[zavertnik]

A lot of people here are bringing up all of the expensive gear surrounding the iPhone that helped give it the professional look. This isn't unique to iPhone as a sensor.

I work in TV and have spent a great deal of time on set shooting. The only time I've ever relied entirely on the camera's sensor and lens for a high quality image is shooting outside, and even then that requires adjustments, such as facing away from the sun, moving away from contrasty shadows, ect.

Outside of documentaries, every other shoot will have a great deal of time, effort, and money spent on lighting and set design to elevate what is being shot. For scripted projects/films, an even smaller % of shots will be shot with the raw, available light/environment.

What Apple did with the iPhone 15 proved that the iPhone can be used in a professional setting without being the on set bottle neck. For example, a short film shoot which had it's budget blown entirely on renting an Alexa will be bottle necked by the lack of lighting for the scene. Similarly, a short film which had its budget blown entirely on renting lights will be bottle necked if its shot on an iPhone 4.

The goal is balance and for smaller productions, that balance is found in budgeting. If anyone on set has an iPhone 15 Pro in their pocket, the shoot suddenly has a viable second camera-- maybe its not good enough for the entire shoot, but its surely going to be good enough as a B-Cam or even as an A-Cam in certain scenarios where a smaller form factor is required to get the shot.

I don't think Apple is sugar coating their demonstration here with all the expensive toys being used in parallel with the iPhone. The use of these tools in parallel with the iPhone IS the demonstration.

Like any good video, if its shot correctly and edited correctly, you won't have an easy time visually identifying what sensor is being used.

[vr46]

Without the expensive gear, the iPhone looks considerably downgraded compared to better source equipment. I had a Canon 5DII the day it was released and within a week some friends and I had a music video entered into a festival, and within a year, two short films, all done without any extra lighting or equipment - including gimbals. The source camera and lenses were good enough - and the look was amazing compared to camcorders - to achieve this.

Forgetting "shoots" and professional lighting, the iPhone isn't going to have the massive range of other equipment, and when you're spending literally thousands of pounds on studio time, lighting hire, operator costs, etc etc, are you really going to pick up and shoot on an iPhone when you've got a Black Magic or Sony or Canon at hand? Unless you're being paid by Apple?

I get that it's viable but there really is a lot of road between viable and superlative.

[zavertnik]

To be fair, the iPhone is not a camera, its a smart phone with a camera. There is no question that a DSLR with an interchangeable lens will beat out iPhone.

> The source camera and lenses were good enough - and the look was amazing compared to camcorders - to achieve this.

I would bet that the camera and lenses used didn't do the heavy lifting there, the selection of the location, the time of day, and the direction from the DP did. An expensive lighting setup isn't a requirement for a good image but good lighting is. Whether its natural or artificial is up to the DP.

The minimum viable quality you need for a project depends on the needs of the shoot.

> Forgetting "shoots" and professional lighting, the iPhone isn't going to have the massive range of other equipment, and when you're spending literally thousands of pounds on studio time, lighting hire, operator costs, etc etc, are you really going to pick up and shoot on an iPhone when you've got a Black Magic or Sony or Canon at hand? Unless you're being paid by Apple?

Of course not! I don't think anyone thinks the iPhone 15 is replacing the main camera on a shoot with a proper budget. But could the iPhone 15 be an additional camera for specialty shots or experimentation? Absolutely. For instance, if I'm shooting an unscripted scene with two people talking alone and I can mount my phone for a passable wide shot that can roll the whole time, giving me flexibility to shoot both individuals without losing coverage, then that's a huge value add.

I think in cases like that and in cases where people want to experiment without buying into a camera system, the iPhone becomes elevated beyond being just a mobile camera.

> I get that it's viable but there really is a lot of road between viable and superlative.

Totally agree, however I don't think I argued that. From my perspective, a viable camera is a viable camera for a job. The iPhone 15 seems viable from my viewing and it lives in my pocket while every other viable camera does not. That to me is the impressive feat. iPhone not living up to a proper DSLR is expected.

[seec]

I think it's just not true. Supplementary equipment is REQUIRED to get something decent out of the iPhone. Without it the quality really is not great at all. If you don't have any budget then you don't have the equipment then the iPhone is just not that useful for anything more than amateur vlogging type of stuff.

Also, it's funny seeing arguments about 1k+ iPhones being able to "save money" for video production when a Canon 5D MKII can be picked up for about 500 with a decent lens; and it cost less than 50 a day to rent. Results would be infinitely superior to the iPhone. The iPhone can be a camera argument to justify its price is simple pure nonsense.

[joshspankit]

Ok, but the 5D Mark II was a gamechanger and in my opinion creates a result that still beat the III, IV, and many cameras that came after.

[vr46]

Maybe. I reprocessed a couple of 5D2 raw files a year ago with new tech (Capture One 22) and the images were fabulous, no complaints. I shouldn’t have been too surprised, I was making A1 prints from the 5D2 in 2009 so the camera is more than good.

But the 5D4 is superior, from the lovely focus-pulling via touchscreen to 1D-grade focusing. Let alone GPS, dual cards and the buffers.

There were definitely areas where these SLRs could improve from generation to generation, which seems to be much reduced regarding the iPhones, since the form is fixed, and upgrades or changes are often extremely unobvious.

[gamblor956]

The new Olivia Rodrigo music video/ad was shot on an iPhone. And it shows. Even on 4k, there's blurriness, color balance issues, and noticeable artifacts that just aren't present on videos shot with a proper video camera (i.e., the commercials airing right before and after).

Yes, the iPhone can be used as a video camera. The same way that a camcorder can be used as a video camera. And neither of them are anywhere close to professional-level quality without a lot of extra work and equipment: you actually need more expensive equipment than you would with an expensive camera (and this other equipment usually costs a multiple of what a good camera would cost).

[Shawnj2]

All of Jet Lag The Game and DankPods are shot on iPhone and they look fine. It doesn’t look like some ultra high quality movie production but they also don’t stand out particularly looking bad, it’s completely fine for the content m