[HN Gopher] What does and doesn't matter about Apple shooting th... ___________________________________________________________________ What does and doesn't matter about Apple shooting their October event on iPhone Author : robenkleene Score : 119 points Date : 2023-11-07 21:08 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (prolost.com) (TXT) w3m dump (prolost.com) | simbolit wrote: | "Lighting matters more than any camera, more than any lens." | | This. | ghaff wrote: | But often lighting is what it is. I can use a camera (and | lenses) to compensate for a lot of crappy lighting that would | otherwise make it tough to get a decent shot. | | I sometimes shoot photos at corporate events and the difference | between "real" cameras and photos shot on phones is often | pretty obvious. Sometimes it's a matter of the phones being too | far from the subjects or not optimally used but not always. | duxup wrote: | I thought this was going to be similar to all the hot take stuff | it references at the start about the event being shot on an | iPhone... but rather this is a nice technical walk through on | some features and what they mean. Very good read. | user_7832 wrote: | I think there are 2 parts to this: | | One is "iPhone camera sensors are competitive with commercial | offerings in some cases". I think this is what Apple was trying | to go for with the entire thing including the behind the scenes. | | The other is "If you (edit: _just_ ) have an iPhone you too can | make such a video". Which is what anyone who isn't affiliated | with the film industry (aka 99% of the population) might think, | especially if they didn't see the behind the scenes. | | "Shot on iPhone" hence has 2 perspectives. | threeseed wrote: | > If you have an iPhone you too can make such a video | | You can though. | | What it showed was that the real limitation to making high | quality content is skill and knowledge. You can get away with | just your iPhone, iPad and cheap lighting from AliExpress for | 99% of the shots. | | Having expensive equipment simply allows you to deliver that | quality fast and at a consistent level. Which is what | commercial clients demand. | ska wrote: | Professional photography and videography gear has _always_ | only been about that though. It broadens the range of shots | you can get and /or the efficiency of the process (and | usually puts up with more abuse). | chiefalchemist wrote: | It helps, sometimes. There are plenty of shooters running | around with elite gear and getting slightly above average | images of the classic (read: cliche) sunset, etc. | | Scarcity is the spark that ignites creativity. | | Put another way, look how many shite films Hollywood makes, | and they have top gear. | | Great gear will never save a lack of creativity, lack of | vision, etc. | ska wrote: | Other than robustness, 'pro' gear mostly expands the | range of parameters you can push and still get a decent | shot. It's not going to give you an eye. | | Elsewhere in thread it's correctly noted that in a lot of | cases lighting is more important that cameras anyway. But | similarly, you have to know how to set up - same applies | though, the gear can't do the setup for you. | WillPostForFood wrote: | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/images/2023/10/behind-the- | sce... | | iPhone, knowledge, skill, another half million in fancy | equipment, and you are good to go! | | Seriously though, there was an astounding amount of cool gear | in the behind the scenes. If it was just a guy shooting | handheld iPhone using his skill and knowledge, that's one | thing. It seems to be a different value proposition to take | all the equipment, and crew, from a multi million dollar | production company, and just swap the camera for an iPhone. | It is extremely impressive quality demonstration, but not | clearly accessible to the typical iPhone purchaser. | threeseed wrote: | There is an astounding amount of cool gear. None of it is | mandatory. | | You will be surprised what a DJI gimbal, duct tape and | house hold objects could accomplish. | | The limiting factor is now very much creativity and | passion. | ghaff wrote: | I agree on both points. | | From a still photos perspective, unless you're using very wide | or very long lenses, and/or otherwise have relatively specific | requirements that require burst shooting/a viewfinder/etc. | phones can handle a lot. No-brainer ISO range is good enough | for most things these days--and would have been unthinkable in | the film era. | | I increasingly think about whether I _really_ need anything | other than my phone traveling even given I have a couple of | good cameras and a lot of glass. I 'll still bring (mostly my | mirrorless) camera if I'm doing a relatively photogenic | "exotic" trip but often I don't. | willsmith72 wrote: | This is why this whole thing felt like a loss for Apple. | They're 100% right, it was shot on an iPhone, but they also had | 99% of the population believing something which seemed really | cool, and then turned out to "appear" misleading. | | Maybe this whole stunt was aimed at the 1%, and if so good for | them, they succeeded. From a branding and PR perspective, I | wouldn't be happy if that was how my company was perceived to | the general public. | kergonath wrote: | There have been people shooting terrific pictures and great | movies on phones for years now. Nobody is under the illusion | that your holiday pictures will be great as well just because | you used the same camera phone as a famous hip videographer. | | It does not appear misleading unless you really want it to. | user_7832 wrote: | > Nobody is under the illusion that your holiday pictures | will be great as well just because you used the same camera | phone as a famous hip videographer. | | Unfortunately (fortunately?) that kind of marketing does | work though. Going slightly tangential but collaborations | with Leica/Zeiss etc often are major marketing points in | phone sales. | tshaddox wrote: | > The other is "If you have an iPhone you too can make such a | video". Which is what anyone who isn't affiliated with the film | industry (aka 99% of the population) might think, especially if | they didn't see the behind the scenes. | | I honestly don't think it's a reasonable takeaway for anyone | who is at all interested in creating highly produced video with | their iPhone. Even if you're an absolute beginner, it's | abundantly clear that these Apple videos are serious | productions. | | It's not significantly different than hearing that an | accomplished journalist wrote a column on their iPad, or a | successful entrepreneur manages their schedule with their | iPhone calendar, or a famous musician uses GarageBand for | songwriting (or even full production). | | The point in all of these examples is never that you can | accomplish these things with an iPhone and _don 't_ need | talent, creativity, years of practice, other gear, etc. The | only point is that the iPhone is not a significant limiting | factor on the quality of results you can achieve. | user_7832 wrote: | > I honestly don't think it's a reasonable takeaway for | anyone who is at all interested in creating highly produced | video with their iPhone. Even if you're an absolute beginner, | it's abundantly clear that these Apple videos are serious | productions. | | I agree that that's how it is in reality, but that's not | something many people really know or understand. Apple also | likes to sell their products as "see how good our x product | is that we used in-house" which likely further may make some | people think an iPhone is enough to make a high quality | video. | | (I think the funny thing is that even without extra hardware | an iPhone can shoot very good/near professional quality video | but this debate is only about Apple using very fancy | hardware. I also made a small edit to my comment.) | chrisweekly wrote: | "musician uses GarageBand for songwriting (or even full | production | | Sergeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (The Beatles' | masterpiece, one of the most highly-regarded and influential | albums of all time) was recorded on an analog 4-track. | jkaptur wrote: | At the time it was recorded, that was cutting edge tech, | wasn't it? | jauntywundrkind wrote: | >2 track recording is _still_ a rare & deluxe feature in | _most_ consumer gear! | | Even in professional gear, it's usually a ridiculous jump | in price - often double - to much fancier hardware to get | more channels. | | It makes sense as few people do need it, but I do wish | there were more assorted consumer electronics that would | throw in more channel recording just because. Rather than | as an upsell to way more expensive gear. | jcrawfordor wrote: | Yes, in that everything was being recorded on analog tape | in that era because it was the best quality recording | format available. | | The album is a little unusual in that by 1967 tape | recorders with larger channel counts were becoming more | common, allowing separate recording of most of the | original channels. But linear editing of audio was very | difficult, recording engineers still did the mix as live, | so there were recording studios that hadn't seen a reason | to make the upgrade or were attached to older equipment | that they were very familiar with. Especially with analog | equipment prominent recording engineers were often averse | to new equipment since they would learn how to get the | best results out of their particulat setup - and things | like frequency response could vary noticeably from one | model to another. | happytiger wrote: | It's broader than that, but simpler: it's just what you can get | out of a platform VS what you can get out of a platform _under | controlled conditions_. | | It is no different than Intel or AMD benchmarking their chips, | car companies and their mpg, electric cars and their ranges, | etc. | | This is much ado about nothing. It's just journalistic framing | that has caused this discussion. | | _If_ this is PR, which it's likely not, it's _brilliant_. | great_psy wrote: | Of course there is more to it than just the phone. | | If I gave you a 100k Alexa camera, could you make the apple event | without all the other gadgets? | | Sure the camera is capable, but there's so much more around it. I | think this tech allows the currently 18 year old next Spielberg | to shot some cool video with relatively low budget. | | For 99% of people buying this phone they were not even thinking | of making a film of the keynotes quality to start. So talking | about the extra gear is a moot point. | | For the few that want to accomplish something like that, know | they can buy a 1.5K phone, and film something that will look | decent. Maybe not like the keynote, but good enough to be | comparable with the quality of a movie shot 10 years ago. Which | is pretty good especially if you're not projecting it on a huge | screen. | | The other thing that will be coming in the not too distant future | is ai enhanced filming. You film in questionable quality, and you | feed that to the machine model to spit out something in higher | resolution( both pixels per inch, but also color/light depth) in | which case this phone quality will be plenty. | simbolit wrote: | > ai enhanced filming. You film in questionable quality, and | you feed that to the machine model | | that is a promised "coming soon" feature of the new google | phone. as it is "coming soon" nobody knows whether it delivers | on that promise. | berkut wrote: | One thing I'm curious about is how they avoided lens flair from | small bright lights - the iPhone's lenses in my experience | produce multiple very pronounced lens flares when shooting bright | lights (and older iPhones used to produce one large green flare | as well, but I think that's been reduced in the 14 and 15 - I'm | sure other phones do as well, I'm just only familiar with iPhones | these days). | | Very large light sources likely helped (as did the matte boxes), | but maybe they carefully chose the camera angles as well to | minimise this? | kergonath wrote: | > Very large light sources likely helped (as did the matte | boxes), but maybe they carefully chose the camera angles as | well to minimise this? | | All of it, I think. In my experience these ugly flares come | mostly from point sources (things like streetlights), so large, | soft light sources should help. Also, the matte boxes help | controlling where the light that hits the lens comes from, so | in effect it makes it easier to have a good angle, on top of | making sure that nothing hits the glass at a small angle. | mortenjorck wrote: | I previously had a rudimentary understanding of log, but the | author's other recent piece devoted to it in the context of the | iPhone 15 pro (https://prolost.com/blog/applelog) gave me a much | better appreciation of its importance to professional-looking | video. From that article: | | _> But with this iPhone 15 Pro Max footage shot in Apple Log, I | can recover all the detail -- or just let it overexpose | gracefully into this ACES output transform, for a smooth, film- | like look. This soft highlight rolloff in the log-to-video | conversion is called a "shoulder" in film, describing the upper | part of the classic s-curve. A nice shoulder for your highlights | is a big part of what makes footage look "pro" -- especially when | your grading happens underneath it._ | reqo wrote: | >"Shot on iPhone" doesn't promise "and you can do it too" any | more than Stanley Kubrick lighting Barry Lyndon with candlelight | means anyone with candles can make Barry Lyndon. | | What a beautiful way of describing the fallacy of the converse! | drexlspivey wrote: | > anyone with candles can make Barry Lyndon | | Anyone with candles and NASA lenses | shepherdjerred wrote: | Really interesting blog post! | | It seems like iPhones really can do serious filmmaking (with the | help of the equipment mentioned in the blog post). I'm curious | how this translates to photography. | | How much would you need to spend on a dedicated camera to shoot | better photos than an iPhone can? | GeekyBear wrote: | The biggest takeaways: | | > There is one single feature of the iPhone 15 Pro that made this | stunt possible: Log. | | > They Used the [free] Blackmagic Camera App: Matters as Much as | Log | | > Lighting matters more than any camera, more than any lens... | Big, soft LED lighting is actually quite affordable these days. | [with a specific product mentioned] | | Apple used the myriad options in the Blackmagic Camera App to | prioritize image quality above everything else. | | > Apple decided that they must shoot at ISO 55 (the lowest, | although possibly not the native ISO of the 1x camera) for the | highest image quality, and with a 180o shutter for the most pro- | camera look | | Apple had the log footage they shot professionally color graded. | tehnub wrote: | Great article! I'll definitely try playing with some of these | settings in the blackmagic camera app. His practical examples | like blocking the light with his hand are quite inspiring! | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | That was an excellent explanation of doing a pro video | shoot/post-prod. | | As they noted, the camera, itself, was _almost_ irrelevant | (except for that ProRes Log thing). | | It shows how much work goes into video/movie production. | | The formula I heard from a video editor, was that every second of | final, is about a half hour of post. | mrbonner wrote: | I don't know how the pros use the iPhone to shoot such amazing | photos. I have the iPhone 12 Pro and the photos I shoot are | mediocre at best and out of focus or weird lightning at worst. | Did they use a tripod everywhere they go? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-11-07 23:00 UTC)