cellphones and CS5 at DVinfo.net

Roy Alexander · October 18th, 2013, 02:04 AM

Kevin. Thanks for your input. I am aware of the increasing number of CAMERAS that will shoot video but I was mainly concerned with CAMCORDERS as .we know them. I have seen some reviews of these cameras that can shoot video and am not greatly impressed. Ned in America posting on the British IAC forum goes into detail. Also some British posters have commented on cameras like the Sony Black magic product which it "seems" consists of just the body, and lenses etc have to purchased seperately which adds up to a cost that many people who make videos as a hobby can't afford, and so they might be forced to use Cellphones which can now shoot video in High Def. I am not wanting to enter a debate about quality but I simply wanted to know wether the cellphone video can be transferred to CS5 for editing..

Harm Millaard · October 18th, 2013, 05:37 AM

Roy,

I recognize what you say, but IMHO everybody that uses a cellphone, iPad, compact photo camera and the like is not serious about videography. They are like Japanese or Korean tourists just shooting away unsteadily, mixing portrait and landscape or even upside down, and coming home from a visit to a tourist attraction with hundreds or even thousands of pictures and some video that they will never show to anybody.

If you use a DSLR, you are probably a serious photographer, who ventured into video land and did not know that camcorders are way more affordable than DSLR's.

Next category are the hobbyists that use AVCHD cameras or the like, weighing less than 1 KG, that have not heard of the proper use of tripods or lighting. They mostly shoot handheld. In this segment new camcorders appear about every month, spouting even bigger (digital) zoom ranges and stuff like that. Most of them are SD card based cams. They are like the 'point-and-shoot' category photo cameras.

Then you have the serious hobbyist, who generally uses a camera that weighs around 1 to 2 KG, has at least a manual focus ring, has a nice tripod, maybe an external mic, etc. Typically these serious guys use a top model AVCHD camera or even a XDCAM handheld camera, with some manual settings available and possibly even XLR.

Next comes the semi-pro, who typically uses a camera that weighs around 2 to 3 KG, has all the manual setting possibilities (focus, zoom and iris) plus audio via XLR, Often these are 422 cameras, that are also used for ENG work in the professional area. New product introductions for these kind of cameras are limited to about once a year.

Last you have the real pro's that use cameras that weigh far more than 3 KG, mostly shoulder-mounted, interchangeable lenses and record in 4K+ resolution. Here product introductions are less than once a year. What pro would be willing to write off his investment in one year?

I think that the worries you expressed are mainly caused by the large influx of newbie 'students' on an EDU license, that were lured into CC by the attractive EDU prices and that do not know anything about videography. Point-and-shoot for a student budget is about all they understand. The abundance of noob questions on the Adobe fora and they really flood the place, clearly demonstrates their ignorance. They are not trend-setting I hope.

Roy Alexander · October 18th, 2013, 08:12 AM

Harm. What you say makes very interesting reading. However there are a great many exceptions to the class of video maker you highlight. In my humble opinion, and I have been making films and video for seventy years, the so called professional is overrated. He does his job either for wages or profit, whilst the dedicated amateur who I prefer to call a non-commercial video maker makes his effort for love of the medium. There are instances where I can quote that an amateur group are more careful and accurate in their work, due to cost of production, than a professional large outfit. I recall in the days of Film, because I won an international competition in US, I was invited to go on location with a film crew from Paramount studios. I went with them and was coupled up with the chief camerman who had a string of letters after his name. After the shoot was completed I asked him when he would view the shots he had taken, He replied that he wouldn't need to look at the shots as if anything was wrong with them the labs would would put them right. I thought to myself that if that was the case why would the studio pay a massive wage to a cameraman who was no better than anyone other cameraman in the business who hadn't got a string of letters behind his name. As regards the way people with cellphones handle their equipment, I have to agree with you but the amazing thing is that they are proud of the stuff they put on Youtube. This of course is nothing new. In the old days when only film cameras were available a big proportion of people used their cameras in the same way as modern cellphone users, Full of unedited material with jump cuts,' hosepiping, soft focus and they didn't want to know how to improve the film that they inflicted on their family audiance. The audiance was just as bad ,as long as they could see themselves on the screen they were happy. Sorry for the rant. finally In my humble experience, I think a lot of the video camera and cellphone users are copying what they see on TV and cinemas. Bad dialogue, jump cuts and fast pans are the normal today. Who's making these horrible examples, why the Pro's of course

Julian Frost · October 27th, 2013, 05:24 PM

Maybe the Pros could stop this horrendous trend of "shaky-cam", and go back to using a good set of sticks, or other stabilization? Of course amateur videographers think their cellphone footage is great - they see the same shaky footage on the big screen when they pay $15 at the movie theater, and that footage was recorded by a professional (most likely union-member) camera operator, OK'd by a professional director, and passed through the editing process. People walking out of the movies due to nausea caused by shaky camera-work should be a big wake-up call to Hollywood, but they keep doing it. I guess using shaky-cam saves money, thereby reducing the need to write good scripts that immerse the viewer in the action. :-)

October 18th, 2013, 02:04 AM	#1
Roy Alexander Major Player Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 354	cellphones and CS5 Kevin. Thanks for your input. I am aware of the increasing number of CAMERAS that will shoot video but I was mainly concerned with CAMCORDERS as .we know them. I have seen some reviews of these cameras that can shoot video and am not greatly impressed. Ned in America posting on the British IAC forum goes into detail. Also some British posters have commented on cameras like the Sony Black magic product which it "seems" consists of just the body, and lenses etc have to purchased seperately which adds up to a cost that many people who make videos as a hobby can't afford, and so they might be forced to use Cellphones which can now shoot video in High Def. I am not wanting to enter a debate about quality but I simply wanted to know wether the cellphone video can be transferred to CS5 for editing..

October 18th, 2013, 05:37 AM	#2
Harm Millaard Trustee Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands Posts: 1,832	Re: cellphones and CS5 Roy, I recognize what you say, but IMHO everybody that uses a cellphone, iPad, compact photo camera and the like is not serious about videography. They are like Japanese or Korean tourists just shooting away unsteadily, mixing portrait and landscape or even upside down, and coming home from a visit to a tourist attraction with hundreds or even thousands of pictures and some video that they will never show to anybody. If you use a DSLR, you are probably a serious photographer, who ventured into video land and did not know that camcorders are way more affordable than DSLR's. Next category are the hobbyists that use AVCHD cameras or the like, weighing less than 1 KG, that have not heard of the proper use of tripods or lighting. They mostly shoot handheld. In this segment new camcorders appear about every month, spouting even bigger (digital) zoom ranges and stuff like that. Most of them are SD card based cams. They are like the 'point-and-shoot' category photo cameras. Then you have the serious hobbyist, who generally uses a camera that weighs around 1 to 2 KG, has at least a manual focus ring, has a nice tripod, maybe an external mic, etc. Typically these serious guys use a top model AVCHD camera or even a XDCAM handheld camera, with some manual settings available and possibly even XLR. Next comes the semi-pro, who typically uses a camera that weighs around 2 to 3 KG, has all the manual setting possibilities (focus, zoom and iris) plus audio via XLR, Often these are 422 cameras, that are also used for ENG work in the professional area. New product introductions for these kind of cameras are limited to about once a year. Last you have the real pro's that use cameras that weigh far more than 3 KG, mostly shoulder-mounted, interchangeable lenses and record in 4K+ resolution. Here product introductions are less than once a year. What pro would be willing to write off his investment in one year? I think that the worries you expressed are mainly caused by the large influx of newbie 'students' on an EDU license, that were lured into CC by the attractive EDU prices and that do not know anything about videography. Point-and-shoot for a student budget is about all they understand. The abundance of noob questions on the Adobe fora and they really flood the place, clearly demonstrates their ignorance. They are not trend-setting I hope.

October 18th, 2013, 08:12 AM	#3
Roy Alexander Major Player Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 354	Re: cellphones and CS5 Harm. What you say makes very interesting reading. However there are a great many exceptions to the class of video maker you highlight. In my humble opinion, and I have been making films and video for seventy years, the so called professional is overrated. He does his job either for wages or profit, whilst the dedicated amateur who I prefer to call a non-commercial video maker makes his effort for love of the medium. There are instances where I can quote that an amateur group are more careful and accurate in their work, due to cost of production, than a professional large outfit. I recall in the days of Film, because I won an international competition in US, I was invited to go on location with a film crew from Paramount studios. I went with them and was coupled up with the chief camerman who had a string of letters after his name. After the shoot was completed I asked him when he would view the shots he had taken, He replied that he wouldn't need to look at the shots as if anything was wrong with them the labs would would put them right. I thought to myself that if that was the case why would the studio pay a massive wage to a cameraman who was no better than anyone other cameraman in the business who hadn't got a string of letters behind his name. As regards the way people with cellphones handle their equipment, I have to agree with you but the amazing thing is that they are proud of the stuff they put on Youtube. This of course is nothing new. In the old days when only film cameras were available a big proportion of people used their cameras in the same way as modern cellphone users, Full of unedited material with jump cuts,' hosepiping, soft focus and they didn't want to know how to improve the film that they inflicted on their family audiance. The audiance was just as bad ,as long as they could see themselves on the screen they were happy. Sorry for the rant. finally In my humble experience, I think a lot of the video camera and cellphone users are copying what they see on TV and cinemas. Bad dialogue, jump cuts and fast pans are the normal today. Who's making these horrible examples, why the Pro's of course Last edited by Roy Alexander; October 18th, 2013 at 08:14 AM. Reason: spelling

October 27th, 2013, 05:24 PM	#4
Julian Frost Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: California USA Posts: 576	Re: cellphones and CS5 Maybe the Pros could stop this horrendous trend of "shaky-cam", and go back to using a good set of sticks, or other stabilization? Of course amateur videographers think their cellphone footage is great - they see the same shaky footage on the big screen when they pay $15 at the movie theater, and that footage was recorded by a professional (most likely union-member) camera operator, OK'd by a professional director, and passed through the editing process. People walking out of the movies due to nausea caused by shaky camera-work should be a big wake-up call to Hollywood, but they keep doing it. I guess using shaky-cam saves money, thereby reducing the need to write good scripts that immerse the viewer in the action. :-)