[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.