StokeFactor
Member
Talking to the big dogs with a good idea of what's going on
How long before drones remplacing filmers?
- Thread starter StokeFactor
- Start date
StokeFactor
Member
Accidentally posted before finishing my post but yea, is it ever going to happen and if yes in how long? Is it really interesting for companies and resorts to just buy some of these drones that can follow you (that will soon invade the market) and send them to film their athletes? Not quite sure where I stand about this but curious of what filmers well placed in the industry think.
Stuuuuuuuuuu
Member
At my resort they have signs everywhere saying no drones
13622372:StokeFactor said:
Never, no one's been able to make AI That smart and even if they could they'd definitely use the AI for something else
It's also just another tool in the filmmakers arsenal, kinda like a slider or a tripod or a crane etc.
If all companies just used follow drones like the lilly then none of their videos would be set apart and it'd all be bland and boring. Creativity and human innovation is what keeps filmmaking alive so imo drones will never replace filmers
13622800:eheath said:
You sure about that?
I can at least entertain the possibility of economic conditions pushing more businesses to opt for automated drones. The prevalence of camera technology is defined by cost factors just as much (if not more than) aesthetic ones.
When DSLRs hit the market thousands of small businesses chose to hire cheap videographers despite their terrible work because the cost benefit made sense. They charge WAY below market rate for their service, and the target demographic (who are largely unable to discern between good and bad videography as long as the depth of field is shallow) eats up the advertising all the same. Why would a small business pay a capable videographer $1,000/day when they can hire some college kid with a 7D at $300/day, especially if the net realizable value of that service is the same in the end?*
I remember when digital cameras first came out. Many of the seasoned guys erroneously assumed that the technological functionality (image quality, reliability, etc.) somehow determined whether or not it would take off. Yet you saw many organizations (who don't give a shit about any of that) opting to use them anyway because they just want to get the job done as cheaply as possible (I suspect that this is because small business owners in America tend to be cultural cretins who suffer from financial near-sightedness and don't know the difference between profit and wealth).
All I'm saying is, I won't be surprised if (when) I see a local event with an automated drone mindlessly flapping about and garnering a whopping 72 views on Facebook. Will it look bad? Probably, but that's irrelevant.
*I don't agree with this mind you - I'm just explaining the thought process of the little guy. In fact I could give examples of how flawed (i.e. short term) this thinking is from a marketing/finance perspective.
Randy_Quench
Active member
Never.
Until a commercially available/affordable drone is capable of artificial intelligence and can think for itself, set up a shot, etc we will still need camera operators and drone operators.
And before it's posted, yes I've heard of lily and it's nowhere near advanced enough to replace traditional camera operators.
Until a commercially available/affordable drone is capable of artificial intelligence and can think for itself, set up a shot, etc we will still need camera operators and drone operators.
And before it's posted, yes I've heard of lily and it's nowhere near advanced enough to replace traditional camera operators.
KellyK
Active member
13622942:eheath said:
I would argue that filmmaking is more dominated by trends. Fads are short-lived while trends come and go. There are also many long-standing concepts and techniques in filmmaking. But you already know this. I assume you're just trying to get someone to bite. Oops.
Drones are here to stay, but they'll never replace the filmmaker. Before long you'll need a license and a permit to fly them anywhere and you'll start seeing a drop-off in amateur drone footage.
13622800:eheath said:
I wouldn't say they're a fad... I'd say they're like tripods or glidecams. They're just another tool.
13623219:eheath said:
Using a tool for its own sake is amateurish no matter what you use. An instrument's role is to facilitate some aesthetic end, not the other way around. In other words, tool use motivated by its ability to produce "unique" imagery is superficial and unsophisticated. It's like when you listen to a song that sounds great until some asshole decides everyone needs to hear him sing when it doesn't serve the song in any way.
Want to be genuinely unique? End this vain obsession with whether or not you stand out or are edgier than other people. Internalize your locus of artistic motivation. If that means using a tripod, then use a tripod. If that means using a cliche, well, use the fuck out of that cliche (as long as there was some genuine intent behind it). Don't buy/sell your gear based on whether or not it's "played." You know how people who care too much about being "cool" can never truly be cool? Same thing.
I swear this mindless tech fetishism is the worst thing about videographers...
Mitchell.
Active member
13622914:lIllI said:
Some good points but real advertising or quality productions will never be using cheap videographers, and furthermore a drone is provides really one 'birds eye view' angle, like a tripod can pan. Its a tool in the kit, but will also soon become overplayed/amateurish as time goes on. I know your playing devils advocate but the small business also represent a very minute part of a. the market and tinier b. the industry looking to advertise
13623255:Mitchell. said:
You have it perfectly backwards. For every large company in America there are thousands of smaller ones. ALL organizations engage in marketing efforts of some form because marketing is the only discipline that generates revenue. And because a dollar saved is two dollars earned, anyone smart enough to keep their doors open longer than two years, regardless of size, has this natural propensity to lower their cost floor before they increase their revenue.
I'm not saying videographers will be entirely replaced. Of course Nike will keep hiring experienced videographers. They A) have a market large enough to justify the premium, B) are in the favorable circumstance of being able to afford that premium, and C) are smart enough to realize that leveraging the last two points will create a sustained competitive advantage at the cost of a measly six-figure advertising expense. K2 is also a large company (relative to the ski industry, at least) who could easily afford to pay top dollar for videographers. The difference is that they have apparently deemed the prospective benefit of doing so to be too small to justify the cost, so instead they scrape the bottom. Nike is more likely to hire a full crew shooting 35mm to advertise during the superbowl. With K2 that profit incentive is not there, so the college kid with his 7D in natural light will have to suffice.
Based on my observation in the last 10 years, it seems that smaller guys are much more sensitive to technological innovations than the big players. And since the smaller guys outnumber the big players by a wide margin, we will see changes in who they decide to hire. Videographers are going nowhere. Youtube videos will keep getting shittier. That's all I'm saying.
GrapeHunter
Active member
Like eheath said, it will pass. Its just like SD, glide cams, and GoPros. Everybody gets on board trying to make the bigger and better, and everything becomes the same, bland looking edit.