3 ms·
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
by 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 agoBut 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 agoI think this is targeted towards low budget productions
- kranke155 3y agoThe fact that HN overall doesn’t understand is a bit revealing. The overall negativity is also surprising.
- steve1977 3y agoBut those would probably not be able to afford the other equipment and crew, that was my point.
- Shawnj2 3y agoObviously 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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 agoYes, 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 agoThe 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.