41–50 of 152 posts
This could have been accomplished with an iPhone 8 years ago. For a keynote that 99.9% of the population will watch on YouTube, what is this trying to prove? It's an interesting demonstration, that's about it.
So much of what people have been doing matter of factly on iphones daily for years was just pure science fiction when I was a kid.
I love their commitment to walking the walk with the camera on the iPhone, but as this footage shows, while YES it is "shot on an iPhone 15 Pro Max" it also uses thousands of dollars worth of equipment that makes it hard for the average user to replicate similar quality.
So I think the important question is though, if you had spent thousands on dollars on a camera would those lights still be required? If the answer is yes, then the feat is still an important one. I know that some lights would still be required, but I honesty don't know the answer if they needed additional lights to compensate or if they could have gotten away with less.
Important considerations include where the light is coming from, how diffuse it is, and its color.
Lights (or flashes for photography) get used even outdoors. Amateur outdoor headshots usually give the subject racoon eyes since the eyes are sunken in versus the eyebrows. Pros will get light on the face to get rid of that.
Interesting that they used the Blackmagic Camera app instead of their own, maybe it's finally time for an upgrade to the default one.
Historically, this has meant for the Mac.
But it also includes iPhone.
I wish somebody can tell me what was wrong with the video being shot on iPhone, is it visible for a professional eye that it is iPhone? I was always told that the lens and matrix size is everything. Have things changed dramatically since the time you could only make a good shot on a full-frame DSLR?
I love their commitment to walking the walk with the camera on the iPhone, but as this footage shows, while YES it is "shot on an iPhone 15 Pro Max" it also uses thousands of dollars worth of equipment that makes it hard for the average user to replicate similar quality.
The equipment is nice, but it's really the expert staff that make the difference.
Apple has massively reduced the barrier to entry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first party camera is designed to be operated by every human being on the planet. Redesigning it to accommodate highend workflows makes as much sense as redesigning a $50,000 cinema camera to accommodate parents who want to record their kid's soccer game.
I believe it could be designed in a way to accommodate both user groups. I don't mind another app but they've always been paid (while writing this I checked and turns out Blackmagic camera is free, awesome!)
This could have been accomplished with an iPhone 8 years ago. For a keynote that 99.9% of the population will watch on YouTube, what is this trying to prove? It's an interesting demonstration, that's about it.
- Is limited to a 12MP sensor (15 Pro has 48MP on the main sensor)
- Can only shoot 4K SDR at 30fps
- Cannot shoot ProRes LOG mode
You could absolutely get a great video with an iPhone 6S. Soderbergh shot all of Unsane with an iPhone 7 and FiLMiC Pro. But comparing the video quality from Unsane to this clearly shows how far the iPhone has come.
It's an interesting demonstration. That's all it ever needed to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the answer is yes, then the feat is still an important one. I can recommend watching the Better Call Saul DVD documentary, they regularly have the lead lighting guy answering questions in there. The tl;dr was to me that yes, you definetely need additional lighting, even if your camera has a massive, light sensitive sensor. I don't think anyone expects an iPhone to compete with a top of the line Arri 65 or other…
Explaining that semi-obscure reference: Barry Lyndon is a Kubrick film that famously has shots lit by only candlelight. This was accomplished by using extremely ”fast” lenses created by NASA for (I believe) the Apollo missions.
So yes extremely fast even with today's technologies.
This could have been accomplished with an iPhone 8 years ago. For a keynote that 99.9% of the population will watch on YouTube, what is this trying to prove? It's an interesting demonstration, that's about it.
It's amazing how quickly people get acclimated to what are basically miraculous technological advancements. So much of what people have been doing matter of factly on iphones daily for years was just pure science fiction when I was a kid.