Thank you for doing this. I don't think older guys 50 + will understand the 'look' of mobile films and why they have a place. The mobile look says: I'm in the action, closer, live and lends itself to a more authentic voice, even if it's just as 'made up' as the old way. One can also get more intimate videos because people don't feel intimidated by these devices. You can also take them to places you could never take camera! Hope the low light performance gets better!
It's a great point about the intimacy and stealth of the smartphone. The big ENG camera setup can be very intimidating when interviewing some contributors; a smartphone can be used here to capture more relaxed, less distracted interviews.
Hi ,what. Cheap equipment I really need for the mobile journalism?in my case I have only a laptop,led ring,&a techno phone,which not really good for vidéo &photo.unfortunally I cannot afford to buy a iPhone.any advices or help?.tx
Hello David! What are you are using a microphone and what equipment you need in addition? Now I was more interested in high-quality XLR reporter's microphone. thanks in advance
Видеожурнал "YouBrand" Hi, thanks for getting in touch. The microphone here is a Beyerdynamic M58 Reporters Microphone - great sound quality and a long shielded handle makes it great for broadcast; it has an XLR connection, so to plug this into the iPhone, I use the IK Multimedia iRig PRE which also gives me the option to live monitor the audio through headphones. Further information in my blog post here >> smartphonecreativity.com/periscope-for-mojo/ Hope that helps!
David McClelland - Technology Journalist and Broadcaster Thank you, David! This is the future and it is coming! The information will be helpful and I will definitely be a regular reader of your blog. Good luck you and to new tops! shake your hand
Видеожурнал "YouBrand" No, simply to record audio it should work with any iOS app that accepts a microphone input. I use the FiLMiC Pro app for filming - this has a ton of flexibility and (along with a handful of other apps) the ability to live monitor sound (listen via headphones what is being recorded by the microphone).
David McClelland - Technology Journalist and Broadcaster It's great! Good sound on the video of the smartphone - it's a great advantage! Please tell me, David. In your Pinnacle Studio meets for video editing on the iPhone? I want to install video from the comfort of your iPhone. This is real?
Just look at the difference between the phone footage and the camera footage within your own video. If amateur looking video is what you are aiming for then you achieved it. The footage taken with your real camera looks really nice. The phone footage cannot compare to it at all, and its shortcomings are obvious next to real camera footage. If you want to look like a professional journalist then you should stick with your real camera. The difference is obvious. You can hop up your daily street driven car and put it into a professional race, but you will not be able to compete against the real race cars, no matter what you do with yours. It is the same thing here. You can put a tiny lens on your phone with its even tinier sensor, and you can take video.....but it will still look like phone video. You can spend a lot of money on other apps and things to make the video look better, but by the time you spend all that money why wouldn't you just get a real camera? Leave phone video for those special moments you want to catch and don't have a real camera with you. At least you have SOME kind of video of the event.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'd argue that it's somewhat short-sighted although perhaps understandable based purely on the rushed smartphone footage here. However, I'd urge you to look to the news reports, network broadcast documentaries and professional content being filmed on smartphones across the world now. Here's an example where colleagues at RTÉ in Ireland shot this full-length documentary exclusively on an iPhone 6 Plus for broadcast earlier this year. To their credit, they don't make a thing of it being filmed on smartphone - it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter: ruclips.net/video/4VWspFw96zI/видео.html I'd love to hear you thoughts on whether this represents amateur looking video that isn't worthy of broadcast.
Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of this video. I saw the word "filmmaking" and think of narrative projects or documentaries as "films." The video you linked to is effective for a promotional clip for some show. The quick cuts don't allow the shots to be scrutinized as in a scene that takes 10 seconds or more, as we see in shots in your video here. By scrutinized I don't mean analyzed, I just mean the "sense" we get of something as we continue to look at it. The interview with the first gentleman in your video gives us time to take in the shot and notice the shortcomings of the footage. Then when you cut (in editing) to your real camera we see quality footage (better contrast, richness of colors, sharpness) that gives us a back to back comparison and the differences become obvious. As for filmmaking, I think it would be difficult to get distribution for a feature film that has the look in the phone footage. I am aware of a film shot on an iPhone 5S called Tangerine that won film festival awards. There are always going to be exceptions by people who make extra effort ( was shot with a prototype anamorphic adapter lens that is very expensive and was credited by the filmmaker as THE necessary ingredient) just like Evel Knievel. Lots of people have motorcycles, few can jump them over heights/distances as he did.Perhaps as a filmmaker who edits his own (and others) stuff it jumps out at me more than a typical audience member.
It comes down to 'right tool for the job', doesn't it. I work in television for BBC and ITV and we'll tend to use C300, XF305, FS5/7, PMW400 etc for location shoots (the shoot above was C300 - I own a Canon C100) and goodness knows what in studio. These shoots are all well-planned and appropriately resourced. However, breaking news isn't planned - oftentimes a journalist with a smartphone can be on the scene well in advance of a camera crew and sat-truck. And that's the point of 'mobile journalism' - as per the title above and the in narration here. It's not to replace broadcast cameras, but to complement where appropriate and offer an option to tell the story as it develops. And there's a budgetary angle as well - for online news outlets, blogs etc without the budget to spend £1000s of pounds on camera kits and have a dedicated camera crew, smartphones offer an option once again to tell a story. Is there the depth of field, colour gamut, dynamic range of a broadcast cam? No. But in the hands of a storyteller they shouldn't matter to the viewer if the subject matter is compelling enough (providing it's at least competently shot). Final thought from me - here's another RTÉ broadcast news story filmed on an iPhone; one reporter (Philip Bromwell), an iPhone, and a quick turnaround (but longer shots here for you to consider). Yes, from the feel of the footage I can tell that this was filmed on a smartphone, as I'm sure you can too. But I really don't think it matters either to me or the viewers: vimeo.com/134401840
That is a very effective video. Again, for the style of shots and such, it works. The contrast and colors look better in that phone video than in yours too. Perhaps more editing? If one makes their livelihood as a Journalist then I might suggest cameras used for vlogging to have handy for just such an occasion (unexpected). They don't take up much room and shoot impressive footage. One of the popular cameras is the Canon G7X. Small enough to fit in a pocket or purse and it can always be with you. For filmmaking I use a DSLR (APS-C sensor). That would be inconvenient to have with you at all times though, unless you are a person that regularly has a book bag or small backpack of some kind with you. Modern DSLR's are just crazy with the quality you can get for the money. I am familiar with the Canon C-100 and C-300 (wonderful cameras). Never used them but have seen many videos about them and footage shot on them. I am not familiar with the others, but I am also not at that level in my career yet.
all not true. Many quality movies have been made with the gear he spoke about. Brands are actually paying people to make films with mobiles for that 'natural honest look' , even if it's just as set up like the old way.
Thank you for doing this. I don't think older guys 50 + will understand the 'look' of mobile films and why they have a place. The mobile look says: I'm in the action, closer, live and lends itself to a more authentic voice, even if it's just as 'made up' as the old way.
One can also get more intimate videos because people don't feel intimidated by these devices. You can also take them to places you could never take camera! Hope the low light performance gets better!
It's a great point about the intimacy and stealth of the smartphone. The big ENG camera setup can be very intimidating when interviewing some contributors; a smartphone can be used here to capture more relaxed, less distracted interviews.
I am curious why you think guys over 50 wouldn't get it. What does that have to do with this?
Hello from Estonia. Thank you, perfect video!
Hi ,what. Cheap equipment I really need for the mobile journalism?in my case I have only a laptop,led ring,&a techno phone,which not really good for vidéo &photo.unfortunally I cannot afford to buy a iPhone.any advices or help?.tx
Another proof that less is better. Great video!
Looking so good, that was sick!
Cool creative process
Finally I found your channel. I really like your video.
Hello David!
What are you are using a microphone and what equipment you need in addition?
Now I was more interested in high-quality XLR reporter's microphone.
thanks in advance
Видеожурнал "YouBrand" Hi, thanks for getting in touch. The microphone here is a Beyerdynamic M58 Reporters Microphone - great sound quality and a long shielded handle makes it great for broadcast; it has an XLR connection, so to plug this into the iPhone, I use the IK Multimedia iRig PRE which also gives me the option to live monitor the audio through headphones. Further information in my blog post here >> smartphonecreativity.com/periscope-for-mojo/ Hope that helps!
David McClelland - Technology Journalist and Broadcaster
Thank you, David!
This is the future and it is coming!
The information will be helpful and I will definitely be a regular reader of your blog.
Good luck you and to new tops!
shake your hand
David McClelland - Technology Journalist and Broadcaster
David, need a an additional program for the IK Multimedia iRig PRE?
Видеожурнал "YouBrand" No, simply to record audio it should work with any iOS app that accepts a microphone input. I use the FiLMiC Pro app for filming - this has a ton of flexibility and (along with a handful of other apps) the ability to live monitor sound (listen via headphones what is being recorded by the microphone).
David McClelland - Technology Journalist and Broadcaster
It's great!
Good sound on the video of the smartphone - it's a great advantage!
Please tell me, David. In your Pinnacle Studio meets for video editing on the iPhone?
I want to install video from the comfort of your iPhone. This is real?
thank you!!!
what equipment are you using to conduct the street interview
Hi - iPhone with Manfrotto Klyp case, Velbon monopod, IK Multimedia iRig PRE, 2M XLR cable, Beyerdynamic M58 reporter's mic; app is FiLMiC Pro. Hope that helps!
Nice video with a good information about Mojo
love it!
That's the great
Just look at the difference between the phone footage and the camera footage within your own video. If amateur looking video is what you are aiming for then you achieved it. The footage taken with your real camera looks really nice. The phone footage cannot compare to it at all, and its shortcomings are obvious next to real camera footage.
If you want to look like a professional journalist then you should stick with your real camera. The difference is obvious.
You can hop up your daily street driven car and put it into a professional race, but you will not be able to compete against the real race cars, no matter what you do with yours. It is the same thing here. You can put a tiny lens on your phone with its even tinier sensor, and you can take video.....but it will still look like phone video. You can spend a lot of money on other apps and things to make the video look better, but by the time you spend all that money why wouldn't you just get a real camera?
Leave phone video for those special moments you want to catch and don't have a real camera with you. At least you have SOME kind of video of the event.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. I'd argue that it's somewhat short-sighted although perhaps understandable based purely on the rushed smartphone footage here. However, I'd urge you to look to the news reports, network broadcast documentaries and professional content being filmed on smartphones across the world now.
Here's an example where colleagues at RTÉ in Ireland shot this full-length documentary exclusively on an iPhone 6 Plus for broadcast earlier this year. To their credit, they don't make a thing of it being filmed on smartphone - it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter: ruclips.net/video/4VWspFw96zI/видео.html
I'd love to hear you thoughts on whether this represents amateur looking video that isn't worthy of broadcast.
Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of this video. I saw the word "filmmaking" and think of narrative projects or documentaries as "films."
The video you linked to is effective for a promotional clip for some show. The quick cuts don't allow the shots to be scrutinized as in a scene that takes 10 seconds or more, as we see in shots in your video here. By scrutinized I don't mean analyzed, I just mean the "sense" we get of something as we continue to look at it.
The interview with the first gentleman in your video gives us time to take in the shot and notice the shortcomings of the footage. Then when you cut (in editing) to your real camera we see quality footage (better contrast, richness of colors, sharpness) that gives us a back to back comparison and the differences become obvious.
As for filmmaking, I think it would be difficult to get distribution for a feature film that has the look in the phone footage.
I am aware of a film shot on an iPhone 5S called Tangerine that won film festival awards. There are always going to be exceptions by people who make extra effort ( was shot with a prototype anamorphic adapter lens that is very expensive and was credited by the filmmaker as THE necessary ingredient) just like Evel Knievel. Lots of people have motorcycles, few can jump them over heights/distances as he did.Perhaps as a filmmaker who edits his own (and others) stuff it jumps out at me more than a typical audience member.
It comes down to 'right tool for the job', doesn't it. I work in television for BBC and ITV and we'll tend to use C300, XF305, FS5/7, PMW400 etc for location shoots (the shoot above was C300 - I own a Canon C100) and goodness knows what in studio. These shoots are all well-planned and appropriately resourced.
However, breaking news isn't planned - oftentimes a journalist with a smartphone can be on the scene well in advance of a camera crew and sat-truck.
And that's the point of 'mobile journalism' - as per the title above and the in narration here. It's not to replace broadcast cameras, but to complement where appropriate and offer an option to tell the story as it develops.
And there's a budgetary angle as well - for online news outlets, blogs etc without the budget to spend £1000s of pounds on camera kits and have a dedicated camera crew, smartphones offer an option once again to tell a story. Is there the depth of field, colour gamut, dynamic range of a broadcast cam? No. But in the hands of a storyteller they shouldn't matter to the viewer if the subject matter is compelling enough (providing it's at least competently shot).
Final thought from me - here's another RTÉ broadcast news story filmed on an iPhone; one reporter (Philip Bromwell), an iPhone, and a quick turnaround (but longer shots here for you to consider). Yes, from the feel of the footage I can tell that this was filmed on a smartphone, as I'm sure you can too. But I really don't think it matters either to me or the viewers: vimeo.com/134401840
That is a very effective video. Again, for the style of shots and such, it works. The contrast and colors look better in that phone video than in yours too. Perhaps more editing?
If one makes their livelihood as a Journalist then I might suggest cameras used for vlogging to have handy for just such an occasion (unexpected). They don't take up much room and shoot impressive footage. One of the popular cameras is the Canon G7X. Small enough to fit in a pocket or purse and it can always be with you.
For filmmaking I use a DSLR (APS-C sensor). That would be inconvenient to have with you at all times though, unless you are a person that regularly has a book bag or small backpack of some kind with you. Modern DSLR's are just crazy with the quality you can get for the money.
I am familiar with the Canon C-100 and C-300 (wonderful cameras). Never used them but have seen many videos about them and footage shot on them. I am not familiar with the others, but I am also not at that level in my career yet.
all not true. Many quality movies have been made with the gear he spoke about. Brands are actually paying people to make films with mobiles for that 'natural honest look' , even if it's just as set up like the old way.