Unsane - Steven Soderbergh's new iPhone movie with Claire Foy (out this weekend, 80% on RT)

[Guestx]

Here's one used for a commercial last year:

That's pretty crazy. I've never seen a rig like that for a telephone.

According to Wikipedia, for Tangerine: "They used the FiLMIC Pro app, a video app (to control focus, aperture and color temperature, as well as capture video clips at higher bit-rates) and an anamorphic adapter from Moondog Labs (to capture widescreen). They also used Tiffen's Steadicam Smoothee to capture smooth moving shots."

I'm not sure if that was the extent of the equipment or only a selective list. But that's what it says. If that's the extent of it, then it's about $200 worth of add-ons.

 

[CerebralKnievel]

That's pretty crazy. I've never seen a rig like that for a telephone.

According to Wikipedia, for Tangerine: "They used the FiLMIC Pro app, a video app (to control focus, aperture and color temperature, as well as capture video clips at higher bit-rates) and an anamorphic adapter from Moondog Labs (to capture widescreen). They also used Tiffen's Steadicam Smoothee to capture smooth moving shots."

I'm not sure if that was the extent of the equipment or only a selective list. But that's what it says. If that's the extent of it, then it's about $200 worth of add-ons.

To be honest, I don't know. I'm no expert on phone video, but I am a photographer, and I don't believe that a $100 moondog lens or iphones native sensor are granting one the optical quality to shoot in a variety of light conditions with precise exposure control and cinematic quality to display at 4k. But hey, who knows.

 

[Guestx]

To be honest, I don't know. I'm no expert on phone video, but I am a photographer, and I don't believe that a $100 moondog lens or iphones native sensor are granting one the optical quality to shoot in a variety of light conditions with precise exposure control and cinematic quality to display at 4k. But hey, who knows.

Yeah, I dunno either. I'd probably be more interested in researching it if I a) had an iPhone and/or b) thought Tangerine looked like a movie I'd have any interest in. But neither is the case.

 

[AronaBeatsJones]

Oh dear.

How about you Hollywood fuckers shoot stuff in film again and put some effort into your multimillion dollar film projects?

 

[Guestx]

Oh dear.

How about you Hollywood fuckers shoot stuff in film again and put some effort into your multimillion dollar film projects?

Bruh, normally I'm the guy who is reluctant to let go of the old ways of doing things, but film is dead and for good reason, I think.

Yes, it can look beautiful, but I think that digital technology has largely caught up with it in that regard. And for every other factor the advantage lies with digital.

Film stock is very expensive, whereas memory cards are very cheap. Film development is very costly, whereas digital video needs no development. Film must be developed before you can review your footage, whereas digital video can be reviewed immediately after shooting it.

I'm a nostalgic motherfucker in general . . . but die, film, die!

 

[Turtlejuice]

Yeah, I dunno either. I'd probably be more interested in researching it if I a) had an iPhone and/or b) thought Tangerine looked like a movie I'd have any interest in. But neither is the case.

You can get filmic pro, cinema 4k and various other "pro" apps for android.

They actually make your phone a decent camera, high bit rate, a lot of manual control. There's not much you can do about tiny sensors though.

 

[Guestx]

You can get filmic pro, cinema 4k and various other "pro" apps for android.

They actually make your phone a decent camera, high bit rate, a lot of manual control. There's not much you can do about tiny sensors though.

Yeah, I looked into it actually. But my phone is a $50 piece of shit and more importantly I have a Nikon D3300. So why am I going to try to shoot a movie on my telephone?

 

[Turtlejuice]

Yeah, I looked into it actually. But my phone is a $50 piece of shit and more importantly I have a Nikon D3300. So why am I going to try to shoot a movie on my telephone?

Convenience, possible story reasons, experimentation etc...

Not entirely sure, but it looked like parts of American Vandal were filmed on a phone.

 

[breadfighter]

This "shot on iPhone" thing is publicity. Most people don't comprehend that films shot on an iPhone are being shot by an iPhone with $5k+ in gear attached to it. Lens attachments, even auxiliary sensor replacements, I'd wager.

Here's one used for a commercial last year:

I don't get it. Is there any benefit to shooting this way or do they just want to prove that they can?

 

[AronaBeatsJones]

Bruh, normally I'm the guy who is reluctant to let go of the old ways of doing this, but film is dead and for good reason, I think.

Yes, it can look beautiful, but I think that digital technology has largely caught up with it in that regard. And for every other factor the advantage lies with digital.

Film stock is very expensive, whereas memory cards are very cheap. Film development is very costly, whereas digital video needs no development. Film must be developed before you can review your footage, whereas digital video can be reviewed immediately after shooting it.

I'm a nostalgic motherfucker in general . . . but die, film, die!

King Nolan is ushering in film revivalism. It's only superior in every conceivable way, and in the grand scheme of these monster Hollywood budgets, film vs. DV is really a nonissue economically.

Movies made in the 2020s should go back to film, natural cinematography, and the absolute death of CGI + blue tint + low-lit scenes + extreme close-ups.

 

[Guestx]

Convenience, possible story reasons, experimentation etc...

Not entirely sure, but it looked like parts of American Vandal were filmed on a phone.

The only reason that I personally would want to try shooting on a phone would be to take up the challenge of making something that looks professional on a piece of equipment that wasn't designed for professional filmmaking. But that challenge was a lot more tempting before someone actually did it, with Tangerine.

The only other thing I can think of is if there's a scene in the script that was actually supposed to be shot on a phone, and in that case, sure, shoot it on a phone. But that's different from shooting an entire movie that way.

I could see someone else doing it if they wanted to be a filmmaker and they had no other equipment than their phone. I was in that boat for a little while, and actually did a few tests but my phone just can't hang. Like I said, it cost $50. So instead I just bought a D3300, which killed any interest I had in smartphone filmmaking.

 

[Guestx]

King Nolan is ushering in film revivalism. It's only superior in every conceivable way, and in the grand scheme of these monster Hollywood budgets, film vs. DV is really a nonissue economically.

Movies made in the 2020s should go back to film, natural cinematography, and the absolute death of CGI + blue tint + low-lit scenes + extreme close-ups.

Film revivalism? I think more like he's just one of the last hangers-on. Him and Tarantino are keeping film alive, but no one else really seems interested in shooting on it.

Did you know that film movie cameras are not even being manufactured anymore? True story. I'm not just saying that no new ones are being designed, I'm saying that no one is even making them anymore at all.

 

[Turtlejuice]

The only reason that I personally would want to try shooting on a phone would be to take up the challenge of making something that looks professional on a piece of equipment that wasn't designed for professional filmmaking. But that challenge was a lot more tempting before someone actually did it, with Tangerine.

The only other thing I can think of is if there's a scene in the script that was actually supposed to be shot on a phone, and in that case, sure, shoot it on a phone. But that's different from shooting an entire movie that way.

I could see someone else doing it if they wanted to be a filmmaker and they had no other equipment than their phone. I was in that boat for a little while, and actually did a few tests but my phone just can't hang. Like I said, it cost $50. So instead I just bought a D3300, which killed any interest I had in smartphone filmmaking.

Yeah I mean a $50 phone isn't going to be an option. But for someone carrying around a decent smart phone, for like $10 you've got a decent camera that you can carry everywhere.

Don't forget, a few years ago filmmakers were snorting at the idea of making a film on a DSLR.

 

[Guestx]

Don't forget, a few years ago filmmakers were snorting at the idea of making a film on a DSLR.

DSLR filmmaking was all the rage for a little while. It seems that now filmmakers are starting to move past it, in one way or another. But DSLRs are still very capable machines.

Since we're talking about shooting films with off-beat equipment, what's actually more interesting to me than filmmakers today shooting on cell phones is filmmakers shooting on retro-tech like MiniDV cameras. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Panasonic DVX100, but it's a an old standard-def MiniDV camera that a few filmmakers have used relatively recently to shoot documentaries.

For instance, in 2014 Robert Greene used it to shoot his film Actress. As you can see, he used it to achieve an interesting aesthetic that looks different from anything coming out today.





The Ross Bros' also used it for their 2015 documentary Western.

 

[Turtlejuice]

DSLR filmmaking was all the rage for a little while. It seems that now filmmakers are starting to move past it, in one way or another. But DSLRs are still very capable machines.

Since we're talking about shooting films with off-beat equipment, what's actually more interesting to me than filmmakers today shooting on cell phones is filmmakers shooting on retro-tech like MiniDV cameras. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Panasonic DVX100, but it's a an old standard-def MiniDV camera that a few filmmakers have used relatively recently to shoot documentaries.

For instance, in 2014 Robert Greene used it to shoot his film Actress. As you can see, he used it to achieve an interesting aesthetic that looks different from anything coming out today.





The Ross Bros' also used it for their 2015 documentary Western.

DSLR film making is still all the rage. Or rather, mirrorless camera film making, which is essentially the same thing. Where we are now with smartphone film making is pretty much where we were in the mid 00s with DSLR film making. I was a member of a film making forum that had a mix of students, indies, people that worked for big studios, and wannabe film makers. The opinions going around about DSLR film making back then were almost identical to what is going on with smart phone film making now.

It's only a matter of time that someone puts together a phone with a decent camera, and it becomes popular to make films with your phone. Panasonic and Samsung have both dipped their feet into that area, and you've got the RED phone coming soon that will no doubt beat the shit out of any DSLR/mirrorless on the market right now. When there is a camera phone with a decent sized sensor on it, smartphone film making will be the new DSLR film making.

Standard def mini dv is actually still perfectly acceptable quality wise, especially from a high end camera. If you really want retro go for video8, or hi8.

 

[Guestx]

DSLR film making is still all the rage. Or rather, mirrorless camera film making, which is essentially the same thing. Where we are now with smartphone film making is pretty much where we were in the mid 00s with DSLR film making. I was a member of a film making forum that had a mix of students, indies, people that worked for big studios, and wannabe film makers. The opinions going around about DSLR film making back then were almost identical to what is going on with smart phone film making now.

It's only a matter of time that someone puts together a phone with a decent camera, and it becomes popular to make films with your phone. Panasonic and Samsung have both dipped their feet into that area, and you've got the RED phone coming soon that will no doubt beat the shit out of any DSLR/mirrorless on the market right now. When there is a camera phone with a decent sized sensor on it, smartphone film making will be the new DSLR film making.

I really don't think that smartphone filmmaking will ever be anything more than something people fuck around with a bit just for the hell of it. Perhaps its real niche will be the people who can't afford real filmmaking equipment, but they have a phone, so they make films with their phone.

I mean, why would a professional use a smartphone? "Hey bruh, check this out, I can shoot this movie AND check my e-mail! All on the same device!" I mean, what the fuck is that?

What I have noticed is the opposite of what you seem to have noticed. Indie filmmakers are not moving from DSLRs to smartphones, they're moving from DSLRs to true dedicated filmmaking cameras like the Canon C100. Or they're finding ways to put the money together to rent an Alexa.

Standard def mini dv is actually still perfectly acceptable quality wise, especially from a high end camera. If you really want retro go for video8, or hi8.

I think it's an interesting aesthetic and just seeing it invokes a sense of nostalgia in me--it reminds me of the days with I coveted cameras like the DVX100 and the Canon XL2--but I'm not sure how well general audiences would accept a film shot on standard-def MiniDV. I think these days it can work for documentaries, because documentaries are expected to look more raw and stripped down, but I'm not sure you could shoot a narrative film on one of these cameras and have the average filmgoer accept it unless, perhaps, it was like a gritty street drama where you could have the grainy aesthetic work in the story's favor.

 

[Turtlejuice]

I really don't think that smartphone filmmaking will ever be anything more than something people fuck around with a bit just for the hell of it. Perhaps its real niche will be the people who can't afford real filmmaking equipment, but they have a phone, so they make films with their phone.

I mean, why would a professional use a smartphone? "Hey bruh, check this out, I can shoot this movie AND check my e-mail! All on the same device!" I mean, what the fuck is that?

What I have noticed is the opposite of what you seem to have noticed. Indie filmmakers are not moving from DSLRs to smartphones, they're moving from DSLRs to true dedicated filmmaking cameras like the Canon C100. Or they're finding ways to put the money together to rent an Alexa.



I think it's an interesting aesthetic and just seeing it invokes a sense of nostalgia in me--it reminds me of the days with I coveted cameras like the DVX100 and the Canon XL2--but I'm not sure how well general audiences would accept a film shot on standard-def MiniDV. I think these days it can work for documentaries, because documentaries are expected to look more raw and stripped down, but I'm not sure you could shoot a narrative film on one of these cameras and have the average filmgoer accept it unless, perhaps, it was like a gritty street drama where you could have the grainy aesthetic work in the story's favor.

Indie film makers weren't moving from pro cameras to DSLRs. It was the next gen indies that were using DSLRs and people with tight budgets. The pros, and the people who had access to pro equipment were saying things like

I really don't think that DSLR filmmaking will ever be anything more than something people fuck around with a bit just for the hell of it

If someone has $400 to make their first film, what are they going to do? Spend the entire budget on a low end DSLR/Mirrorless, or $10 on an app for their phone that will give them access to pro controls, pro standard picture profiles and 200mbps video?

I think cameras like the XL2 would work well for low budget b-movie horror. I think the audiences would accept that.

This is a test shot from the XM2



I think a lot of people looking at that wouldn't even know it's not a HD camera.

 

[Guestx]

If someone has $400 to make their first film, what are they going to do? Spend the entire budget on a low end DSLR/Mirrorless, or $10 on an app for their phone that will give them access to pro controls, pro standard picture profiles and 200mbps video?

It's like I said before, if their phone is all they have then that's what they'll use. But if they have any kind of actual budget then I'd imagine they'd at least want something with interchangeable lenses and superior low-light performance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't expect to see a lot of people who can afford a GH4, a7S or even something like a T6i eschew a camera like that in favor of their iPhone.

 

[Capt Lunatic]

If it was anyone but Steven Soderbergh holding the phone I'd be excited.

 

[Turtlejuice]

It's like I said before, if their phone is all they have then that's what they'll use. But if they have any kind of actual budget then I'd imagine they'd at least want something with interchangeable lenses and superior low-light performance.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't expect to see a lot of people who can afford a GH4, a7S or even something like a T6i eschew a camera like that in favor of their iPhone.

Again, these were the same arguments people made about DSLR film making in the early days. Pretty soon you'll be able to buy a smart phone for about half the price of a GH5, that will produce better video (if reports are even close to accurate). And if smart phone film making takes off you can guarantee companies will start catering for it, just like they did with DSLRs.