Another Soderbergh iPhone film.
- Thread starter Zim
- Start date
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Already watched it. The image itself isn't great, and looks much more like typical iPhone footage in terms of "the look" than UNSANE did, but the language of the cinematography is there. The camera movement, staging, etc. is still great. Unsane had more of a look, more lighting control from what I could tell, a grain pass, etc. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Unsane-Blu-ray/201877/#Screenshots
From the articles I've seen, he wanted to move so fast that sometimes they were doing shots in an hour or less that would take all day to try and pull off with a larger rig. I even saw an interview where he mentioned taping the phone to a wall to get it in the location he wanted. I still think the image itself is garbage more often than not, but it at least proves that with good sound, editing, acting, a story to tell, and competent/creative visual storytelling, you can still create something great.
Lots of people are balking or crying foul... I'm just glad he's still telling stories.
From the articles I've seen, he wanted to move so fast that sometimes they were doing shots in an hour or less that would take all day to try and pull off with a larger rig. I even saw an interview where he mentioned taping the phone to a wall to get it in the location he wanted. I still think the image itself is garbage more often than not, but it at least proves that with good sound, editing, acting, a story to tell, and competent/creative visual storytelling, you can still create something great.
Lots of people are balking or crying foul... I'm just glad he's still telling stories.
I thought high flying bird looked amazing. It was so good that it made me question the gear I have. But there is this quote from Soderbergh:
" No, the thing that became time and resource consuming, which I spoke to Apple about, and explained to them they have to address if they’re really serious about people using these things to make movies going forward, even when you have, through an app like Filmic Pro, the shutter and the ISO locked, the sensor reacts to changes in light. If somebody walks past a window, or you pan through a light, it, even though it’s supposed to be frozen, it responds. What makes it even worse is it’s not the entire frame that responds, it’s pieces of the frame.
To have to go back in frame by frame, in the DI suite, and even that stuff out, create power windows to deal with the sections of the frame that have changed density, that was poo pooing annoying and expensive."
" No, the thing that became time and resource consuming, which I spoke to Apple about, and explained to them they have to address if they’re really serious about people using these things to make movies going forward, even when you have, through an app like Filmic Pro, the shutter and the ISO locked, the sensor reacts to changes in light. If somebody walks past a window, or you pan through a light, it, even though it’s supposed to be frozen, it responds. What makes it even worse is it’s not the entire frame that responds, it’s pieces of the frame.
To have to go back in frame by frame, in the DI suite, and even that stuff out, create power windows to deal with the sections of the frame that have changed density, that was poo pooing annoying and expensive."
hscully
Veteran
Soderbergh is great! This is the same guy who shot Girlfriend Experience with tiny crew, dragged the Red One around with ice bags shoot Che, let the fluorescent light scream green in The Limey. He's always out front in how he directs, shoots and produces - just how he conceives of movies. I'm happy he keeps pushing it. I've been saving this one for this weekend and am looking forward to it.
Zim
Veteran
He could afford whatever camera he wanted to use, but he picks a iPhone with a Moodog lens? Netfilx says, sure it works for us. That is a good deal for us low budget filmmakers. I don't have tens of thousands or even thousands to spend on a camera, so it's nice to see that it can work. My first film was made with the DVX100B and the second was with a GH3. The next one will be my iPhone Xr, moondog lens and filmic pro. That settled my spending $2,000 to $3,000 plus.
Attachments
Last edited:
I mean that's great and all - I'm the last person to complain about the democratisation of gear and affordability of access to all. Fantastic, and more power to all.
That said, people who get into filmmaking do so for different reasons. We all want to tell stories, but some of us are very definitely interested in a certain visual aspect of that artform. Soderbergh's iPhone is a certain kind of look, or should I say, works within certain constraints, and more power to him. But I want something different, and the iPhone can't give it to me (at least not the current iPhone, or any phone camera that I can imagine in the near future). That doesn't mean what I want costs a whole bunch either - a GH5 and some lenses - definitely more than an iPhone, but still a drop in the bucket compared to most Hollywood productions. So choice is good. I'm glad that option exists for Soderbergh and those who are OK within those constraints, but it's also fantastic that these days we are spoiled for options.
That said, people who get into filmmaking do so for different reasons. We all want to tell stories, but some of us are very definitely interested in a certain visual aspect of that artform. Soderbergh's iPhone is a certain kind of look, or should I say, works within certain constraints, and more power to him. But I want something different, and the iPhone can't give it to me (at least not the current iPhone, or any phone camera that I can imagine in the near future). That doesn't mean what I want costs a whole bunch either - a GH5 and some lenses - definitely more than an iPhone, but still a drop in the bucket compared to most Hollywood productions. So choice is good. I'm glad that option exists for Soderbergh and those who are OK within those constraints, but it's also fantastic that these days we are spoiled for options.
Soderbergh is inspiring for sure. I did some quick tests with my iPhone X and FilmicPro and have to say I'm not ready to give up our 1DX II or even 80D (as A or B cameras). That said, I used footage from an iPhone 5S to grab an outdoor shot simply because I had the camera in my pocket and the results were indistinguishable from much higher end cameras.
Soderbergh (and crew) clearly spent a lot of time learning the constraints of the iPhone 7- in lighting, movement, and post. His comment about light/color changing even with locked settings (in different parts of the frame requiring power windows to fix in post) is perhaps related to Apple's software HDR system. This could possibly be disabled in the future if Apple provides an API call to do this (or uses a sensor with more hardware DR in the future).
Soderbergh (and crew) clearly spent a lot of time learning the constraints of the iPhone 7- in lighting, movement, and post. His comment about light/color changing even with locked settings (in different parts of the frame requiring power windows to fix in post) is perhaps related to Apple's software HDR system. This could possibly be disabled in the future if Apple provides an API call to do this (or uses a sensor with more hardware DR in the future).
Grug
Veteran
I dug it. And was genuinely surprised by how quickly I just accepted the image quality for what it is.
Is there really any reason to use this over the tiny (but not quite so tiny as a phone) large-sensor cameras that are available today? No, I don't think so.
You could get the same speed benefits (more actually, as you'd retain manual control) whilst still retaining a more acceptable/conventional level of image quality.
But props (as always) to Soderberg for pushing the form - and more importantly, making interesting films whilst doing so.
Is there really any reason to use this over the tiny (but not quite so tiny as a phone) large-sensor cameras that are available today? No, I don't think so.
You could get the same speed benefits (more actually, as you'd retain manual control) whilst still retaining a more acceptable/conventional level of image quality.
But props (as always) to Soderberg for pushing the form - and more importantly, making interesting films whilst doing so.
hscully
Veteran
Good interview in IndieWire https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/s...ying-bird-interview-netflix-iphone-1202044279
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
I want this on a tshirt. you seriously have the best wit on DVXuser dude!
As far as my thoughts, watched the film.. well.. about 40min of it and I turned it off.. first time in history I did that to soderbergh. I really think he is just beginning to have a hard time to stay relevant and I think he should have just enjoyed his early retirement instead of returning with cell phone movies. I mean, sure, maybe one day we will actually get cinema quality images from cell phones but right now we don't and I find the idea of filming something on my phone stupid. I have had an iPhone since they first came out in 2007 so I cant say the camera and apps have not improved, but, they are mear hobby tools, not professional tools. I think it would be amazing if iPhone one day could do CinemaDNG video, that would be pretty cool but for someone like soderbergh to denounce RED (yes he did this in an article) which was his pride and joy for so many years for an iPhone really shows me hes starting to loose his marbles.. i've always supported him with his risk taking from using the Canon XL1 on Full Frontal (which is one of my fav movies of his) to all his experimental digital films like Bubble and The Girlfriend Experience but throwing away professional tools for a phone is where i draw the line.. sorry SS i just cant support this one
Zim
Veteran
Did you turn it off because it was just not a good movie or the quailty was so bad? I don't have Netfilx, but the trailer sure isn't that bad.
You think Soderbergh is just trying to stay relevant? Really? He is worth $40 million, he could get any camera he wanted so I don't think he is using a cell phone to stay relevant. (his next film is with a Red Epic)
I think it might bother people who have spent tens of thousands on camera gear, that people using iPhones are getting films to Sundance, in theaters and Netfilx and they haven't.
The quality of 4K iPhones with a Moondog lens and Filmic Pro is pretty good. No one thinks it will replace a Red or something else, but really it comes down to a good story and other factors.
My two films one with a DVX100B and the other with a GH3 both made money and one was giving an award from the Marine Corps. Could they have looked better with a using something else? Hell yes, but thats all I had. So far no one has said, "sure would have been better with a $15,000 camera!
My next film is going to be with the iphone Xr and moondog anamorphic lens. I'll have fun with it. If it's not good I've only spent a few hundred dollars. You see a lot of people spending thousand and thousands on cameras and their films go nowhere. He see millions spent on hollywood movies that go nowhere. So you can trash Soderbergh and say he should have stayed retired but at least he is trying to advance filmmaking.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
When he was one of the first filmmakers to shoot a high profile film with A list stars on Mini DV he was advancing and taking risks.. when he was one of the first filmmakers to shoot on HD using the Panavision HD900 for Bubble he was taking risks and pushing boundaries.. when he shot CHE on the RED ONE despite how horrible that camera was he was again taking risks.. His iPhone films while i will say unsane had great acting, editing and direction, it really was a great film.. the cinematography was distracting as hell and looked like it was shot on a phone.. same goes for his new film.. (went back and watched it beginning to end).. acting was solid, pacing.. all of it was good as typical soderbergh but the cinematography was distracting.. Its not about the ego of people getting films shot on phones into places like sundance.. idk where that came from.. but when you are using an acquisition tool in a way that distracts an audience member then you are not advancing anything.. in my eyes i believe phones will reach cinematic levels in the next decade.. im almost expecting it just as i expected everything to go tapeless back in 2006 when cameras like the HVX200 came out.. Soderbergh is still a world class filmmaker and will forever be a big fan, but, i do not aggree with his stylistic choice of shooting on an iPhone 7 and personally I have no reason or interest to film on an iPhone. Full Frontal IMHO is a far better looking film than his iPhone films and that was a mix of 35 and DV so.. to each his own.
The thing soderbergh got right about his risk taking when he first started it with cameras is he picked stories that fit the way it was shot. Full Frontal on the DV side is beat to **** and to most looks like hell but it fits the narrative of the characters and the worlds they live in.. same goes for the static high contrast look of bubble and so on.. IMO the iphone films didnt adhere to the same things as i say in his earlier digital films.. it was the first time i really saw soderbergh doing something as a gimmick. The films again unsane and HFB are solid narratives but I think more so for the new film, the iphone approach just didnt work.. its my opnion, you can disagree with it, thats fine.. im not here saying everyone needs to agree with me, im just sharing how i felt.
I wish you luck on your iPhone film
Last edited:
Isn't the reason anyone at the higher level shoots on an iPhone (or A7S II etc. https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12...feature-film-shot-entirely-on-the-sony-a7sii/) is purely for marketing purposes? You can tell by the marketing. If the camera wasn't part of the marketing, they wouldn't mention it, right?
I watched this on cable/Netflix a long time ago. It sounds like a horrible story (ultra not PC today) and the version I saw had video tape drop out(!)- unbelievably bad quality- worse than this example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvMYdQCo4XY . The user review is reasonable: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299135/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_103 . Covers some tough topics but in the end folks think it's a good story, despite the terrible image quality. I was surprised I made it to the end- acting was great and story was engaging- worth watching.
Story always trumps image quality, special effects, car chases, gratuitous sex/violence, etc. If a beginner wants to learn on a phone or a top director wants to use one for whatever reason (including marketing), all the power to them if they can produce something with a good story. DSLR/mirrorless sized cameras have had parity with the top cameras for a while now for basic image quality (as in good enough not to distract from the story). I saw something shot on the 70D/5D3 (main cameras) years ago in the theater and was surprised how decent it looked (those cameras have decent color however detail is somewhat low: looked fine on the big screen!). A buddy is using a 5D3 for his documentary, still in production and pretty ambitious sets/props + SFX: https://www.instagram.com/journeytoroyal/
I watched this on cable/Netflix a long time ago. It sounds like a horrible story (ultra not PC today) and the version I saw had video tape drop out(!)- unbelievably bad quality- worse than this example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvMYdQCo4XY . The user review is reasonable: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0299135/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_103 . Covers some tough topics but in the end folks think it's a good story, despite the terrible image quality. I was surprised I made it to the end- acting was great and story was engaging- worth watching.
Story always trumps image quality, special effects, car chases, gratuitous sex/violence, etc. If a beginner wants to learn on a phone or a top director wants to use one for whatever reason (including marketing), all the power to them if they can produce something with a good story. DSLR/mirrorless sized cameras have had parity with the top cameras for a while now for basic image quality (as in good enough not to distract from the story). I saw something shot on the 70D/5D3 (main cameras) years ago in the theater and was surprised how decent it looked (those cameras have decent color however detail is somewhat low: looked fine on the big screen!). A buddy is using a 5D3 for his documentary, still in production and pretty ambitious sets/props + SFX: https://www.instagram.com/journeytoroyal/
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
I agree but also disagree with this. I agree in that I believe it should never be about the camera. What one person does with X camera doesnt mean a different person will get the same results.. this is what has pissed me off about the digital era.. everyone sees something beautiful shot on something and thinks "oh i can get that too without doing any work".. not saying all are like this, but quite a lot and loads more since HDSLRs showed up 11 years ago. I disagree because i cant begin to tell you how many times since digital filmmaking began in the late 90s i've heard "what camera did you use" asked at screenings, film fests, online comments... the digital era has made people think, "if i invest in the right gear, i will have beautiful images". Granted, cameras are becoming easier and easier to use as technology advances but the art of cinematography and lighting still apply.. education is still needed even in the basic sense. This was one of the biggest things that upset me with all the kids i went to film school with.. they followed brands like it was clothing and had way to big of egos before some of them had laid a single image in their life onto tape or SSD.
Last edited:
Zim
Veteran
Thanks. I totally agree with you about picking the right story to fit the way it is shot. Which he might have done with Unsane. With HFB (I've only seen the trailer) it doesn't look that bad to me. Soderbergh might have used the phone to save money etc, but not sure if he needed a gimmick. Netflix might not want to invest in a gimmick. I think he just likes trying new things.
Even movies like Tangerine shot with a iPhone 5, that was able to get to Sundance is good for filmmaking. I'm glad it is not a requirement to make a film with the Red Epic. It's good to see lower end cameras and now phones making films that accually get some notice, like back in the DVX100 days when people like Steve Buscemi used a DVX100 to make Lonesome Jim or a XL-1s was used to make 28 Days Later by Danny Boyle. I'm glad it happens from time to time.
https://moondoglabs.com/blogs/get-inspired/tangerine-trailer
I completely disagree with the notion that you can't make a good image with an iPhone - yes you can, even with a very old iPhone like the 5S - if you don't believe it, check out Tangerine (2015) - keep in mind, this was long before Soderbergh's use of this tool.
It was used not as a gimmick in Tangerine, but because it really suited the mood of the film with a feeling of immediacy and lives lived on the margin but yet full of color and meaning. Additionally there were practical considerations, in that they attracted almost no attention shooting in the streets with a phone - the low budget was another reason. It's a tool, and if the story calls for it, or there are practical or ergonomic considerations, there's nothing wrong with using what is best suited for it. I think purely visually, apart from everything else, Tangerine is pretty amazing - and all this with an 5S.
Now, if you are using the iPhone just so you can claim "shot on a cell phone" or because it's trendy or whatnot, then well, it's like anything else - when RED first came out, how many projects used it for similarly no good reason other than "RED". There's nothing special about the iPhone. If it's the best tool, use it, don't worry about anything else. For my project want to use a GH5, but if I thought the iPhone would be better in that situation, I would absolutely use it.
It was used not as a gimmick in Tangerine, but because it really suited the mood of the film with a feeling of immediacy and lives lived on the margin but yet full of color and meaning. Additionally there were practical considerations, in that they attracted almost no attention shooting in the streets with a phone - the low budget was another reason. It's a tool, and if the story calls for it, or there are practical or ergonomic considerations, there's nothing wrong with using what is best suited for it. I think purely visually, apart from everything else, Tangerine is pretty amazing - and all this with an 5S.
Now, if you are using the iPhone just so you can claim "shot on a cell phone" or because it's trendy or whatnot, then well, it's like anything else - when RED first came out, how many projects used it for similarly no good reason other than "RED". There's nothing special about the iPhone. If it's the best tool, use it, don't worry about anything else. For my project want to use a GH5, but if I thought the iPhone would be better in that situation, I would absolutely use it.
But equipment is also valid in the quality argument. Garbage in still equals garbage out. I garbage camera will never give great results, no matter how good you are. An excellent camera used in good hands will produce great results more easily. The questionable point is when you get into the middle ground and I think we can all agree that the cameras that Apple chooses are far from garbage and certainly in that middle ground. Bring in "RAW" images with third party software and how bad can it be?