Cinema-quality movie shot entirely with iPhone

Patryk_Rebisz said:
Barry, now we totally disagree. We are not talking about the film in way: "yo, you saw this new film by so-and-so it's so spooky it looks like it was shot with a cell phone!" are are arguing about something totally not related to the film itself - and that is not healthy no matter how you paint it. The small camera chip was with us for ages so how will this film differ then a film shot by anybody with say HV20??? And even more so how will it differ then other video experiments such as the "28 Days Later"? Done like, what, 9 years ago...

If anything it screams of the maker, "I got nothing, but LOOK i shot it with iphone!!!!"
Click to expand...

Some of the creepiest films were shot on 8mm and 16mm. From the very short look we had at Park's film, there's an inherent creepiness in shooting on a small sensor as well. But it seems like you're arguing against tech politics which seems to me to have no proven hold on this film's premise, which, as Barry as already pointed out, you haven't even seen.
 
Last edited:
The lo-fi look can be accomplished by any consumer camera - the exact same look coming from iphone. Thus why bother?

To assume that i will watch the film just because it's being talked about here (especially since the only "redeemable" quality of the film is that it was shot with iphone) is a bit nonsensical - we live in age of information overload, a curiosity of something being shot with iphone can hold by interest for maybe 30seconds but definitely not for 30 min (especially since my netflix cue is overflowing with streamable films that didn't have to relay on silly tech gimmick to give validity to its existence).
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
To assume that i will watch the film just because it's being talked about here (especially since the only "redeemable" quality of the film is that it was shot with iphone) is a bit nonsensical - we live in age of information overload, a curiosity of something being shot with iphone can hold by interest for maybe 30seconds but definitely not for 30 min.
Click to expand...

I assumed nothing. I know you haven't seen it. I didn't venture to assume you'll watch the film because you've made very apparent that you've already made up you're mind about it. And just how can one judge a film's redeemable qualities without seeing it, hmm? Park's films are laced with visual meaning and hyper intelligent visual strategy. I suggest paging through The Filmmaker's Eye the next time you're at the bookstore in order to gain insight into the image system of Oldboy.
 
Possibly a "gimmick" or possibly an experiment, because obviously they had the wherewithal to shoot on a real camera. The key thing to my mind is - At what point will it cease to be a gimmick or experiment? The iPhone camera imagery does have a sort of unique image quality to it but I'm guessing it shares similar visual characteristics as other cameras with tiny chips. Either way, I applaud filmmakers like this and others who embrace technology and run with it, rather than obsessing over tired old conventions.

This is an exciting time we're living in.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Barry, now we totally disagree. We are not talking about the film in way: "yo, you saw this new film by so-and-so it's so spooky it looks like it was shot with a cell phone!" are are arguing about something totally not related to the film itself - and that is not healthy no matter how you paint it. The small camera chip was with us for ages so how will this film differ then a film shot by anybody with say HV20??? And even more so how will it differ then other video experiments such as the "28 Days Later"? Done like, what, 9 years ago...

If anything it screams of the maker, "I got nothing, but LOOK i shot it with iphone!!!!"
Click to expand...

The point is: You don't need a $10,000 tripod to stabilize an iPhone, you can use the cheapest Manfrotto and it will be great. And you can use that cheap tiny Modosteady and get great fluid steadycam motion. Hell, even a bare GH2 allows you to do that with IQ similar to a $5,000 camera.

Patryk_Rebisz said:
The lo-fi look can be accomplished by any consumer camera - the exact same look coming from iphone. Thus why bother?

To assume that i will watch the film just because it's being talked about here (especially since the only "redeemable" quality of the film is that it was shot with iphone) is a bit nonsensical - we live in age of information overload, a curiosity of something being shot with iphone can hold by interest for maybe 30seconds but definitely not for 30 min (especially since my netflix cue is overflowing with streamable films that didn't have to relay on silly tech gimmick to give validity to its existence).
Click to expand...

This plus the fact he directed masterpieces like JSA and OLDBOY.

vcassel said:
I assumed nothing. I know you haven't seen it. I didn't venture to assume you'll watch the film because you've made very apparent that you've already made up you're mind about it. And just how can one judge a film's redeemable qualities without seeing it, hmm? Park's films are laced with visual meaning and hyper intelligent visual strategy. I suggest paging through The Filmmaker's Eye the next time you're at the bookstore in order to gain insight into the image system of Oldboy.
Click to expand...

Does this book talk specifically about OLDBOY? If yes... I need that book!
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
The point is: You don't need a $10,000 tripod to stabilize an iPhone, you can use the cheapest Manfrotto and it will be great. And you can use that cheap tiny Modosteady and get great fluid steadycam motion. Hell, even a bare GH2 allows you to do that with IQ similar to a $5,000 camera.



This plus the fact he directed masterpieces like JSA and OLDBOY.



Does this book talk specifically about OLDBOY? If yes... I need that book!
Click to expand...

A chapter is dedicated to Oldboy. I consider the book essential.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
But just wait a minute. When you KNOW that the film was made based on a gimmick aren't you seeing the film through a different prism? The prism that it's a gimmick based film, the director is a quack not capable of coming up with a story that can stand on its own, etc, etc?
Click to expand...

Um, have you ever seen Park Chan-wook's work before? The man is a brilliant director. His film Oldboy did so well critically and financially that it's actually getting a Hollywood adaptation with Will Smith attached. It's not like the man needed a gimmick to get people to come see the film, he's already one of the most popular directors in South Korea.
 
Patryk, you know I'm a fan of your work. However, I'm curious -- have you seen Chan's film? If not, don't you think you're being quite unfair in characterizing it such that it has nothing to offer other than to say it was shot on an iPhone?

Look at the guy's track record. This isn't some wannabe who can't even afford a DSLR, this is a majorly talented, skilled filmmaker. He chose to shoot his project on an iPhone. Why? Why in the hell did Gale Tattersall choose to shoot an episode of House on a 5D? Who knows. They did it for whatever aesthetics they wanted. And maybe they did it for whatever marketing reasons. I don't know.

But what I do know is that if you haven't seen this film, then it most definitely shouldn't be dismissed as "it's just a gimmick."
 
Barry_Green said:
Why in the hell did Gale Tattersall choose to shoot an episode of House on a 5D?
Click to expand...

I think it mainly had to do with the very tight and dark setting the episode took place in. The marketing departments at Canon aren't the conspiratorial harbingers of Cthulhu a lot of people are making them out to be.
 
Going back to the title of the thread: "Cinema-quality movie shot entirely with iphone". I'm not saying that the plot and story and everything else isn't up to his previous work or isn't excellent at all. I'm just saying that it doesn't look like cinema quality from the stuff I can find on the internet.
 
I've seen a fair amount of movies in theaters (some studio films) that didn't look "cinema quality" to me. I think the term "cinema quality" is about as hard to nail down as "broadcast quality", unless you're just going by the old definitions.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
(Banging his head on the wall)

Filmmaker with no resources??? All the accessories and stuff attached to each of those phones was worth more than any given camcorder from electronic store! When you are trying to use a populistic gimmick to gain some audience then stop talking half baked "philosophy" about opening doors or democratization as there is many folks out there that will see through your BS. The phone didn't add anything to the image other then the "talking point" for the news media.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I couldn't see the type of lenses they were using but I'd bet some cost more than all of my equipment combined.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
(Banging his head on the wall)

Filmmaker with no resources??? All the accessories and stuff attached to each of those phones was worth more than any given camcorder from electronic store! When you are trying to use a populistic gimmick to gain some audience then stop talking half baked "philosophy" about opening doors or democratization as there is many folks out there that will see through your BS. The phone didn't add anything to the image other then the "talking point" for the news media.
Click to expand...

+2
 
scam!

scam!

What a scam. Yeah, its "only" an Iphone. On...er..steroids, surrounded by an army.

The big hurdle we all have is not lack of good low-cost cameras, it's money for location and lights and production design. So yeah, Iphone movie with evocative locations and lighting and sets and costumes, of course looks pretty good.

So what.

and yes Oldboy rocks.
 
memento515 said:
What a scam. Yeah, its "only" an Iphone. On...er..steroids, surrounded by an army.

The big hurdle we all have is not lack of good low-cost cameras, it's money for location and lights and production design. So yeah, Iphone movie with evocative locations and lighting and sets and costumes, of course looks pretty good.

So what.

and yes Oldboy rocks.
Click to expand...

Before accusing a well respected filmmaker of pulling a 'scam' in a public forum, I'd like to know what you think you're being defrauded for or why his filmmaking techniques are directed at you personally.
 
I have a feeling it's just going to look like a good film that was boot-legged by a consumer camera in a theater. :P At least the sound should be good, right? Or did they use a blue-tooth head set? :P

I joke and kid because I'm slowly not caring anymore. If the whole world would fall apart and everyone just shot on Iphones and DSLR's at quality levels we know them at now, I'd simply find a way to make a living shooting fringe indie films on other cameras. We're all artists, and I'll do things my way, everyone else can do it however they want. This guy can shoot his next film on an etch-a-sketch, for all I care.

... you know somewhere a young producer reading this is excitedly looking up what an etch-a-sketch is.
 
Last edited:
Only thing I like about shooting with Iphone 4 is the Owle which was used. I first saw that Owle at hdslr expo with a cam caddie for use in sports like skate/snowboard, etc . Then upload on youtube instantly. I think that's brilliant.
 
Has anyone ever seen 720p projected in a theatre? Or how about an SD to film print? It's really not as bad as you think. 'Cinema Quality' has much more to do with a cinematic experience than just resolution. Things that encompass a cinematic experience include great cinematography, sound, acting, and editing, something that Park has apparently mastered. I'd love to see this film, and am tempted to fly to Seoul just to see it, if I had the time...

I would not be surprised if this short will be better than any other short by any other director, for the entire year. Parks movies are beyond good, they are some of the best ever made.

Word to what Kholi and Barry have been saying, always the voice of reason on these boards.

By the way, they shot the film with DoF adapters, much like how many of you still might. An average person can not tell the difference between 1080 and 720, with out A/B'ing many times. And also, most people cant tell the difference between 1080 and 2K, and so forth. This is a demonstration that its not the camera, but the filmmaker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top