6 ms·

I don't think many people were really wondering if this sort of thing "could" be done. IMO that's not the important question. The question is, did the people

I don't think many people were really wondering if this sort of thing "could" be done. IMO that's not the important question. The question is, did the people who filmed and created the video with the iPhone hardware actually enjoy this process / workflow? Or did this process cause a bunch more pain and hassle to deal with the iPhone as the source camera? Compared to some alternative they could have used. Is there actually a compelling reason to use an iPhone for this type of work over the various alternatives?

kranke155 3y ago
The fact that Apple has done this can be helpful to filmmakers to prove a point. Ie go to your producer and say hey Apple did this. We can do it
- steve1977 3y ago
  But why would you? This is not some low-budget video, it’s a high-end production. If you have that kind of budget, your producer probably won’t care if you’re using an iPhone or a Sony FX-3(0) or even a rented “real” cinema camera like a Sony Venice or an Arri
  - Shawnj2 3y ago
    I think this is targeted towards low budget productions
    - kranke155 3y ago
      The fact that HN overall doesn’t understand is a bit revealing. The overall negativity is also surprising.
    - steve1977 3y ago
      But those would probably not be able to afford the other equipment and crew, that was my point.
      - Shawnj2 3y ago
        Obviously not but any other professional production would have those, all Apple did is remove the real camera and put an iPhone in. So any professional video setup able to afford say a camera rental and shit lighting or Bob the producer’s iPhone for free and actually good lighting can feasibly pick the latter.
- dzikimarian 3y ago
  I can program in notepad. I just don't want to. Neither I'm going to my CEO to make us do that. Being serious - there's no point in doing that, because it requires ton of additional, janky equipment and ton of extra job in the post production. See: https://youtu.be/OkPter7MC1I?si=Enx7IAFzNHfOPrBW https://youtu.be/OkPter7MC1I?si=Enx7IAFzNHfOPrBW This is just marketing stunt. No idea why anybody cares.
- izzydata 3y ago
  The phone itself looks like a pretty insignificant portion of the total equipment cost. Why would you use an iPhone instead of an full camera at that point?
  - olliej 3y ago
    Yes, a phone is a small part of the cost in this set up. An actual film camera instead can be much, much more per day. In reality no one other than apple is going to have high end professional light rigs and a phone camera. But plenty of people could use the money they aren't spending on a "proper" camera on better lighting instead and perhaps get a better final product than the historical configuration of "we've spent a tonne renting the camera, let's see if we can afford any lighting".
    - steve1977 3y ago
      > An actual film camera instead can be much, much more per day. You can rent a Sony Venice for around 250 bucks per day. ARRI Alexa is maybe twice as much?
    - kuschku 3y ago
      The iPhone 15 Pro is 1500€. At 2000€, you can get an FX30 and shoot much better quality. At 4000-6000€, you can buy an Alexa Classic, and get incredible quality. But in a real shoot, you'd just rent a full kit for 200$ a day. There is absolutely no situation where purchasing an iPhone 15 for this use case makes sense. The only reason they did this ad was so people who'd never actually shoot films can brag that their b-class home movies are hollywood level quality.
crazygringo 3y ago
> Is there actually a compelling reason to use an iPhone for this type of work over the various alternatives? For major studios? Of course not. For tiny-budget indie films, student films, YouTube comedy webseries, and the like? Hugely.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > For tiny-budget indie films There's easily $100K of equipment on that page. You can rent an EOS C700 and 6 CN-E lenses for $2000/week. RED for not much more. If you're making a tiny budget indie, you already have similar caliber equipment. You're not renting high end ARRI and Panavision optics. I love that you can make good video with such small equipment. I just think if you're doing something like this, optimizing for "well, let's buy an iPhone" over the benefits of traditional cameras is odd, even for a smaller scale production. Frankly, I think, "show us what you can do with an iPhone and a small gimbal, a couple of basic continuous lights, even if it doesn't look as good as this production" would have given a better view of the capabilities and potential.
  - robenkleene 3y ago
    I don't think saying that you can get the same results with a $2,000+/week rental is making the argument that you think it is...
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Yeah, I'm not talking a $5 million indie film, I'm talking about your $50K indie film. $2K/wk for camera rental is just totally out of the question.
      - FireBeyond 3y ago
        Your $50K budget indie film isn't going to be able to afford any/much of the equipment in that article, either. And then, in fact, it's generally more difficult to rent that stuff than it is to rent cameras.
owenpalmer 3y ago
The compelling reason for Apple is to show off their phone. Other than that, I can't imagine the workflow on set is more effective. However, maybe the team enjoyed the process simply from the novelty and challenge of it.
dimmke 3y ago
FWIW the 2017 film Tangerine was shot on an iPhone 5S and I rewatched it recently and it at least looked okay to my non professional eyes. And that movie had a lot of night scenes too. I can only imagine how much the situation has improved.
conductr 3y ago
> Or did this process cause a bunch more pain and hassle to deal with the iPhone as the source camera? Did you read/skim the article because that's the focal point of the whole piece and discussions taking place in the videos. The whole thing is touting how easy the pros were able to slot this in and do their normal workflows on top. > Is there actually a compelling reason to use an iPhone for this type of work over the various alternatives? I'd guess cost is the big one, and the fact this will be in your pocket already for a lot of people.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Well, the misleading thing is that Apple's implication is "you too can make videos that look like this with just the phone in your pocket" (emphasis mine). > the pros were able to slot this in and do their normal workflows Because you can't do it with "just the phone in your pocket". You can do it with the $50-100K of equipment you see on that page, just using the phone as the camera, one small part of the process. (Not to denigrate the camera's role - I am a photographer, though not a videographer, so I appreciate the importance).
  - elzbardico 3y ago
    Well, a professional cinema camera and a set of lens can easily pass 100K and you'll still need the 50-100k of equipment.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      You can rent a RED camera and lenses for $3,000/week. If you're a major production, then this is a non-issue. If you're doing an indie/film school short or similar, I can't see people breaking down their tech budget as "$100K for lighting, gimbals, etc., and $1100 for an iPhone".
  - spease 3y ago
    I’m not sure what your objection is here. As you point out, they have photos that very prominently feature professional lighting and tripod equipment. They even explain in a caption that they customized it for the iPhone. How is that misleading that all they used was “the phone in your pocket”?
andrewcl 3y ago
If you don't have any of those alternatives in the first place. The Best Food Review Show Ever went to Egypt for a series and the authorities impounded their video equipment and wouldn't let the team access the equipment until they left Egypt. Sunny, the host, was super frustrated but stated that the default was buying a few iPhones and filming the whole show through those devices. I believe this is the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-PgumHXWVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-PgumHXWVo
m463 3y ago
This seems to be more like people doing software development on their laptop vs at a desk with large monitor, a proper keyboard and ergonomics. (on a tangent, there are no osha-approved laptops, they are not ergonomic. To work for hours, you should have a proper body posture. You should be looking forward at the screen with your head balanced on your neck, not up or down. there is also posture for arms, wrists, shoulders, etc.)

kranke155 3y ago

The fact that Apple has done this can be helpful to filmmakers to prove a point. Ie go to your producer and say hey Apple did this. We can do it

steve1977 3y ago
But why would you? This is not some low-budget video, it’s a high-end production. If you have that kind of budget, your producer probably won’t care if you’re using an iPhone or a Sony FX-3(0) or even a rented “real” cinema camera like a Sony Venice or an Arri
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  I think this is targeted towards low budget productions
  - kranke155 3y ago
    The fact that HN overall doesn’t understand is a bit revealing. The overall negativity is also surprising.
  - steve1977 3y ago
    But those would probably not be able to afford the other equipment and crew, that was my point.
    - Shawnj2 3y ago
      Obviously not but any other professional production would have those, all Apple did is remove the real camera and put an iPhone in. So any professional video setup able to afford say a camera rental and shit lighting or Bob the producer’s iPhone for free and actually good lighting can feasibly pick the latter.
dzikimarian 3y ago
I can program in notepad. I just don't want to. Neither I'm going to my CEO to make us do that. Being serious - there's no point in doing that, because it requires ton of additional, janky equipment and ton of extra job in the post production. See: https://youtu.be/OkPter7MC1I?si=Enx7IAFzNHfOPrBW https://youtu.be/OkPter7MC1I?si=Enx7IAFzNHfOPrBW This is just marketing stunt. No idea why anybody cares.
izzydata 3y ago
The phone itself looks like a pretty insignificant portion of the total equipment cost. Why would you use an iPhone instead of an full camera at that point?
- olliej 3y ago
  Yes, a phone is a small part of the cost in this set up. An actual film camera instead can be much, much more per day. In reality no one other than apple is going to have high end professional light rigs and a phone camera. But plenty of people could use the money they aren't spending on a "proper" camera on better lighting instead and perhaps get a better final product than the historical configuration of "we've spent a tonne renting the camera, let's see if we can afford any lighting".
  - steve1977 3y ago
    > An actual film camera instead can be much, much more per day. You can rent a Sony Venice for around 250 bucks per day. ARRI Alexa is maybe twice as much?
  - kuschku 3y ago
    The iPhone 15 Pro is 1500€. At 2000€, you can get an FX30 and shoot much better quality. At 4000-6000€, you can buy an Alexa Classic, and get incredible quality. But in a real shoot, you'd just rent a full kit for 200$ a day. There is absolutely no situation where purchasing an iPhone 15 for this use case makes sense. The only reason they did this ad was so people who'd never actually shoot films can brag that their b-class home movies are hollywood level quality.

crazygringo 3y ago

> Is there actually a compelling reason to use an iPhone for this type of work over the various alternatives? For major studios? Of course not. For tiny-budget indie films, student films, YouTube comedy webseries, and the like? Hugely.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> For tiny-budget indie films There's easily $100K of equipment on that page. You can rent an EOS C700 and 6 CN-E lenses for $2000/week. RED for not much more. If you're making a tiny budget indie, you already have similar caliber equipment. You're not renting high end ARRI and Panavision optics. I love that you can make good video with such small equipment. I just think if you're doing something like this, optimizing for "well, let's buy an iPhone" over the benefits of traditional cameras is odd, even for a smaller scale production. Frankly, I think, "show us what you can do with an iPhone and a small gimbal, a couple of basic continuous lights, even if it doesn't look as good as this production" would have given a better view of the capabilities and potential.
- robenkleene 3y ago
  I don't think saying that you can get the same results with a $2,000+/week rental is making the argument that you think it is...
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Yeah, I'm not talking a $5 million indie film, I'm talking about your $50K indie film. $2K/wk for camera rental is just totally out of the question.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Your $50K budget indie film isn't going to be able to afford any/much of the equipment in that article, either. And then, in fact, it's generally more difficult to rent that stuff than it is to rent cameras.

owenpalmer 3y ago

The compelling reason for Apple is to show off their phone. Other than that, I can't imagine the workflow on set is more effective. However, maybe the team enjoyed the process simply from the novelty and challenge of it.

dimmke 3y ago

FWIW the 2017 film Tangerine was shot on an iPhone 5S and I rewatched it recently and it at least looked okay to my non professional eyes. And that movie had a lot of night scenes too. I can only imagine how much the situation has improved.

conductr 3y ago

> Or did this process cause a bunch more pain and hassle to deal with the iPhone as the source camera? Did you read/skim the article because that's the focal point of the whole piece and discussions taking place in the videos. The whole thing is touting how easy the pros were able to slot this in and do their normal workflows on top. > Is there actually a compelling reason to use an iPhone for this type of work over the various alternatives? I'd guess cost is the big one, and the fact this will be in your pocket already for a lot of people.

FireBeyond 3y ago
Well, the misleading thing is that Apple's implication is "you too can make videos that look like this with just the phone in your pocket" (emphasis mine). > the pros were able to slot this in and do their normal workflows Because you can't do it with "just the phone in your pocket". You can do it with the $50-100K of equipment you see on that page, just using the phone as the camera, one small part of the process. (Not to denigrate the camera's role - I am a photographer, though not a videographer, so I appreciate the importance).
- elzbardico 3y ago
  Well, a professional cinema camera and a set of lens can easily pass 100K and you'll still need the 50-100k of equipment.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    You can rent a RED camera and lenses for $3,000/week. If you're a major production, then this is a non-issue. If you're doing an indie/film school short or similar, I can't see people breaking down their tech budget as "$100K for lighting, gimbals, etc., and $1100 for an iPhone".
- spease 3y ago
  I’m not sure what your objection is here. As you point out, they have photos that very prominently feature professional lighting and tripod equipment. They even explain in a caption that they customized it for the iPhone. How is that misleading that all they used was “the phone in your pocket”?

andrewcl 3y ago

If you don't have any of those alternatives in the first place. The Best Food Review Show Ever went to Egypt for a series and the authorities impounded their video equipment and wouldn't let the team access the equipment until they left Egypt. Sunny, the host, was super frustrated but stated that the default was buying a few iPhones and filming the whole show through those devices. I believe this is the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-PgumHXWVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-PgumHXWVo

m463 3y ago

This seems to be more like people doing software development on their laptop vs at a desk with large monitor, a proper keyboard and ergonomics. (on a tangent, there are no osha-approved laptops, they are not ergonomic. To work for hours, you should have a proper body posture. You should be looking forward at the screen with your head balanced on your neck, not up or down. there is also posture for arms, wrists, shoulders, etc.)