Cameras on LTT

[mousesnob]

Dont know if this topic has been done do death or not

Is it just me or is the video quality on this video: (shot on a phone)

 Not significatly better than this one: 

 

 

I understand youtube isnt exactly perfect for maintaining the quality, and having higher resolution makes it easier to make it not look bad in editing so its absolutley understandable why they have them, however, i honestly cant really see much difference except maybe colors on a 14" 1440p display. Seems like diminishing returns kicks in pretty fast.

[minibois]

what clips of the Ursa 12K camera video do you think make it look similar to the phone shots in the first video?
I think the phone video looks significantly worse, on a 4K and 1080p, 27" and 24" (respectively) monitor.

[mousesnob]

Just now, minibois said:

what clips of the Ursa 12K camera video do you think make it look similar to the phone shots in the first video?
I think the phone video looks significantly worse, on a 4K and 1080p, 27" and 24" (respectively) monitor.

On the top video i can see that its shot with a proper camera so basically any point beyond that in the first vid. And for the second i mean the parts where it isnt linus in a good lit setup. Colton at the end for example.

 

Im not saying theyre equal, but i honestly dont think the phone is that far behind.

[minibois]

2 minutes ago, mousesnob said:

On the top video i can see that its shot with a proper camera so basically any point beyond that in the first vid. And for the second i mean the parts where it isnt linus in a good lit setup. Colton at the end for example.

 

Im not saying theyre equal, but i honestly dont think the phone is that far behind.

for normal use they'd probably be seen as equal, but I think the phone looks much worse, in terms of the blur, resolution (as in the definition between Linus and the background), the color depth and more.

 

that color depth part might be because the phone video is not shot in a RAW type of format.

you might say "comparing color depth/feel/warmth/etc. is unfair because color grading differences!" and that's true, because a more compressed format like .mp4 doesn't allow for as much tweaking of the colors in post.

 

so sure, a phone might looks adequate for some quick point and shoot, I think it's certainly not in the same realm as a high-end cinema camera, or even in the realm of a good consumer camera.

the phone camera is just much blurrier (although of course the same mount is not used), lower resolution, lower perceived color depth (with no way to tweak it), which makes it look much worse.

[AnomalyDesign]

The main benefit of using very high resolution cameras is the flexibility when editing. In LTT (and especially Short Circuit) videos you can see that they frequently cut between tight framing of products, screens, facial reactions of the talent, etc. These are often done by using a single wide take, and punching in using editing software after the fact. You need very high resolution and sharp source material to be able to do that sort of dramatic cropping without it being obviously blocky/blurry. 

 

So while the differences may not be obvious if you are using the full frame of the phone cam vs a higher resolution camera, when you use these tight crops, the differences become clear even over YouTube, or on a small screen. 

[Mihle]

The real camera look much much better.

[RAS_3885]

Phone cameras have certainly come a long way, but a real camera (with good lenses) is still miles better. The two example videos above are clearly different levels of image quality, both in sharpness, color, contrast, and dynamic range.

 

Let's not forget, WE BOUGHT A 12K CAMERA FOR YOUTUBE! is going to be far more interesting to people looking for tech content than "lol we filmed this Youtube video on an iPhone".

 

Do they NEED 12k? Of course not. But it's also allowed them to branch into other tangential topic to make content with, such as the editors workstation upgrades, server upgrades, and networking upgrades.