Hacker News Reader

Comment by vailripper | Hacker News Reader

It seems a bit silly to use a video clip created with a 1k slow mo dolly and another 1k in video editing software. For some reason I just don't see the average user using that equipment....

And even with that....it doesn't really look that amazing?

View on HN

FTA: "[...] the final video was edited in Adobe After Effects CS5. The only processing done on the original footage was to speed it up in the first clip."

Unless you disbelieve the quote, I think that invalidates the idea the this was "unfairly" (or whatever) post-processed.

I gotta say, I'm stunned at the level of grousing here. This is amateur video (Romain Guy is an Android developer, not a designer nor marketing/PR) shot with a phone, and it looks fantastic to me. I've never seen an equivalent. If there are better demos, folks, post some links!

The point (edit: that they're trying but failing to make) is that you could replace the $5,000+ camera that you would normally use in those shots with this <$1,000 phone.

but....you clearly couldn't. There is still a massive difference in quality between a cell phone and a pro level video camera, and this shows it.

That's totally subjective though. If the masses agree that this video is as good as a $5k pro camera then almost by definition, you could.

Its been proven often enough that the masses will take cheap over quality in (almost) any scenario (unless you're talking about a niche market). Sometimes good enough is just that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com