Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Soderbergh's 'Unsane' shot with an iPhone - great story, not sure about the image

Karim D. Ghantous

Karim D. Ghantous

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
2,682
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Location
Melbourne AU
Phone sensors just don't cut it for serious work, IMO. Now, the trailer looks good (I watched it in HD on a 24" LCD) for the most part. I don't like the way that even expensive digital cameras capture light sources, and the iPhone just makes it worse.

I also don't have confidence in the iPhone's capability to produce images that can be enlarged. However, video files look okay.

The biggest problem is not the sensor but the lens - some setups look like shit if a wide-angle is used. You need a standard or telephoto. This has nothing at all to do with DOF, but with where the camera is and how the subject moves. Does anyone know of an app that uses the iPhone's portrait camera to shoot video? If you can have access to both cameras (in the models that have them) then you're good to go.

https://filmschoolrejects.com/unsane-trailer/
 
It looks like a really atmospheric and interesting film but from a visual stand point it hasn't gripped me. interesting to see on the big screen.
I guess he did it to show that as a talented storyteller you can use almost anything and turn it into something interesting, which seems to be the case here.
 
Yeah maybe Hydrogen will turn the tides, the iphone will not.
 
I saw the trailer too and, as far as look goes, for the most part thought, "Meh". Don't get me wrong, for an iPhone film, it looks terrific and I would like to see it on the big screen! However, in the trailer you can tell that it looks like some scenes must have been filmed earlier on before they really got it figured out to look decently cinematic. I've made stock footage using phones before, mostly my Nokia Pureview 808 for both its overall quality and native 24p video, and had good results for that purpose but unless I'm using some wide angle and telephoto setup like the Zeiss Exolens setup or the Moondog Labs anamorphic lens, I just don't see myself making movies with a phone because it does mostly harken back to the video look we've all been trying to get away from for so long. Still, I applaud the ingenuity and I would very much like to read the "American Cinematographer" issue on it for sure and, like I said, I'd love to see it on the big screen if it plays in my area. There's much to be said for making a movie on our everyday phones now that they have 4K and variable frame rates but, much like one particularly old but well regarded filmmaking book says, just because you can film an hour and a half of footage (in the book it was on Mini-DV tape) and edit it into a movie, doesn't mean it's a good looking movie or one worth watching. But, in the case of this movie, it looks like they went all out and it has a pretty big and creative name behind it so compared to the everyday person it's hard to draw comparisons, haha!
 
this is a funny one, in reading the website, filmschoolrejects, has the quote by Soderbergh, 'I think this is the future. Anybody going to see this movie who has no idea of the backstory to the production will have no idea this was shot on the phone. That’s not part of the conceit.

just the word 'conceit', has a few meanings and I would assume he's referring to it meaning, being that it's, 'an artistic effect', but it can also be defined as, 'excessive pride in oneself'... and when you decide that you're beyond the critic of anyone and begin gerrymandering your artistic project, they sometime can be genius, but in this situation, you would have to start off being a genius and that begins the fallacy. I mean, you can fill a hall full of children in Utah and pretend to be reinventing the wheel, but at the end of the day you have forty thousand movie theaters and audience that don't care about the conceit, but about the quality
 
A few thoughts
- He’s probably correct that if the story is good, the sound is good most people will not pay attention to the differences in iphone vs hi end cinema cam. Unless of course the iPhone footage is shot really badly and the audience can’t help but be distracted by it. Those of us who make content are not always free from our bias when it comes to our cinematic expectations. Having said that, current audiences are more cine literate and far more aware of the process of making movies than ever before. But in the case of Unsane, I think they will accept it if they like the story and buy into the characters.
- That article mentions shots we haven’t seen before, almost indicating that because of the iphone they were able to get unique shots. I didn’t feel that way at all about the trailer.
- That music sounds really familiar...:-)
- I get why Steven is trying it. I’m just curious what he gains from it. iPhone films have been done before. What advantages did this gain him? I would rather have seen a different camera, Hydrogen prototype for example. :-)
 
Sergio Perez said:
Sounds like a great marketing stunt, not unlike 28 days later and it being shot with a Canon XL1. Maybe his next phone project will be with a certain Hydrogen...
Click to expand...

I liked 28 days later since back then I was shooting with dv. I would not been to keen to watch 28 days later now days. The same goes with Iphone movies, If you only watching youtube on poor internet connection, then this will work for you. Maby it meant to be watched on the iPhone itself...

Sorry Soderbergh but I think you had been better of using black magic pocket camera or something instead. Hopefully Hydrogen flips everything what is possible to do with a ridiculous little phone/media device.

Sorry for posting this old video for the third time... but its exactly how I feel, and still I say the same goes with shooting with phone. Hopefully I can change my view when Hydrogen gets here.
David Lynch on iPhone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
 
Why would any filmmaker limit himself, by shooting with a phone in the first place, it makes everything so much more complicated.

IMHO this is just a PR stunt. Headlines for the film, headlines for the (bad selling) phone - everybody wins.

Did anybody find some behind the scenes material or pics? I had zero luck with that.
Must be a very tight non disclosure thing.
 
Smells like shill spirit.
 
Sergio Perez said:
Sounds like a great marketing stunt, not unlike 28 days later and it being shot with a Canon XL1.
Click to expand...
I had no idea what it was shot with until after I saw it. There was nothing wrong with the image - no surprise, as the XL1 has 3 chips.

Joe Cage said:
Yeah maybe Hydrogen will turn the tides, the iphone will not.
Click to expand...
But Hydrogen isn't merely a phone with a relatively good camera. It's a phone that will have a really good camera built into it.

Steve Sherrick said:
- He’s probably correct that if the story is good, the sound is good most people will not pay attention to the differences in iphone vs hi end cinema cam.
Click to expand...
Good point about sound - people care more about sound than vision, within reason.

And you can certainly get shots with the iPhone that you could not get with a Panaflex. It's just the way the cameras are built. Try as hard as you want, you'll never get exactly the same shot with both.

Joel Arvidsson said:
Sorry Soderbergh but I think you had been better of using black magic pocket camera or something instead. Hopefully Hydrogen flips everything what is possible to do with a ridiculous little phone/media device.
Click to expand...
Basically yes, imagine the BMPCC made even smaller. Or imagine the iPhone without the phone, as just a programmable camera.

The iPhone is to DSLRs what the Dragon is to the Alexa 65. 90% of the quality, more features, 10% of the size, and at far less cost. You would be mad to pass on that deal.

Frank Glencairn said:
IMHO this is just a PR stunt. Headlines for the film, headlines for the (bad selling) phone - everybody wins.
Click to expand...
The word 'business' is twice as long as the word 'show'. ;-)
 
Steve Sherrick said:
- That article mentions shots we haven’t seen before, almost indicating that because of the iphone they were able to get unique shots. I didn’t feel that way at all about the trailer.
Click to expand...

Steve,

You make some good points. I too wondered about the point I've quoted above. I really wanted to see or know about these "unique shots" that were mentioned...I hope it wasn't just advertising spin...

Karim D. Ghantous said:
The word 'business' is twice as long as the word 'show'. ;-)
Click to expand...

Karim,

Thanks for this quote. I'll have to remember it. It made me smile. :)
 
I think the general idea that can be drawn from this is primarily that the smaller high tech gear gets, the easier it is to just shoot. If something gets z depth calculation for depth of focus, 8K resolution and 20 stops of DR in a future phone, few of the normal movie goers would be able to spot the difference between that and something else.

But in general, it comes down to the art itself. When writing became public knowledge, not all became writers. When typewriters came into being, still not all became writers. Same goes for cameras, most people have regular still cameras better than any other still professional camera the last hundred years and still they're shite at photography. Shooting on a phone now looks crap, but imagine 10-20 years from now when maybe everyone has 8K in their pocket with the same image fidelity as a Monstro... still only those who knows the art would succeed in making a movie.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
This is the reason why so many fail at filmmaking... they think the gear make the movie for them.
Click to expand...

Yup, for Owner Operators (OO) we are at the point of diminishing returns. Any 2018 Pro Level camera will produce a nice result and can be graded to be what ever you envision. 8K is great for those in VFX heavy movies to pull peach fuzz level keys . . . which is not typically the OO domain. I could have a budget of $350M, all the best talent working for me and would still not be David Fincher. Some folks just have the life script and internal wiring to be great at certain things. The gear and circumstance is never the issue with those chosen few
 
Zeb B said:
Some folks just have the life script and internal wiring to be great at certain things. The gear and circumstance is never the issue with those chosen few
Click to expand...

Yeah, but this project is annoying because it wasn't made to make that point. Particularly in the iPhone X era, there are literally cameras *less* expensive than an iPhone that would've produced better images and been far easier to work with. This was a cross-promotional marketing stunt aimed at getting the attention of mid-90's-and-later babies who watch everything *on* an iPhone and have no appreciation of anything.
 
Joel Arvidsson said:
I liked 28 days later since back then I was shooting with dv. I would not been to keen to watch 28 days later now days. The same goes with Iphone movies, If you only watching youtube on poor internet connection, then this will work for you. Maby it meant to be watched on the iPhone itself...

Sorry Soderbergh but I think you had been better of using black magic pocket camera or something instead. Hopefully Hydrogen flips everything what is possible to do with a ridiculous little phone/media device.

Sorry for posting this old video for the third time... but its exactly how I feel, and still I say the same goes with shooting with phone. Hopefully I can change my view when Hydrogen gets here.
David Lynch on iPhone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiIroiCvZ0
Click to expand...

The David Lynch comment left me thinking that there could be a way of editing a movie for the specific purpose of watching it on a smaller screen. I get what he's saying that you have to watch a movie as "Big" to get the full impact. Just wondering if there may be ways to edit for the smaller screen that still gives one some of the "Big" screen feeling you get from watching the same movie. Who knows... maybe Hydrogen 3D will solve that.
 
Lee Saxon said:
Yeah, but this project is annoying because it wasn't made to make that point. Particularly in the iPhone X era, there are literally cameras *less* expensive than an iPhone that would've produced better images and been far easier to work with. This was a cross-promotional marketing stunt aimed at getting the attention of mid-90's-and-later babies who watch everything *on* an iPhone and have no appreciation of anything.
Click to expand...

The marketing is working . . . we're talking about it. 99% of consumers couldn't tell you what camera was on what movie besides this one. Besides, who is anyone on RED to bitch about over the top marketing? I mean it pretty hard to miss the RED logo on everything they make. That is on purpose so when the kids see the BTS they see the brand and get an unnatural need for that gear. See also: "Bayhem" the camera. Before RED who really took the Oakley approach to branding camera gear? Apple is taking a page out of that book perhaps.

Remember the story about Jim J giving Andre Agassi a Dodge Viper for wearing Oakley glasses to the (televised) 1992 Davis Cup to hide his hungover eyes. Pretty solid marketing there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top