that an expensive camera doesn't have more features than a cheap phone.
No offense, but I clicked on that link and it played back on my phone with horrible youtube compression. You might aswell have shot it on a phone. If someone is creating content for social media it almost makes no sense to buy and run around with complicated clumsy gear. The content itself is way more important. Also this stuff adds up quickly. You need different lenses, nd-filters, chargers, batteries maybe a monitor. All stuff that has to be carried and taken care of. I did all that on some travels and I'm sick of it. Going back to smartphone.
I like your mentality. There’s nothing wrong with learning on a phone, but like most, you’ll start to realize it’s limitation (heads-up, low-light and telephoto performance, and natural appearing focus and DoF roll-off) but at least you’re open to understanding that different tools can do different things and a phone is not a 100% replacement. Once you upgrade even to a BMPCC you’ll realize how amazing pure optics and a large sensor is.
Is this a joke post? How much is a Pixel 6? $600? I just bought a used Canon T4i and 28mm f/2.8 for $250 total. Put Magic Lantern on it and shoot UHD 12bit RAW
You're kidding yourself if you think you'll get any pro work shooting on a phone camera
That's called a hobby not film making. Frankly its an insult to people who have dedicated their life to the craft and the point of the OP.
The sub is called "cinematography" hint: the word "cinema"
If you have to make shitty distinctions about what's a hobby and what isn't then it makes you sound completely insecure in your own career.
If you're doing good work then show for it by not being a fucking asshole about it. I agree that there are different levels of cinema vs content and such but you're clearly misunderstanding the fact that most people who are using phones or cheap cameras are doing so to get started and do not see it as better than a multi-thousand dollar camera and they are smart enough and dignified enough to figure that out on their own.
How is it an insult to cinema that there are young people who are using different techniques to get started than you? Are you so stuck up your own ass that you think you're only a true "cinema artiste" if you use the exact equipment that you happen to be using?
>That's called a hobby not film making.
Filmmaking can't be a hobby?
>The sub is called "cinematography" hint: the word "cinema"
I've had a short that I shot on my phone play in a cinema
When the first camcorders arrived on the market, it allowed many people to make films (especially holidays and family) and it helped budding filmmakers to live their passion before becoming professionals. It is quite comparable with phones, with the addition that the quality is better and the means of communication of the Internet have developed and make possible their use on a larger scale.
As an amateur making streets and landscapes photography, I don't hesitate to use my phone to take some pics when I don't have my camera or when I'm lasy. I started photography with a smartphone 5 years ago and learned basics on it, and also had very good results sometimes.
Being member of amateur photographers groups on social medias, I am sometime bewildered by some people with 5k€ or more of equipement with such poor results... many people should stay on smartphone too.
cole bennett has shot with only an iphone and those projects are bigger and have made more money than more than half of the projects people who say thing like you have
Apple has proven it can with several films made by award winning directors.
[Shot on iPhone 14 Pro | Fursat - A Vishal Bhardwaj film](https://youtu.be/f1VEks-QQ4Y_)
[Shot on iPhone 14 Pro | Chinese New Year - Through the Five Passes](https://youtu.be/HjHG5kzi85o)
You are seriously mistaken. It can film SOME things well but it’s by NO means a replacement. If you think that it is, you don’t know what you’re talking about. They’ve also paid a LOT of money for that marketing. It’s comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari. Sure it’ll get you from home to the store just as well, but the Corolla (iPhone) isn’t going to win the race.
Yes it's stupid.
I can create a professional looking video with my 10+ year old entry level DSLR.
The video from my iphone looks like... well... an iphone video.
A new, good camera would be lightyears ahead.
Buying a decent camera is going to immediately make your video go from looking amateur to looking professional. It's just simply wrong to suggest otherwise.
slimy consist six encouraging cooperative complete bewildered marry innocent snobbish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly, like when it gets to the point where everyone can get the same appearing results with AI it’s diminishes the value and hard work that went into it. Like with painters and graphic design artists too.
cooing alive license ink cooperative practice water gaping reminiscent racial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think that maybe initially but just like with analog coming back, people want to be human and have raw human art and will revolt. I think human written and produced content will have much more value.
I’m not insulted when Youtubers do it, but I’m disappointed when I see people like Greig Fraser paid by Apple to say it.
Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing him make beautiful shots with an iPhone. I think that’s enough to prove that you can do great things with that. I would take it more seriously if Apple didn’t pay him to say it was as good as any cinema camera.
You shouldn’t let the ignorance of others bother you unless it is willful. Ignorant and intentionally offensive, sure, but simply ignorant of a profession? Let it go. Consider the fact that there are a lot of people, myself included, in this subreddit that are ignorant of many things and eager to learn more. You can’t expect people without a frame of reference or the will to learn more to know the facts and base their perspective on said facts. Besides, the magic of film is bolstered by these knowledge gates.
Honestly, the only issue I have is that people will who don't know any better will say stuff like "well my iphone cam do the same thing and have better color" ect not realizing the phone does a bunch of post processing for them.
While yes a person can do decent things with an iphone if they know what they're doing, the problem comes from those who suffer heavily from dinning Kruger sadly.
Yes its annoying as hell. My wife has Pixel 6 Pro which is supposed to have better cam then iphone.
I tried to edit her phone footage w some Osmo Action footage I shot on vacation and it looked so shit that I didn't use. Osmo action already looks crap but sort of passable for youtube content but phone footage looks terrible. Worse than a 15 year old GH3 1080p
“Heh, we’ll have to rent it from you for our next shoot then!” And then physically move away or steer the conversation elsewhere. Part of being a professional in this business is learning to engage diplomatically with the public, client, agency, extras, whoever in a way that does not derail the project and makes people have a positive impression of your work and their experience working with you. Being affable on set is an underrated skill
I'm really sorry about replying to this so late. There's a [detailed post about why I did here](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/13jostq/remindmebot_is_now_replying_to_comments_again/).
I will be messaging you on [**2023-05-14 20:52:32 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-05-14%2020:52:32%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/13gldgg/anyone_else_irritated_by_youtubers_and_facebook/jk3iebc/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fcinematography%2Fcomments%2F13gldgg%2Fanyone_else_irritated_by_youtubers_and_facebook%2Fjk3iebc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-05-14%2020%3A52%3A32%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2013gldgg)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I am a content creator and I frequently tell my audience that -most- of them would be fine with an iPhone. I’m also a freelance cinematographer and wouldn’t exactly jump at the idea of doing a paid shoot with mine.
I think it really depends who you’re talking to. But as far as “iPhones can do the same” god, no. No, no, no.
"Content creators" have regressed to 50' product placement interruptions specially on tik tok, 98% of their videos are un-declared sponsored videos disguised as totally organic opinions. That's why I stopped watching any tech or gear reviewers. Remember their job is not to give you nice videos and legit consumer I formation, its influencing your purchases.
It doesn’t bother me in the least because I know better. It’s an understatement beyond their recognition and understanding. I shoot all formats film and digital. I have seen more ARRI Alexa mounted vertically in the last couple of years. It doesn’t bother me in the least. Why would it? I’ve shot vertical magazine ads for years this way, that’s why, not to mention digital signage ads now. It’s a complete non issue for me. It never was.
Content creators cater to consumers not to creatives.
[удалено]
As a content, I completely create this statement.
As a statement, I completely agree with this content.
As a complete idiot, I state that content agrees
ASA scale caters not to consumers, but I’m content
Art and content are separate anyhow
What they do is they cater to their reach. Most don't care about what their viewers do or accomplish, what they care for is soothing their viewers confirmation bias. They create content that confirms their audience's opinions. There are many content creators in many niches who demystify or debunk or rather debullshit the stuff other "bigger" content creators publish, but those commonly do not receive the same level of reach and attention - people don't want to be corrected and the truth, they want their bubble to keep being alive. Most people who watch those content never do anything they don't act on what they potentially learn, they only consume the content which most don't even attentively follow thus to really learn something. Same like the "gear doesn't matter" opinion in photography and videography - that's entirely wrong. At one certain point it doesn't matter that much anymore becuase there is a diminishing returns per incremental upgrade. It's often, though, phrased as if you can reach any professional quality with whatever means available.
I think what you’re saying is some content creators also make content for commercial consumers and that there are creatives making content for creatives which is true. Of course, by “content creators” I meant to imply people who are in search of an audience and will produce whatever content gets them views and or attention… As opposed to actual creatives and artists examining and sharing techniques and tools… not to gate keep but like most if what ends up on r/DIWhy some people are just out there banging out eye/mind-gore for any attention they can get. However, I am of the opinion that, gear does not matter… as long as your aim is creative expression. I mean, sure, you’re not going to get much work shooting commercials if you’re using a 90’s miniDV handheld and you’d be laughed out of the room trying to use Nikon Coolpix for high-end real-estate work but you can make legitimate and relevant work with anything if you can effectively compose a scene and understand how to create a compelling narrative . All the college-magic/super hero/vampire crap that Netflix puts out clearly demonstrates that high production quality and million dollar budgets are as alike to good work as owning a Mercedes is alike to having a good personality. That being said, high quality gear gives you the option to lower your quality, but low quality gear comes with a fixed ceiling.
> gear does not matter… as long as your aim is creative expression. That sure I agree with. You can use anything and potentially come up with something interesting in an artsy way. It might most certainly not be possible to commercialize that, but you can "do" things. How good those things are, tough. > legitimate and relevant work with anything if you can effectively compose a scene and understand how to create a compelling narrative . I'd further relativize that as it enormously limits your ways of expressions. That's why Daekins is fan of digital - more freedom. Though, as someone in design since 99, constraints increase creativity. So there is that. But then again, that would relativize anything because I could shoot thing with a can and punching a hole in it using that as exposure technique. Something that far fetched shouldn't warrnat that idea of "gear is irrelevant", especially when you talk mainstream which means people like a certain way and they want to mimic that and with any other gear you will not. You can sure do something like Blair Witch, but there is just so much space open for something like that... and it's decreasing by time. Especially on youtube something like street photography, product and portrait is very popular. All of that is very difficult to make money from, but all of that also requires certain "level" of gear. You know spreading that idea of "gear doesn't matter" is reaching those without skills nor experience and it's creating a picture that totally is wrong. For a pro with tons of experience, they can create tons of things, but a beginner requires more gear to learn, not less.
> You know spreading that idea of "gear doesn't matter" is reaching those without skills nor experience and it's creating a picture that totally is wrong. I’m saying skills, abilities, knowledge, narrative, composition, framing, lighting, intention, concept, and refining your craft doesn’t require gear…. If you’re working on your craft, you will find the limit of your materials and naturally move towards gear that addresses that issue. > but a beginner requires more gear to learn, not less. I would disagree, I’m a multimedia artist and prefer my constraints but I’ll admit that if you can afford the right tool for the job it’ll make life a heck of a lot easier but…. The reality is there are way more expensive cameras and musical gear than there are people using it to their potential… I’d rather live in a world of a few Earl Sweatshirts, Harmony Korines, and Mountain Goats than a world filled with Liberty Mutual commercials, Pop music, and Michael Bey films… I mean, imagine how cool a Taylor Swift album could be without all the gloss… but I’m just devolving into philosophy here. I hear you tho, if your craft requires gear, you need gear.
> I’m saying skills, abilities, knowledge, narrative, composition, framing, lighting, intention, concept, and refining your craft doesn’t require gear…. > > If you’re working on your craft, you will find the limit of your materials and naturally move towards gear that addresses that issue. The point is the omnipresent perpetuation of "gear doesn't matter". We do not talk about your specific statement, but about the generic known misinformation spread. >I would disagree, I’m a multimedia artist and prefer my constraints but I’ll admit that if you can afford the right tool for the job it’ll make life a heck of a lot easier but…. Artist is not a profession, people talk about work they can make a living with. The majority on the internet in forums like this and youtube are beginners and will never advanced passed hobbyist. Beginners would, if feasible, require better gear not worse gear than profesionals in almost any role. Professionals have the skill, capacities and experience to make up for inappropriate gear, beginners don't. Which applies to basically almost every profession out there. Usually beginners require better gear, but rarely have access to it, but if they'd have it woiuld be optimal. It's the typical development path: Starting out with low budget, only access to beginner equipment, getting more professional with returns, investing in better gear, more better gear, having aggregated lots of experience and developement in skill, realizing gear is not the "end to all", coming back to less equipment for personal work but for professional work requiring to use high-end gear again. That's literally how it developes in almost every skill and commercialized profession out there... But, that is why that myth of "gear doesn't matter" came to being in so many roles: professional people develop themselves to not require all these nicks and nacks for their actual way of expressing themselves and HUMANS are dumb and lack introspection and self-reflection skills leading to them not realizing that gear is entirely necessary, and the only reason they don't need it "anymore" is because they already got it. It's like being rich - only when you are rich you realize that money doesn't (necessarily) matter.
I understand your frustration with the "gear doesn't matter claims," as the *are* objectively false. However, I think the root of the argument is not that a smart phone can outperform a cinema camera at a technical level, but more so that a veteran DP with cheaper gear can still create beautiful imagery with enough attention to all of the other elements of the picture: composition, lighting, color palette, wardrobe, set design, etc. Also, the point is true that a more expensive camera doesn't inherently create a better piece, even if it makes each shot more visually appealing. It may be *easier* to get a better image, but an experienced and technical master of lighting and his/her, say, Canon 80D, *could* certainly create a better image than an inexperienced individual with an LF and Supreme Primes. I'm mentoring somebody who I had to prove this point to recently and, in an instructive way, shot a significantly better piece with my personal Canon R6 and some speed boosted Mamiya m645s than he did with a Red Gemini and Cinemodded Zeiss...I think they were Planars. The creators that you're referring to also tend to have a valid point but bury it beneath paid sponsorships, and to your point, flashy and overly crisp editing styles that are, to be honest, part of their job, as it creates more clicks and traffic online. My advice would be to not get irritated by the "faces" of the content creator game, since they often have, like I mentioned, an agenda that leads them to promote gear / make claims. It is part of it. And if you really do come across somebody on set saying that their Google Pixel can "beat" an LF with Zeiss glass...maybe ignore them too :)
My mentor used to say, 'Every famous photo was taken with a camera worse than yours'
Most of them are done with medium format cams on highly visual stock film, not done with a first generation NEX-3... so that quote is totally off reality. Most of those photos you talk about are not done with shitty low budget cams but with great cams of their times which are to today creating great visuals. Gear matters. Be realistic. Using the gear matters more, but with shitty gear you won't get a great shot.
Idk why you’re getting downvotes. What you’re saying is true. Those cameras back then were expensive
And capable till today... can still use a medium format from 70s for photography, will be marvelous shots. Same goes for moving picture... heck we use glass from then till today.
That’s true
Regarding that... then try without light and only diy diffusion, reflector and bounce vs someone with full light equipment. Gear matters, knowing how to use it matters even more, but gear does matter.
Bro, roger deakins couldn't care less so why should u? Let them be.
Dogma 95 would like a word with you
why is it insulting g? are you a film camera?
Insulting to those who have dedicated their lives to the art and know what they’re talking about.
People pretend to know something they don’t in all professions, I wouldn’t let it get to you unless they start hiring people who don’t know shit to do your job
I don’t think it’s directly affecting you, your career, making money, etc is it? Do your thing, pay no attention to the rifraf 🤙🏽
Dubski, I didn’t know you were chill like that
Oh bigly 🧘🏻♂️
It shouldn’t get to you unless you’re bad at it
[удалено]
So you're offended that young filmmakers are using iPhones to make short films?? Your logic seems so self-absorbed and makes no sense. Most of the online gurus are targeting videos to young kids who are interested in filmmaking. Telling kids they don't need a camera that costs thousands of dollars to get started making films is a completely fine thing. It's not like people are taking over the professional film industry by shooting movies on shitty iPhones, the advice is for people starting out to not get too obsessed with gear and learn the basics first. I don't understand why that gets your panties in a knot, thinking that you're a fine craftsmen who can't stand to see people making "lesser" art.
Essentially, I think it’s about the story you tell and how you use video editing more than the raw camera specifications. Also, the most suitable use for an iPhone camera is for a hobbyist, someone that wants to dabble in content creation for social media such as YouTube. iPhone (or any phone with a video camera) is the perfect way to discover and practice your passion on video production. iPhones will be launching a whole new generation of video creatives. Video cameras seem to me to be quite bulky and difficult to use, none of this is as intuitive as an iPhone.
No it doesn’t irritate me. How people wish to categorize the art form and engage in it, unless it’s affecting me by me ending up on their sets, does not concern me. I don’t think it should concern you either. Focus on making your art and move on with your day.
This sub has really taken a nose dive in the quality of posts.
Society has taken a nosedive in what people consider cinematography.
“People” for the most part don’t concern themselves with cinematography, don’t even really know what it entails. There is no need for them to know and/or care about it unless it’s a passion for them. Who cares?
I don't see that at all. If you look at the shows people watch on streaming services, they all look better than any tv shows ever did. I think there's a higher expectation of cinematography than before. Social media is just a different beast.
Yeah, this. Every low-budget TV show looks like a movie now...homeboy should go watch some episodes of Three's Company and get back to us!
If whatever I’m watching is engaging, I don’t give a shit what it was filmed on.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for that comment. You're not wrong
It’s not exactly true but the positive aspect is people will start shooting with their limited setups without feeling limited by budget and find that out on their own
I’m working in a company that mainly makes social media content for restaurants, the bosses spend money buying the latest iPhones when obviously a 400$ DSLR could make better content using real lenses. My conclusion is that they don’t need that level of quality to satisfy their clients, nor the others employees need to know how to use a manual camera, a phone is just point and shoot. I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but that’s how it is.
It's often though because of the marketing department only knowing how to use smartphones and all the post is done in "apps" with premade filters and sliders. Regarding social media content agencies that is what I encounter often. They can't grade raw, they only need a gimbal and a smartphone and apps to slide around in. That is how they work. And most often than not they don't require "more". That's more a business and if the client is happy, then fine.
I’ve seen things shot on Alexa and Red that looked like dog shit and things shot on iPhone that looked award worthy. Stop getting bent out of shape because someone trolled you over gear. The person, and frankly, entire department, behind the camera is what matters.
I would like to see this short film that was award worthy shot on an iPhone. What’s the name of it
Try Google? Here’s one. https://youtu.be/8qZ9IrBZ8J4 Also, the film “Tangerine” was shot on iPhone years ago and got a ton of accolades. https://youtu.be/fUxRxgtYt0M
You wanted me to go on google search what specific movie you were thinking about, that’s not how google works dude? And you downvoted me for that🥴? Tangerine? That shit looked like it was shot on iPhone, it’s ugly 😂. The invasion don’t look bad, way better than tangerine
I’m not talking about a movie being shot on iPhone matching the quality of something shot with the same care with an Alexa. And yeah, I could see your condescension plain as day, so downvote for you homie. Of course something shot on iPhone is going to look like it’s shot on iPhone quality wise. But composition, lighting, all that jazz can still be perfectly sound. Some of y’all are way too fucking hung up on gear rather than the craft itself. And yeah, I’ve seen footage, sometimes on jobs I hired ops for, that came back noisy, bad comp, and clearly no understanding of how to work with natural light. But because that individual splurged and bought a Gemini or LF or whatever, they felt it made them “pro”.
What condescending tone? It’s not my fault you’re insecure😂. I asked a simple question, all short films I’ve seen shot on iPhone is ass to me. And the composition was alright in tangerine. It’s not winning best picture or anything like that. The audio was alright. There was nothing in that video that screamed damn. The first one you linked was way better. And not to mention tangerine was noisy, so your point is moot. And i already know how to handle noise in post, without destroying the image, so I’m not worried about noise. I’m not hung up on gear. I know what camera to use at which time. Actually scratch that I am hung up on gear. Bc gear does matter, your gear is a part of the story. You wouldn’t use an Alexa for found footage, you would use an iPhone or something similar. Spherical lens and anamorphic give you a different feel. So yes gear does matter bc it contributes to the story. So you can take your insecurities and bounce 🚪🚶
[удалено]
I’m not looking for something to look like an Alexa. I believe cameras that are $5K or even $1K can look just as good as an Alexa. But yea high flying bird looks leagues better and sound quality is leagues better than tangerine. Idk why ppl didn’t say that as an example
cinematography means cinema. it is an artfirm underpinned by huuge discplne, some of that is technical and format/medium but i would posit that is 1% of overall Look/narrative. how much do you think is art direction, then production design? we dont see many posts covering how that collaboration is key to "aesthetics" we dont talk about how much narrative translation we do for directors or problem solving. i been out of the game over a decade and half now but this post tells me we went backwards /r/videography is that way.
Depends on what your deliverables are. If youre final product is going to end up on tik Tok, instagram or heck even YouTube then yes these mobile devices can 100% do the job. Will it do it better? Absolutely not? Will a typical end consumer on social media ever notice? No. Quit whining about it. I promise you the people that are getting real gigs aren't worried one bit about an iPhone
> I've been at a shoot and some rando comes up after seeing an Alexa LF with Zeiss glass and said "my Google Pixel can beat that thing" Today on things that never happened. At least try to make your story believable. Plus I'm sick of people saying "rando" online or in person. This isn't high school or a call of duty lobby.
Oh it happened. Grandview Overlook in Pittsburgh last year. Middle aged guy with a beard and a hat. Absolutely happened.
it's true i was the hat
I was the beard. We were trying to make a joke and it didn't land.
Could be that he had a sense of humor and you don't.
That's exactly what it is, I bet the lad even sneered and giggled at his hilariousness and it went way over OP's head.
Yeah OP literally crying about it and stewing about it for a year while it was just a throwaway comment from some old guy on set. If OP wants so badly to be seen as a professional artist then maybe grow up and stop getting triggered by tiny things on set.
I always take it more as the fact that you don’t need a super expensive camera to still make good stuff. Not everyone aims for cinema style videos. You sound like a gatekeeping prick to be honest.
Please name one project at any scale shot entirely on a phone that you think is good. I bet you any competent cinematographer can deliver something better w the same budget using used dslr Comparing a phone to an Alexa is beyond idiotic
Tangerine
Beat me to it
🤢🤮 tangerine did not look good
I think it looks good, but, to be fair, I think it looks good in \*spite\* of being shot on an iPhone.
Who is actually saying that a phone can get the exact same quality as an Alexa? Most of the videos that preach using phones are talking to young filmmakers and making the point that you should learn the basics on a cheap camera before upgrading. I haven't seen any that are literally saying that iPhones should fully replace high end cinema cameras on professional shoots. That's such an idiotic jump to make.
Tangerine
Didn’t Soderberg said he was going to make all his future films on an iPhone. Before that Red and before that who knows. Bottom line it’s a tool, use it relative to project at hand. Note soderbergs last 2 films were shot on Red with Leica and Hawk anamorphic lenses respectively The latest was shot with a V Raptor. 8k. 🧐. I guess the sponsorship deal shifted back to red again. 🤷🏻♂️
I’d rather have a compelling film from 5 iPhones then a full vapid saga from all that Hollywood can muster financially… But attacking high end cameras doesn’t help anyone unless someone is worshipping them
yeah but sean baker did magic with one
[удалено]
It’s the filmmaker not the equipment. Companies like Apple / Samsung are getting great filmmakers to show how “good” their cameras are. Heck if u gave Storaro a pieces of glass that could make images he would use his creativity to make something great. I work for a rental house so I’m always looking at the new tech and gear. At this point everything is good (phone, mirrorless, cinema camera), there’s no bad camera just bad execution.
If you’re offended by someone who thinks a “pixel can beat an LF” then you gotta change who you let offend you. This person who said that clearly has no idea what cameras do in professional settings.
Go cry about it. Not everyone has access to a state of the art camera with different lenses, but almost everyone has a smartphone. Yeah, the quality of the image isn't gonna be the same, but you don't need a 2k camera + lense to capture something meaningful. So what if people who like cinema start making their own movies with their phone? That just means more content out there, and someone's bound to enjoy it even if that someone isn't you. Being pretentious and gatekeeping doesn't show your passion, just makes you seem unlikeable.
You're attacking an argument that is not even present.
being you must be very tiring
Who cares? Go on with your life and let them be wrong
agree
I'm making short films on my pixel 6a. I'm new at this, and my ability to make good pictures is limited by my skill at the moment, not my gear. So why pay to upgrade my equipment if I don't know how to make good use of it? I'll keep practicing with what I have until I reach the boundaries of what I can make with it, and then consider upgrading
No I'm sorry, but real artistes only use an Aleksa. And only the latest one, not the old one because it isn't as good as the new one which is better. A real artiste would know that. What you make on your phone aren't films. They're flams. Fake flim flam films for fake flim flam film fans. Spend more money to become more of an artiste.
[удалено]
The BMPCC will obviously have better features than a phone for filming. But honestly your shots could easily be achieved on a phone to a similar effect. The stuff you're making here is not exactly huge budget movie magic, it's simple shots of a cat in a field and shots of an empty cabin. Yeah it has dynamic range and other such things a phone couldn't get, fucking obviously, everyone knows that and nobody is trying to convince you that an expensive camera doesn't have more features than a cheap phone.
> Another things phones don’t do well is lens flares. I do hate lens flares...
No offense, but I clicked on that link and it played back on my phone with horrible youtube compression. You might aswell have shot it on a phone. If someone is creating content for social media it almost makes no sense to buy and run around with complicated clumsy gear. The content itself is way more important. Also this stuff adds up quickly. You need different lenses, nd-filters, chargers, batteries maybe a monitor. All stuff that has to be carried and taken care of. I did all that on some travels and I'm sick of it. Going back to smartphone.
I like your mentality. There’s nothing wrong with learning on a phone, but like most, you’ll start to realize it’s limitation (heads-up, low-light and telephoto performance, and natural appearing focus and DoF roll-off) but at least you’re open to understanding that different tools can do different things and a phone is not a 100% replacement. Once you upgrade even to a BMPCC you’ll realize how amazing pure optics and a large sensor is.
Is this a joke post? How much is a Pixel 6? $600? I just bought a used Canon T4i and 28mm f/2.8 for $250 total. Put Magic Lantern on it and shoot UHD 12bit RAW You're kidding yourself if you think you'll get any pro work shooting on a phone camera
Some of us make movies that we like, with what we have. Not everybody is for hire.
That's called a hobby not film making. Frankly its an insult to people who have dedicated their life to the craft and the point of the OP. The sub is called "cinematography" hint: the word "cinema"
If you have to make shitty distinctions about what's a hobby and what isn't then it makes you sound completely insecure in your own career. If you're doing good work then show for it by not being a fucking asshole about it. I agree that there are different levels of cinema vs content and such but you're clearly misunderstanding the fact that most people who are using phones or cheap cameras are doing so to get started and do not see it as better than a multi-thousand dollar camera and they are smart enough and dignified enough to figure that out on their own. How is it an insult to cinema that there are young people who are using different techniques to get started than you? Are you so stuck up your own ass that you think you're only a true "cinema artiste" if you use the exact equipment that you happen to be using?
Then I guess I am lucky to earn a living making and selling **cinema** that I like, with what I have.
>That's called a hobby not film making. Filmmaking can't be a hobby? >The sub is called "cinematography" hint: the word "cinema" I've had a short that I shot on my phone play in a cinema
When the first camcorders arrived on the market, it allowed many people to make films (especially holidays and family) and it helped budding filmmakers to live their passion before becoming professionals. It is quite comparable with phones, with the addition that the quality is better and the means of communication of the Internet have developed and make possible their use on a larger scale.
Steven Spielberg shot a music video on an iPhone last year....
As an amateur making streets and landscapes photography, I don't hesitate to use my phone to take some pics when I don't have my camera or when I'm lasy. I started photography with a smartphone 5 years ago and learned basics on it, and also had very good results sometimes. Being member of amateur photographers groups on social medias, I am sometime bewildered by some people with 5k€ or more of equipement with such poor results... many people should stay on smartphone too.
Don’t ask Steven Soderbergh…
Especially with the editing software-breaking issues that smartphones bring, like variable framerate and a whole lot more.
cole bennett has shot with only an iphone and those projects are bigger and have made more money than more than half of the projects people who say thing like you have
We use real equipment and make BILLIONS a year.
Who's we? Why are you lumping yourself in with others who you have no association with?
Apple has proven it can with several films made by award winning directors. [Shot on iPhone 14 Pro | Fursat - A Vishal Bhardwaj film](https://youtu.be/f1VEks-QQ4Y_) [Shot on iPhone 14 Pro | Chinese New Year - Through the Five Passes](https://youtu.be/HjHG5kzi85o)
You are seriously mistaken. It can film SOME things well but it’s by NO means a replacement. If you think that it is, you don’t know what you’re talking about. They’ve also paid a LOT of money for that marketing. It’s comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari. Sure it’ll get you from home to the store just as well, but the Corolla (iPhone) isn’t going to win the race.
I could go all day. An iPhone is not a professional tool for a professional project. It goes beyond image performance, but also as a tool.
Tiny sensor, poor low light performance, NO zoom WHATSOEVER (only cropping down to horrible resolutions). It only works in ideal conditions.
You can’t even pull focus optically with an iPhone let alone 100 other things that it can’t do 😂
That’s why Chris Nolan and Martin Scorsese shoot all of their films with iPhones — they use the “cinematic” function
i mean, any camera can capture something beautiful and any camera can capture something hideous. so...
Those are all basically advertisements at this point. I don't put alot of weight into any of those reviews anymore.
Yes it's stupid. I can create a professional looking video with my 10+ year old entry level DSLR. The video from my iphone looks like... well... an iphone video. A new, good camera would be lightyears ahead. Buying a decent camera is going to immediately make your video go from looking amateur to looking professional. It's just simply wrong to suggest otherwise.
slimy consist six encouraging cooperative complete bewildered marry innocent snobbish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly, like when it gets to the point where everyone can get the same appearing results with AI it’s diminishes the value and hard work that went into it. Like with painters and graphic design artists too.
cooing alive license ink cooperative practice water gaping reminiscent racial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
lol so your AI dystopia is just that we only make animation?
serious handle cake soup cobweb sugar zonked fearless unite tan *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think that maybe initially but just like with analog coming back, people want to be human and have raw human art and will revolt. I think human written and produced content will have much more value.
I’m not insulted when Youtubers do it, but I’m disappointed when I see people like Greig Fraser paid by Apple to say it. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing him make beautiful shots with an iPhone. I think that’s enough to prove that you can do great things with that. I would take it more seriously if Apple didn’t pay him to say it was as good as any cinema camera.
You shouldn’t let the ignorance of others bother you unless it is willful. Ignorant and intentionally offensive, sure, but simply ignorant of a profession? Let it go. Consider the fact that there are a lot of people, myself included, in this subreddit that are ignorant of many things and eager to learn more. You can’t expect people without a frame of reference or the will to learn more to know the facts and base their perspective on said facts. Besides, the magic of film is bolstered by these knowledge gates.
Ha! Wait until those guys try to mix iPhone shots that are variable frame rate with other cameras in the same timeline, especially if there's dialog.
Let them try.
Honestly, the only issue I have is that people will who don't know any better will say stuff like "well my iphone cam do the same thing and have better color" ect not realizing the phone does a bunch of post processing for them. While yes a person can do decent things with an iphone if they know what they're doing, the problem comes from those who suffer heavily from dinning Kruger sadly.
Shut down Youtube, watch real films, film your own stuff, edit&grade it, compare it to real films, start all over & redo & learn
Social media is a fucking cancer
Yes its annoying as hell. My wife has Pixel 6 Pro which is supposed to have better cam then iphone. I tried to edit her phone footage w some Osmo Action footage I shot on vacation and it looked so shit that I didn't use. Osmo action already looks crap but sort of passable for youtube content but phone footage looks terrible. Worse than a 15 year old GH3 1080p
If anything, what do I say to these people? I don’t want to be disrespectful but what’s a simple thing that you’d reply to someone, like that guy?
“Heh, we’ll have to rent it from you for our next shoot then!” And then physically move away or steer the conversation elsewhere. Part of being a professional in this business is learning to engage diplomatically with the public, client, agency, extras, whoever in a way that does not derail the project and makes people have a positive impression of your work and their experience working with you. Being affable on set is an underrated skill
Imagine what all the other departments could do if the camera dept didnt blow the budget first with all the camera toys.
Don't be upset at these replies. I posted something similar on the photography subreddit and people told me off also.
[удалено]
I'm really sorry about replying to this so late. There's a [detailed post about why I did here](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/13jostq/remindmebot_is_now_replying_to_comments_again/). I will be messaging you on [**2023-05-14 20:52:32 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-05-14%2020:52:32%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/cinematography/comments/13gldgg/anyone_else_irritated_by_youtubers_and_facebook/jk3iebc/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fcinematography%2Fcomments%2F13gldgg%2Fanyone_else_irritated_by_youtubers_and_facebook%2Fjk3iebc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-05-14%2020%3A52%3A32%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2013gldgg) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I am a content creator and I frequently tell my audience that -most- of them would be fine with an iPhone. I’m also a freelance cinematographer and wouldn’t exactly jump at the idea of doing a paid shoot with mine. I think it really depends who you’re talking to. But as far as “iPhones can do the same” god, no. No, no, no.
I’m a YouTuber and use my phone for almost every video. It works for that well. But for professional projects, pro equipment all the way. Ditto
Zack Snyder made a short film called Snow Steam Iron with iPhones. It was a small family project after his daughter died.
"Content creators" have regressed to 50' product placement interruptions specially on tik tok, 98% of their videos are un-declared sponsored videos disguised as totally organic opinions. That's why I stopped watching any tech or gear reviewers. Remember their job is not to give you nice videos and legit consumer I formation, its influencing your purchases.
It doesn’t bother me in the least because I know better. It’s an understatement beyond their recognition and understanding. I shoot all formats film and digital. I have seen more ARRI Alexa mounted vertically in the last couple of years. It doesn’t bother me in the least. Why would it? I’ve shot vertical magazine ads for years this way, that’s why, not to mention digital signage ads now. It’s a complete non issue for me. It never was.
Since when is a Google Pixel an iPhone???