-
Edits from iPhone to iMovie to FCPX
-
Not everyone is making money from YouTube, but some are
One of my 14 year old cousins recently pointed me at some of the shows they watch on YouTube, they aren’t sophisticated, there certainly isn’t Hollywood production values but they are getting millions of views and this makes money.
I have a YouTube Channel as a hobby, I re-edit some of the material we sell on DVD and upload it, I’ve had 2 million views this year and the Google Ad money paid for our family holiday.
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
Great, Steve! So are you shooting on an iPhone 4 yet as your primary camera?
-
Those are the lucky ones. The fact is, if you look at the statistics of the average YouTube post, it is below 100 views. And the simple fact is that 99.9% of what is posted to youtube is unwatchable crap. If anything, IMHO, the vast proliferation of “homemade” video has made it tougher on independents with little money to get their work recognized.
In a lot of ways, I think the discipline of film making has gone out the window with all these user-friendly computer apps that can add surface gloss to the work of even the most dimwitted “auteur.”
Right now, you have more chance of making money off of youtube with a minute-long video of your cat doing something cute, than planning and executing a well thought-out scenario.
Thus endth the rant. -
Every one says, “small camera’s COULD do the the job”. My question is, if they can then why don’t they? I see more iPhones/Go Pro/Cell cams out in the world than there ever has been, yet I’m not seeing them used for much more than POV and quick, incidental broll. Sure there are the odd production pieces shot with this type of device, but a large part of their draw is the simple fact they were shot using this format. Perhaps it’s because even the best of them are limited in what kind of shot you can make with them… typically. Sure, you could put your iPhone on a tripod, but then you’re carrying more stuff, and if you’re going to carry that much more stuff, why not just get the right tool for the right job?
Also…. I have a firm belief that most people just aren’t that interested in SHOOTING video. They’d rather “be the camera”. I’m talking about those not “in the business” I’m talking the vast consumer hoards that Apple seems to be targeting with FCPX. Face it, shooting a camera of any kind removes you somewhat from your environment. No matter how small, or convenient most humans opt to experience their lives in that moment, not record it for some later time.
All the tools in the world will not create more QUALITY production people. Only time spent practicing will do that. Say what you will about what FCPX/iPad/iPhones may do, at the end of it, those with experience will reach for the right tool for the right job. Those without will try this stuff and learn that in many instances, it is NOT the right tool.
Funny, seems like every 10 years or so, some company thinks they have THE product that will finally interest the majority of consumers to finally pick up a video camera and start making feature films. When will they ever learn it’s NOT about the tools, it’s about the way humans are wired. We’re not designed to experience our world looking through a lens. This is a wholly unnatural obsession we have for this stuff and I think most in this business loose sight of that over time. Not everyone is as interested in this as we are and FCPX will not change that. Just because we’ve raised an entire new generation with the access to good cheap production equipment doesn’t mean an appreciably larger percentage will choose this as a livelihood.
While I know that’s not the implication of the original post, I see some suggestion of that in the digression that follows. For those who do practice this as a livelihood, and need the flexibility to do the most with the least gear, do you really see having all of the minutia required to support and use iPhone/iPad/Air/Desktop in any regular on-going basis? Yes, we are a gadget oriented set of geeks, but at the end of it, most will end up gravitating to the least gear which gives us the greatest capabilities. While it is true FCPX/iPad/Air will continue to add capabilities, so will more traditional equipment such as laptops and desktops. What will you end up with at the end? The least that does the most.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
Marvin –
I think you hit the nail right on the head! If indeed these tools can do the job, someone will use them. If I had a nickle for every person who thought you just bought editing software, and then you were and editor, I’d be rich. Every one of these tools should have a warning on the side saying “Talent Not Included!”.
That said, I personally use software which set me back over 2000 dollars (3DS Max), and software that cost me 39 dollars (CrazyTalk Pro). If it does the job, doesn’t cause too many workflow problems, and is a reliable part of a stable of tools that make you money, I say go for it.
The viewer can’t tell what something was shot, composited, or edited, on. It’s all about talent and storytelling abilities. That said, it’s also really easy to get hung up on the “if I only had…” syndrome. It can put you in a holding pattern forever, waiting for the grail to show up. Get the tools you can afford, and apply talent.
Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com -
Well that’s the deal isn’t it? All these people touting professional uses for consumer gadgets don’t go out and practice what they preach.
“Oh, I use an iPhone here and there when there’s not other option for the footage I want to use.”
There is no reason why you can’t shot an entire project using an iPhone and editing it on iMovie on the iPad…except for the fact that it won’t look or sound that great. But I thought “just good enough” was the mantra here? YouTube taught us that, hasn’t it? It just has to be “good enough”, “content is what matters” yadda yadda yadda. So why don’t people shoot with the iPhone as their “A” cam? Sure it doesn’t have highlights, lots of jello, not much in the way of manual controls, but so what? Isn’t it good enough? Why aren’t more people who make their money from editing/shooting/ect. editing projects on iMovie on the iPad? Sure it can’t do that much, but can’t it get you to “good enough”?
-
[Gary Huff] “There is no reason why you can’t shot an entire project using an iPhone and editing it on iMovie on the iPad…except for the fact that it won’t look or sound that great. But I thought “just good enough” was the mantra here?”
No, practicality and budget are involved. In many ENG situations an iPhone will get you video you simply can’t get otherwise. iPad may allow editing in locations where a laptop may be impractical. There are many highly “professional” situations where portability trumps big iron.
Sometimes it’s a mater of budget and someone is just making do. They may even capitalize on apparent “weaknesses” as part of the “look” if they are creative.
-
So, Craig, why can you not just go to using the iPhone as the “A” camera. Isn’t it good enough?
-
[Craig Seeman] – “There are many highly “professional” situations where portability trumps big iron.”
The definition of “many”, for those NOT in ENG, is “few”. That’s the problem. Granted, it’s become an affordable solution when you need a crash POV, or something quick and covert. But honestly, if you’re doing EFP, how often is that? As a freelancer, you can probably adapt it as a specialty, but as a facility or station, it becomes cliche VERY quickly on air. Cheap enough to use occasionally, as a novelty, but detrimental when over used.
Marvin Holdman
Production Manager
Tourist Network
8317 Front Beach Rd, Suite 23
Panama City Beach, Fl
phone 850-234-2773 ext. 128
cell 850-585-9667
skype username – vidmarv -
[Gary Huff] “So, Craig, why can you not just go to using the iPhone as the “A” camera. Isn’t it good enough?”
It may be for someone on a limited budget or deliberately wants that look. There were good movies shot on PD-150 for example. In other cases cameras play a role in the look of parts of a movie. The Sony EX cameras in District 9 is one example. I can imagine someone doing a movie about the “Arab Spring” shot mostly with a smartphone to deliberately get the YouTube video look of the videos that were actually posted.
It becomes another tool in the tool chest. Sometimes ruled by creative intent, sometimes budget. In those situations it may well be an “A camera.” It won’t be for most other things though.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up