-
Edits from iPhone to iMovie to FCPX
-
Craig, you’re still not answering my question. The whole idea is that the industry is evolving now and it’s about the single individual with the Mac or iPad, FCPX, and a decent way to capture video/audio. It’s about the YouTube generation, isn’t it? Content is king?
All that you need is available to start churning out videos like that now. My question is: why aren’t you? Or are those touting that as the future wrong on this?
-
[Gary Huff] “All that you need is available to start churning out videos like that now. My question is: why aren’t you? Or are those touting that as the future wrong on this?”
It’s not either/or. It’s more ways to create and distribute. Certainly the internet is increasing distribution options.
You can even look at how distribution was once solely in theaters and then, over time, more movies went straight to DVD without much if any theatrical run and now some avenues are straight to internet distribution. It’s not simply “YouTube” but sites such as Funny Or Die (Will Ferrell, et al)
https://www.funnyordie.com/
or Blip.TV
https://blip.tv/
in which people are doing episodic shows on lower budgets then even typical lower budget syndicated shows.They don’t post their equipment lists but if you watch you might guess some of these are being shot with some fairly low end cameras and being edited on a laptop in somebody’s bedroom. Maybe one can’t quite tell if they’re being done that way. Maybe that’s the point.
-
[Craig Seeman]It’s not either/or. It’s more ways to create and distribute. Certainly the internet is increasing distribution options.
I have said nothing at all about distribution. I have talked about YouTube and “good enough.” Why are you not convincing your clients to just shoot on an iPhone and edit on iMovie. And that one project you’re having to take over because iMovie can’t cut it? (pun intended) Maybe they should just have come up with a simpler idea instead of having to hire you. Isn’t content king? Why do complicated videos even need to exist in our YouTube age?
-
[Gary Huff] “I have said nothing at all about distribution. I have talked about YouTube and “good enough.””
YouTube is a distribution channel. Are you thinking it’s something else?
[Gary Huff] “Why are you not convincing your clients to just shoot on an iPhone and edit on iMovie.”
If they’ll pay my rates and the iPhone will give me the look I want, I’d have no problem with that. I’d shoot on Pixelvision if it’s appropriate as well. I have no reason to convince them to shoot on iPhone but I’d have no problem if it’s appropriate. There certainly are enough stories of corporate clients (former clients?) shooting on Flip cameras and editing on iMovie.
I’d have no reason to edit on iMovie . . . but I do know that an editor or three have snuck in there to use a specific cheesy iMovie filter for a client because. . . . it was easier.
[Gary Huff] “Maybe they should just have come up with a simpler idea instead of having to hire you.”
Lots of people have seen that happen already. So I guess good enough is what the client is willing to accept and pay for (but not at my rates) in some cases.
[Gary Huff] “Why do complicated videos even need to exist in our YouTube age?”
The goal is storytelling (marketing, etc), not complexity. You do what you think is best to tell the story given the budget at hand.
-
[Craig Seeman]YouTube is a distribution channel. Are you thinking it’s something else?
I felt that “YouTube generation” comments were more about the look of the video then how people see it. There’s a certain “quality” about what the typical fare on YouTube is. That’s what the reference was about.
If they’ll pay my rates and the iPhone will give me the look I want, I’d have no problem with that. I’d shoot on Pixelvision if it’s appropriate as well. I have no reason to convince them to shoot on iPhone but I’d have no problem if it’s appropriate. There certainly are enough stories of corporate clients (former clients?) shooting on Flip cameras and editing on iMovie.
I’m not talking about you shooting on an iPhone and editing in iMovie. I’m talking about you convincing your clients to save their money hiring you and just to shoot on their phones and edit in iMovie themselves. After it, it’ll be good enough, right? Content is king!
So I guess good enough is what the client is willing to accept and pay for (but not at my rates) in some cases.
That’s my point. They shouldn’t be willing to pay for that. Since “good enough” is all we need now, they should just go out and shoot that interview themselves on their iPhone, then just trim it up a bit and add some pizazz in iMovie. What’s the benefit otherwise?
You do what you think is best to tell the story given the budget at hand.
Yep, it’s all about the content. Doesn’t need to be any budget, you can easily tell that story with the phone you have in your pocket and the free software that came on your laptop. No need to hire the Craig Seemans of the world when you, as a potential client, can easily get to “good enough” on your own, right?
-
[Gary Huff] “There’s a certain “quality” about what the typical fare on YouTube is.”
I’ve seen a range of quality on YouTube some of it is quite good. We’re not talking about home movies. YouTube is by no means limited to that. Video done by businesses who do marketing or those focusing on episodic entertainment are quite good. They certainly may be shot on lower end cameras (very low end).
[Gary Huff] “I’m talking about you convincing your clients to save their money hiring you and just to shoot on their phones and edit in iMovie themselves. After it, it’ll be good enough, right? Content is king!”
Many businesses are doing this. They don’t need my convincing.
[Gary Huff] “That’s my point. They shouldn’t be willing to pay for that. Since “good enough” is all we need now, they should just go out and shoot that interview themselves on their iPhone, then just trim it up a bit and add some pizazz in iMovie.”
And businesses are doing that. If the only thing I offer is better gear at a higher price, they will continue to do that. Yes content is king and a good sales person shows the client how you can improve their content. That isn’t limited to or specific to a gear list.
[Gary Huff] “Yep, it’s all about the content. Doesn’t need to be any budget, you can easily tell that story with the phone you have in your pocket and the free software that came on your laptop.”
Yes, clients who feel they can do it themselves and they believe meets their needs are going to do it themselves. Businesses are doing that and given the economy this may become more common. My job is to show them I can tell a better story so that they get better results. That’s not about iPhones vs Alexas. They just have to feel you can do a better job after you’ve shown them what you’ve done in the past and how you’d approach reaching their goals. “My toys are better than your toys” is not a sales pitch nor is it a business model.
-
[Craig Seeman]My job is to show them I can tell a better story so that they get better results.
But isn’t that “better” just a nebulous term? Are the results you give them going to be demonstratively better than if they just did it themselves with consumer gadget tools?
The writing’s on the wall, Craig. FCPX has shown the way. For a one time charge of $200, someone who wants good video can do it all themselves and they don’t need to pay people to do the job they can do now. And if they simply don’t have the time, then just toss $50 towards someone who’ll do it for them quick and easy. What is the benefit otherwise?
-
Can you imagine what that would do to the price of the videographer/stringer, who shoots for a living? Suddenly anyone who has a phone is a stringer (which is actually the case for local news in any market – if you’ve got video, the station wants it!), and the value of having the news footage shot in a quality manner is trumped by the fact that there are thousands of stringers, virtually everywhere, who are willing to give away the footage, just for that 10 seconds of fame (if that). And given the disposability of the news product, that’s just where it’s going…
Joe Bourke
Owner/Creative Director
Bourke Media
http://www.bourkemedia.com -
[Joseph W. Bourke] “Suddenly anyone who has a phone is a stringer”
FCPX share to CNN iReport.
If Apple released an API so local news outlets could add their servers to the Share function . . .
-
Joe, take it a step farther…
Now you have all of these folks with iPhones stringing news. Their primary concern is NOT any objective reporting of what is happening, it is finding the one clip that will “get them air”. That trend amongst professionals over the last 10 years or so has given us the current level of infotainment that has all but replaced news. Now, we an even larger erosion of journalistic ethics, we’re not going to be able to believe much of anything we see. Most who have used video for any length of time realize just what a powerful medium it can be. Depending on who, how, what is shot, you can tell a story that can be interpreted with a wide variety of slants. While I think “eyewitness” video certainly has a place in a story, replacing a trained journalist just seems like a bad idea. Sadly, we’ve become a society that prefers sensationalism over truth. Perhaps this trend will swing the pendulum to such an extreme that we will once again crave REAL honest objective reporting from professionals. I’m afraid we might not have reached that apex yet.
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
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up