[SirMaster]

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?

[conductr]

> 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.

[gamblor956]

I read the part where the people who were paid to use the iPhone 15 to film their videos told the company paying them lots of money to do that they enjoyed using it to film those specific videos.

And then I noticed that those same professionals went right back to using regular video cameras for their next shoots. (See e.g., Olivia Rodrigo...who shot 1 music video with an iPhone 15 because Apple paid $$$ for to do it and went right back to using regular video equipment for everything else. Also Sodenberg, for an earlier version of the iPhone, who uses regular video equipment after that brief, well-funded experiment.)

[FireBeyond]

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).

[spease]

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”?

[FireBeyond]

For clarity, this page is not misleading. I loved reading it, to be honest, and I love seeing the advances.

But he rest of Apple's marketing around things like this is much more "look at the videos you can create with just an iPhone and a Mac".

I get it, marketing.

[dmz73]

Well, for one, they had to take that phone out of my pocket and they didn't because it is still in my pocket :) They also had to take the phone out of their pocket otherwise all we would see if dark and pocket sand. Then of course to make the actual video you see in the presentation they had to use a whole bunch of other equipment without which the phone in my pocket would not produce the result we are seeing. So, misleading, but not more than any other Apple marketing claim. We are used to it now. The reality distortion field has not been breached so maybe Steve Jobs will return with a whole fleet of dark star destroyers to conquer the galaxy once more.

[conductr]

Oh yeah, totally agree on that point. Apple always does these "shot on iPhone" things that just don't look anything like my videos. But I also have never once been bothered enough by it to put my videos through editing software/color correction/etc. So I can't really complain.

I think it does still highlight that you can take this device far, almost as far as you'd ever need to. I think most people making videos are doing it for youtube and social, they would invest in a few smaller accessories that would cover 80% of the needs and would never need to use all of what Apple had at their disposal (the SpaceCam rig is excessive, a lot can be done with amateur/affordable gimbles and rigs). So, it's selling the fact that it's a good starter device for budding videographers (plenty of room for you can grow into it). But also not likely to convert pros away from whatever they're already using.

[elzbardico]

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]

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".

[SirMaster]

I admit I committed the cardinal sin of not really reading the article.

I'll do better next time.

[hulitu]

> The whole thing is touting how easy the pros were able to slot this in and do their normal workflows on top.

They always do this. The question was if this is what really happened.

[crazygringo]

> 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.

[zavertnik]

I think the best comparison for the iPhone is looking at DSLRs that do not shoot RAW but do shoot in Log. The workflow out of iPhone compared to say, an a7s, should be relatively similar, aside from the differences in sensor capabilities such as color depth, dynamic range, ect.

I can see a lot of potential use of the iPhone 15 as on hand as a "deploy anytime, anywhere" B-Cam. For the editor, having that B-Cam to cut away to is invaluable and for small shoots or tight schedules, slapping the iPhone 15 on a cheap tripod is at the right level of convenience to give that a shot.

[FireBeyond]

> 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]

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]

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]

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.

[andrewcl]

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

[kranke155]

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

[dzikimarian]

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

This is just marketing stunt. No idea why anybody cares.

[izzydata]

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]

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".

[kuschku]

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.

[steve1977]

> 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?

[steve1977]

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]

I think this is targeted towards low budget productions

[kranke155]

The fact that HN overall doesn’t understand is a bit revealing. The overall negativity is also surprising.

[steve1977]

But those would probably not be able to afford the other equipment and crew, that was my point.

[Shawnj2]

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.

[dimmke]

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.

[m463]

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.)

[owenpalmer]

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.