I just sold a Sony a6000 the other day. For 1/3 that price.
As for the artists in edition they either don’t know, don’t care or it’s not important or they were getting paid either way.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'28 Years Later' to Be First Blockbuster Movie Shot on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just sold a Sony a6000 the other day. For 1/3 that price.
As for the artists in edition they either don’t know, don’t care or it’s not important or they were getting paid either way.
The low light performance is terrible. They just take a lot of photos and stitch them together.
On top of that I can’t agree about the AF which is like wrestling a drunk Finn half the time (quite difficult - I have tried it).
The filming is being done for marketing, yes. The actors don't care what its shot on as it will look good enough for what they're using. I think Canon, Nikon and others make better cameras that work for what is needing to be done.
This is all true. It’s more the heart and the eyes than what’s in those hand. I’ve seen people take gallery quality photographs on cheap Kodak disposables. I’ve also seen…questionable…photographs from people on multi thousand dollar leica and hasselblad cameras.
They are limited with fixed bounds. It becomes exponentially more difficult to come up with something notable as our population grows. Most of us are doomed to some variety of the infinite monkeys theorem. Only our relatively small locality gives us out self proclaimed individuality and independence. But we’re not that good really, even the best of us.
Most artists only became notable because of some probabilistic event or a combination of hype and scarcity. That includes our much beloved popular photographers.
I suspect everyone is really romanticising creative professions and the arts but it’s no different to anything else. The majority of people involved are slacking away in some dead end job trying to differentiate themselves from some probabilistic outcome. There are a few lucky ones but someone else has done what they did already and no one noticed.
That is of course not to strike down personal enjoyment which if you throw my reductionist philosophy out of the window is fine. Nihilism is so freeing
Disagree again. I have at least two dozen photographer friends who surprise me all the time with their imagination/vision creating very unique photographs - the camera making no difference at all. The same is true with my artist friends who paint.
If one wants to believe creativity is limited, it certainly will be for that person. And that's fine with me.
Read it again.Bah. Color grading is easy if you only have two colors.
Meaningless.
This is argument by extremism. Cjsuk did not say that the gear was irrelevant, just that the skill of the photographer is more important.
Dr Who is a good example. The ropey 1970's stuff famously captivated everyone, despite its limitations. The recent era piled on bokeh and "cinematography" with a shovel, while the stories were nonsense and the characters unlikable.
People don’t understand what art is. I’m thinking about Polaroids and photos from Ai WeiWei and his contemporary Andy Warhol.
Study of Perspective comes to mind and my view in most of these posts.
Again, that’s a pretty naive view on Art.
The Camera is a tool. Nothing more. Oppenheimer didn’t use a canon or Nikon and they got an Oscar for cinematography (as well as 6 others) using black and white film.
It’s easy to say “use a Nikon or Canon or Sony” but explain why they are inherently better. “Coz” is not an answer and that’s all that’s happening here.
That outlines my point really. Creativity is a localised thing between small groups of people. A very one to one thing between people. Notable artists are discovered when someone is promoted past their localised groups by someone with influence, not because what they are doing is outstanding within the whole population. Point is more that artists that we study and see as exemplars are certainly not unique, they are just discovered and mostly by chance.
Fundamentally, thousands of photographers and artists die every year unheard of who probably produce better subjective art than any exemplars we use. However millions of crap ones pass too.
Extrapolating this back to the original point, most of the stuff we speak on this matter is fluff and subjectivity. But there are qualitative things and capabilities which are concrete, measurable and definable (i.e not fluff and subjectivity) and casting those aside wholly is quite frankly wrong. And those are fundamental limiting factors because quite frankly no one is capable of winning a battle against physics and mathematics however we phrase it.
There are limits to everything, if we like it or not. Pushing close to them is where the fun is.
I don't buy this story for a bit.
See all the equipment in that shot? The large cinema lens? That lens is meant for a large sensor camera.
It makes ZERO sense for a production of this scope to use an iPhone as the main camera when you have all that equipment around. It does make sense for a small indie film.
Probably just a "let's copy this news item from another journalist" article that originates from the film's marketing department. It's "cool" to show your film was shot with a phone, similarly to actors claiming "no CGI was used, only practical effects" (which is most of the time a big lie).
EDIT: as I thought, the small print tells a different story VS the headline and first paragraph. Click-bait.
See all the equipment in that shot? The large cinema lens? That lens is meant for a large sensor camera.
It makes ZERO sense for a production of this scope to use an iPhone as the main camera when you have all that equipment around. It does make sense for a small indie film.
Probably just a "let's copy this news item from another journalist" article that originates from the film's marketing department. It's "cool" to show your film was shot with a phone, similarly to actors claiming "no CGI was used, only practical effects" (which is most of the time a big lie).
EDIT: as I thought, the small print tells a different story VS the headline and first paragraph. Click-bait.
We're talking about different subjects, thats all.
Yes, the camera is a tool, which is why its a marketing ploy to use an iPhone. If it wasn't one, then they wouldn't be announcing that it was being used, and would just use what they want.
And a Mirrorless camera is better because of the sensor, and form factor.
Anyone that watches any independent London reporters knows. If you don't, then go to some uncensored social media platform and learn for yourself.
Again, no. Me saying many of my photographer and artist friends surprise me with their creativity DOES NOT MEAN that's the limit/bound with respect to seeing creativity regarding other photographers or painters. I see that often outside of my circle of photographers and painters.
"Extrapolating this back to the original point, most of the stuff we speak on this matter is fluff and subjectivity."
We? How about using the word "I" as that certainly doesn't apply to me.
As I said previously if you believe creativity is limited/bounded, that's totally fine with me. However... please try to not push your views about creativity and limitations onto others, in essence trying to demand that you're the sole arbiter on the subject. That's very stifling. And of course wrong.
Apple is not doing anything, Danny Boyle and his Cinematographer made an artistic choice to shoot with an iPhone, just as earlier he shot with a Canon DV camera and a 16mm film camera.
Because the Academy Award winning director and his DP want to do it. I will take their choices and feelings about what they want to do over yours.
Sorry, almost no professional movies are shot on RED cameras (despite their fanbois feelings). Of the Best Picture nominees, 1 was shot with a Monstro V as its A-camera and all the rest were either Arri (film or Alexa variants), or Sony Venice variants.
1. If you could show Apple approached them I might agree. But there has been no indication Apple have marketed this at all. That’s just speculation that is clearly without foundation.
2. Sensor yes although for video which has much lower resolution than stills, it’s enough. Otherwise everyone would use a 120 size sensor like a medium format.
3. A phone has a very different form factor than a mirrorless camera. Albeit with these rigs that’s irrelevant. But using a phone on places where a mirrorless camera will not work, for specific shots, the phone has an advantage. Having the exact same workflow as the ‘rig’ version is a massive advantage.
Typically because Arri, Panavision and Sony are more rugged, easier to rig, do not overheat and are the cameras that DPs, Directors and Producers like/trust.
We will see if Blackmagic Design’s 17k 65mm, 12k Cine full frame and Pyxis 6k full frame have any impact on that.
I am sure that the Academy Award winning director needs the tiny amount of publicity he is going to get for his artistic choice to make sure his film is a hit.
Pretty sure that was why he talked about his previous artistic choices (a Canon DV camera and a 16mm film camera). Also, I am pretty sure that Christopher Nolan had the same need to talk about having shot Oppenheimer on film. It would not have been a hit without that.
Better for what? There are small full frame cinema cameras that are easier to rig than mirrorless cameras, but given that both Danny Boyle and his DP have said it is about a look, I am pretty sure there is no mirrorless camera that looks more like an iPhone than an iPhone, so I would say that no mirrorless camera is better for their artistic choices.
Just out of curiosity, what was the last feature you shot? Was it done with a mirrorless camera? How about the last short film displayed at an industry event, major film festival or shown for Academy consideration?
Any reason we should trust your choices over Danny Boyles’s?
End result of the low light photos are on par with my 10yo SLR. The fact that it uses computational power to help in that is going to be 100% irrelevant to the end user who is enjoying the photos on larger screens, or a decade later when reviewing images.
We agree to disagree on AF. The AF in low light on my 7D MKII with L lenses attached is NOT spectacular in low light. I have sent it to Canon (With my CPS membership) for calibration more than once. It lacks the LIDAR + PDAF the Phones have had for a few rounds now. The iPhone has excellent low light AF, also better than my Pixel 8 Pro.
I hear ya, I had a 70D which I loved when it came out, the image quality wasn’t the best, it was garbage at higher ISO’s, but for its time the focus and the speed was incredible.
The focus tracking in video at night was really good too. I always made sure to have my tripod for night use.
With this attitude, I wonder why they did not use something cheaper, like a Samsung $200 phone.
Less of an issue on Nikon Z I find. My Z50 isn't great there but the Z6ii I had was much better than the iPhone. The iPhone can't auto focus at all if there are any point light sources in the dark and the LIDAR on my 15 Pro is "variable" at best.
I think you're getting offended for no good reason. I would go do some research on art philosophy and the bounds of creativity before suggesting I am the sole arbiter on the matter. It's fundamentally an asymptote bounded by reality or an artificial or subjective constraint. Just identifying yourself as a photographer is an artificial constraint. That's fine but don't get all pissy if someone points it out.
That would be an artistic choice. So yeah, why not?
The Blair Witch Project which was the first in its genre, used a Sony Camcorder, had a budget on $60,000 and is recorded as having made about $250,000,000 at the box office!
I really don’t know why people are getting so hung up on pixel quality or technology restrictions. Most Cinematographers don’t use auto focus anyway. I also can’t think of a single video project that used LiDAR. Maybe TikTok with Cats riding robot vacuum's but then I don’t have TikTok, so that might be a thing 🤷♂️
Last edited:
Not offended at all. But there you go again... now trying to push the above, now including being "pissy," on me. Again... I'm totally fine with you believing creativity is limited and bound. Be happy. Makes no difference to me that your assesment floats your boat.
I simply don't. For the reasons I've listed in previous posts. Relax.