It’s being produced by Columbia Pictures.
Making it, by definition, a Hollywood production.
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
Making it, by definition, a Hollywood production.
"Blockbuster" is probably a stretch.
Hammering out a film on non traditional cameras was done in one of the series as the article mentioned, as was Blair Witch Project to an extent and many others.
The feature was it was meant to be more raw, POV-type hand held cinematography, not just convenience. In this case if you want the raw iPhone experience, at various points the camera should be rotated as the has to check their emails and notifications.
Hammering out a film on non traditional cameras was done in one of the series as the article mentioned, as was Blair Witch Project to an extent and many others.
The feature was it was meant to be more raw, POV-type hand held cinematography, not just convenience. In this case if you want the raw iPhone experience, at various points the camera should be rotated as the has to check their emails and notifications.
Yes, that will be interesting.
A brand new Pyxis is ~$3,000, about ~$1,400 more than an iPhone 16 Pro with 1TB. Not sure you save much after you add the cost of the iPhone lens mounts, cages, etc., nor am I clear what the benefit would be. One can get a Blackmagic Pocket Pro 6K Cinema used with lenses and a cage, for less than an iPhone Pro. Just not sure this opens anything new. As an artistic choice, I am totally happy to see the results, as a competitor to inexpensive cinema cameras, not sure of the benefits.
I do find it funny that you compare it to a Blackmagic camera, the company that has done the more to democratize production than anyone out there.
Sorry, these are not being shot on second had L-mount lenses. From watching several of the Shot on iPhone commercials one can see they are shooting with Zeiss Supremes or Arri Signatures. However, if one is comparing the cost of used lenses, then one should also be looking at used cameras and at that point the cost difference between the iPhone and the inexpensive cinema cameras disappears, but most of the advantages for the cinema cameras remain.
Anyone who looks at this project and thinks: “Wow, I can buy an iPhone and make a film that looks like that.” is delusional. As the saying goes: “Roger Deakins can shoot a better film with the backup camera of a Prius, than most DP’s can shoot with an Alexa 35.” This just shows that a very talented crew with a lot of money and support can take some of the constraints away from shooting on an iPhone. There have been some very interesting projects shot with just an iPhone (not an iPhone and lots of extra gear), that show what can be done. These projects with very expensive rigging are not really meaningful examples.
My question to you is what benefit do you see in using the iPhone?
The gear surrounding the camera for a professional shoot dwarfs the cost of the device (even if one gets it inexpensively). An unrigged iPhone would let you shoot run and gun in some places that one could not go with an Alexa 35, but in many of those places, a Blackmagic Pocket Pro 6K Cinema without an elaborate cage can work as well.
So many expert cinematographers here passing judgement. Without bothering to understand the reasoning behind the decision.
Not really. It is a testament to how little the camera matters.
No one outside the camera department would care at all.
Spot-on!
Same as a photograph that connects with viewers and conjures a narrative that stirs their imagination, has very little to do with the camera used.
No more so than saying that something was shot on an Alexa 35 when they added $150,000 Signature Primes. It just does not show anything other than talented people with appropriate gear can make movies.
Last edited:
Actually, people on both sides of the argument seem not to get it. If it is being done for artistic reasons like the FaceTime episode of Modern Family, it is great. If it is done as a gimmick, it is a waste.
Last edited:
Even at 3x and 4x zoom it is a problem. Cropping means you lose most of the light and most of the resolution, while a real camera with a real zoom will use all pixels.
Apple also cheats with the f-stop. They quote the full frame equivalent of the focal length, but use the real focal length in the formula for the f-stop. So they say the main camera is 26mm and f/1.6 for example. That is a blatant lie. The real f-stop is in the range of f/20 or worse.
Whatever happened to 28 months later??
Apple definitely chipped in a lot of cash to make this happen. It just doesn’t make sense once you have a rig that big with all those lenses to not use a large 8K sensor that is less noisy, allows for better creative cropping in post, has better dynamic range, has greater depth of field, and is less of a PITA in general to work with. With this you lose all the benefits of a tiny rig. A RED Cinema camera doesn’t add much more bulk to this setup, and with a 75 million dollar budget there is no reason to not use one.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Apple ends up with exclusive streaming rights for this after the theatrical release, on Apple TV+.
Apple definitely chipped in a lot of cash to make this happen. It just doesn’t make sense once you have a rig that big with all those lenses to not use a large 8K sensor that is less noisy, allows for better creative cropping in post, has better dynamic range, has greater depth of field, and is less of a PITA in general to work with. With this you lose all the benefits of a tiny rig. A RED Cinema camera doesn’t add much more bulk to this setup, and with a 75 million dollar budget there is no reason to not use one.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Apple ends up with exclusive streaming rights for this after the theatrical release, on Apple TV+.
I’m hoping for a remaster because i’m also on the lookout for the digital version
$1000 phone, $20000 in lenses and support gear, and $1000000 in post production to clean up the noisy, mushy footage
This is a marketing gimmick
This is a marketing gimmick
I seem to remember reading an article at the time that while they shot the original on Canon XL1s, didn't they also have a lot of extras tacked onto them too? As someone who used Canon XL1s at the time, I could never get them to look anywhere near as good as the footage from 28 Days Later.
My iPhone camera is amazing on my 14 Pro Max it’s brilliant and takes excellent photos and videos, but I’m an amateur and I point and click, and my iPhone is the camera I always have with me.
I do NOT expect it to match a pro digital SLR or pro cini camera from RED or Canon etc. a camera where you need experience and training to get the most out of as it’s designed for pros. I totally agree with your comment, for a 75 million budget I think they could afford to hire some pro camera’s.
There's only so much you can accomplish with a tiny sensor.
Quite frankly, I think the quality we can get from these tiny things is miraculous already.