"Game Changer" Steven Soderbergh shot his latest movie entirely on the iPhone

I can't decide if that trailer looks good for having been shot on a $1,000.00 phone or bad and it should have been shot on something better? It doesn't look bad, but something looks off a bit to me, not that it looks terrible. I do notice the deep DOF, which in itself, makes it stand out a bit from the usual "shot with a S35 FOV" aesthetic.
 
Pub-lic-i-ty Stunt.

I've said before, give Steven Spielberg a handycam and it's gonna be better than what "uncle Bob" can give you with an Alexa(yes, I know we're talking about Soderbergh). BUT there was no reason to do this other than "I can". Granted this is just a trailer, but does shooting it on an iPhone in anyway add to the story or let them accomplish something they couldn't otherwise? Doubtful. This isn't a few college guys trying to make a movie with no money. I'll say it once again, it's nothing more than a glorified publicity stunt.
 
Quoting Soderbergh from the article "“I think this is the future,” Soderbergh said. “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 good enough for me. I'm selling all my cameras and lenses. I did this once before when Coppola declared the GH2 the best looking in the Zacuto shootout. I sold everything and bought a GH2. But this time I'm sure Soderbergh has it right.
 
I'd be curious as to what game is changed by this. So little of what makes this look decent has to do with what it's shot on.

Maybe the size and weight helps with some camera placement or handling that would be harder with a larger, heavier device, but for the most part, this is just competent filmmaking, where the camera itself isn't all that important.

Soderbergh with an iPhone is still Soderbergh. On the other hand, you could give this guy an Alexa package and a two-ton grip truck full of top-end gear, and it still won't get much better than this:

 
Does it have the look I'd want not really, but still very impressive for a phone. I would think the biggest problem would be shooting in low light and trying to avoid noise in the shots.
I'm still very impressed by what he did though, not to shabby.
 
Last edited:
The amount of extra gear/gadgets/stuff to pull this off is not really mentioned. You can't really take a naked iPhone and pull off production value like this so really its a bit misleading. The same is true of any camera really and if we get to the point where the camera used is the star attraction of a particular movie that is a very sad day indeed.

Yes most people won't know it was shot on an iPhone but that argument actually goes both ways. If they don't really know then why bother doing so in the first place? Shooting a movie on a phone it just an attention seeking tactic so the press will actually pay attention to a crappy movie that would tank at the box office. Of course the iPhone has a good camera but we don't always shoot with a particular camera just because of how the pixels look. Ergonomics, workflow and not having to slap a truck load of crap to the camera are equally important. The iPhone is pretty lousy outdoors without the assistance of ND filtering due to the lack of an adjustable aperture. Forget about DOF and compression quality. It is the constantly shifting shutter speed that drives me insane. If you can fit a variable ND filter to an iPhone (which there are products for) then maybe it could be usable but again why use a camera hobbled to the point where every normal function has to be a gear add-on?

A street artist painting with their feet is an impressive form of art and a nice twist on the medium. Using an iPhone is just sad and attention seeking.

The only reason any of us are even talking about this movie is due to the iPhone which is the entire reason why he used it as a marketing gimmick. If it was just another crappy movie it would largely be ignored by everybody.
 
Maybe instead of content is king it should be marketing is king?

Movie quality aside, like 'Tangerine', the iphone factor helps sell the movie. It won't be long until this tactic stops working so I think it's pretty clever from Soderbergh using it while he can.

It'd be cool if he actually shot with a bare bones iphone, I can see the benefit in that. But it's lame when you all the accessories attached and the total rig is nearly the same size as any other kitted out cinema camera.
 
It doesn’t look good camera wise... I believe it was shot on an iPhone.

The takeaway for me, rather, was how much I didn’t care. How interesting it is to watch regardless. 10x more gripping than the abundant YouTube videos of pretty shots with no substance.

A reminder for all of us that what we need gear wise we likely already have. And the most interesting things to watch don’t reflect the tools they were made with, but the one using the tools.

By the way Thomas, FilmicPro helps with a lot of what you mentioned on iPhone! But I agree 100% - everything I’ve ever seen that was shot on iPhone with professional results was kitted out with tons of crew and lights and support gear.

Then again, I guess that’s the point - it’s the other stuff that matters more!
 
# RobNorton Yes you are right using only a iphone leaves a ton of money for marketing. That is how blockbusters are made. :-)
 
Thomas Smet said:
The amount of extra gear/gadgets/stuff to pull this off is not really mentioned. You can't really take a naked iPhone and pull off production value like this so really its a bit misleading. The same is true of any camera really and if we get to the point where the camera used is the star attraction of a particular movie that is a very sad day indeed.

Yes most people won't know it was shot on an iPhone but that argument actually goes both ways. If they don't really know then why bother doing so in the first place? Shooting a movie on a phone it just an attention seeking tactic so the press will actually pay attention to a crappy movie that would tank at the box office. Of course the iPhone has a good camera but we don't always shoot with a particular camera just because of how the pixels look. Ergonomics, workflow and not having to slap a truck load of crap to the camera are equally important. The iPhone is pretty lousy outdoors without the assistance of ND filtering due to the lack of an adjustable aperture. Forget about DOF and compression quality. It is the constantly shifting shutter speed that drives me insane. If you can fit a variable ND filter to an iPhone (which there are products for) then maybe it could be usable but again why use a camera hobbled to the point where every normal function has to be a gear add-on?

A street artist painting with their feet is an impressive form of art and a nice twist on the medium. Using an iPhone is just sad and attention seeking.

The only reason any of us are even talking about this movie is due to the iPhone which is the entire reason why he used it as a marketing gimmick. If it was just another crappy movie it would largely be ignored by everybody.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The technically smarter move would have been to shoot the entire movie with a semi professional small sensor 4K camcorder and to PRETEND that it was shot on a smartphone (if that special look makes any sense in the story you want to tell).

As a statement though, shooting an entire movie with a smartphone is still valid: Not everything depends on the gear.

But for pros and insiders IMO it would be a bigger statement to shoot a big blockbuster with a GH5.
 
Looks terrible. Claire Foy looks great though. ;)

RED's phone isn't to shoot stuff like this though. It's to shoot 3D and convert to holographic display without the need for glasses, and watch it on the same device. You can then kit it out as desired for 2D shooting of R3D files down the road. If you do get modules to shoot R3D files in 2D, Jim says it'll look closer to their Scarlet cameras.

Not sure what basic 2D just off the base phone will look like compared to the iPhone. On par or better I'd imagine.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?164930-HYDROGEN-Update-January-22nd
 
Agreed it looks awful...and if it's such a game changer, why mention that he shot it on an iPhone....he never mentions other cameras he shoots his other films on...Cloverfield was shot on a little handycam because that was the whole story was told through the perspective of the guy running around with the camera..still a huge budget movie...besides at least two other renowned directors made features on an iPhone over the last couple of years.
 
It's a mind game.

We are more and more dependant on those iThingies and all that shoots have fov and dof that audience is very familiar with from their own experience.

Basically, it could happen to you.

Watch the movie to learn how to prevent it.
 
Also agreed it looks awful. True as we used to say in variety tv "they don't go home humming the set" but I for one will wait for this one to hit netflix. Current day Blair Witch comes to mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top