'28 Years Later' to Be First Blockbuster Movie Shot on iPhone

[cjsuk]

28 Days was shot with that video camera, and 28 Weeks was shot on super 16mm. (Neither of them had the camera written into the script, cloverfield/blair-witch style.) A newish iPhone can solidly outperform either of those cameras, even handheld without accessories. So I'd honestly worry that the film might look too good, and need to be degraded to match the aesthetic set by the previous films.

Whatever. The creators either know what they are doing, or they don't. But I'm still baffled as to why Apple doesn't take the simple and obvious step of adding bigger class and a camcorder form factor. The iPhone already does so much that "pro" cameras struggle with.

No it really can't outperform those cameras. The lenses on the iPhone are terrible. Sure the cameras are 48MP and can shoot 4k 30fps log which is great sounding but the glass in front of them is crap.

From a photography perspective, a 48MP iPhone 15 Pro Max can't touch a decade old entry level DSLR.

 

[Algr]

Are you shooting stuff that is 30 miles away? Yea, an iPhone won't cut it for that.

 

[Algr]

From a photography perspective, a 48MP iPhone 15 Pro Max can't touch a decade old entry level DSLR.

But those aren't DSLRs. The Super 16 looked like crap in many shots. It handled cityscapes poorly, and the darker scenes turned to mud. I figured that this was intentional, as it invoked the 576p video of the first film.

I'm not saying that the iPhone is as good as pro equipment. Just that, seen in isolation, a theater audience won't see anything particularly "wrong" with it.

 

[MisterAndrew]

Why would they do this? Even a consumer Sony mirrorless camera would be way better than using an iPhone. You can get some great shots with an iPhone, but you have to understand the limitations. Compared to a dedicated camera it’s awful, but it’s super convenient so that’s why we use it. Makes no sense for a movie production.

 

[Algr]

Films like this usually have a "making of" documentary attached, so I hope they cover this. Maybe they are relying on iPhone features that can't be done in a mirrorless camera? Something to do with bluetooth or AI processing? Given that ridiculous kit they build around the phone, it can't be about portability.

Compared to a dedicated camera it’s awful

Can you show me some pics that could not have been done on an iPhone? I understand the telephoto limitation, but other then that, I am curious.

 

[cjsuk]

But those aren't DSLRs. The Super 16 looked like crap in many shots. It handled cityscapes poorly, and the darker scenes turned to mud. I figured that this was intentional, as it invoked the 576p video of the first film.

I'm not saying that the iPhone is as good as pro equipment. Just that, seen in isolation, a theater audience won't see anything particularly "wrong" with it.

The super 16 stuff existed mostly for economy. The combination of small film size and speed required a lot of compromises in dynamic range and effective grain at the advantage of cost.

As for the iPhone, there is no effective aperture control and you have 2 or 3 crap prime lenses which means pulling any artistic depth of field effects is tricky if not a dead end. Can't do this on an iPhone for example without having to resort to digital trickery!

Taken on a crap mirrorless for ref.

Another one, of a friend of mine, taken on the same camera. DoF used for dramatic effect and subject isolation

Absolutely can't do that on an iPhone.

Portrait mode exists because the cameras are crap.

 

[Algr]

Those are telephoto shots. I already said I understand that, and iPhone camera are improving in that regard.

I really don't see the iPhone struggling much here:
(This is an iPhone 10.)

I recognize the small-sensor look, but it is just another look to me. Not inherently good or bad.

 

[cjsuk]

I really don't see the iPhone struggling much here:
(This is an iPhone 10.)

I recognize the small-sensor look, but it is just another look to me. Not inherently good or bad.

Within a few seconds, it's flat and uninspiring.

This is more like it ...

 

[Algr]

Again, Telephoto. Is that the whole advantage to those cameras?

The video looks beautiful to me. I think "flat and uninspiring" is an emotional reaction to all that expensive gear being less important than you think.

 

[huanbrother]

The head behind the camera is more important than the camera itself.

 

[citysnaps]

The head behind the camera is more important than the camera itself.

Spot-on.

The camera used is pretty much mice-nuts. It's about the photographer's experiences, recognizing nice/quality light, ability to compose determining which elements should or should not be in the frame, recognizing the importance of gesture, recognizing potential narratives that can stimulate a viewer's imagination leading to conjuring a story, dropping elements into the shadows to provoke mystery, and at least a dozen other things.

 

[Rock_Lee]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just use a Black Magic Pocket Camera 4k or 6k? It would have the same amount of mobility and better sensor and better storage capacity due to Samsung SSD's.... either way they would've paid probably around the same amount of money as several brand new iPhone with limited storage capacity and camera sensors.....I mean how many minutes will it really capture footage in raw before it either heats up too much, dies from battery usage or full memory.... either way not a good way to use a phone for filming a high budget film....

 

[Royksöpp]

I hope they don't film it at 60FPS I don't want to watch a full length movie that looks like it was shot on an iPhone.

 

[Algr]

I hope they don't film it at 60FPS I don't want to watch a full length movie that looks like it was shot on an iPhone.

I find that look quite interesting. It took a few minutes to get used to in in The Hobbit, but I liked it after that.

 

[wikiverse]

Everyone seems to be focused on the tech specs (48MP vs 576i vs super 16), but no one has brought up how absolutely useless the iphone is with lens flare.

Seriously, try taking a photo or video with point light sources like fairy lights or xmas lights or even a shot of a sunset, ugly blue blobs everywhere in your image - worse on video because the image stabilization makes them 'shake' since the sensor is stabilized and not the lens.It's unusable for even basic corporate production or stock footage, so it boggles the mind why anyone would want to shoot a film on it.

I'm guessing they've either replaced the lenses entirely, or send them off to have additional coatings applied before shoving a cinema lens in front of it, so it's not really an 'iphone' camera anymore - at least not one you could buy.

 

[delsoul]

Sounds interesting but I’ve given up on modern Hollywood/western movies. More concerned about agendas than just a solid story. I’ve been taking a strong liking to a lot of Asian movies where you can just turn on the subtitles and almost guarantee you’ll be entertained with a storyline, not a political agenda.

Still pretty cool they’re filming this movie completely in an iPhone, though. I can imagine if there using Mac computers, etc that transferring the footage to be edited and everything else will be a breeze compared to the past

 

[citysnaps]

Everyone seems to be focused on the tech specs (48MP vs 576i vs super 16), but no one has brought up how absolutely useless the iphone is with lens flare.

Seriously, try taking a photo or video with point light sources like fairy lights or xmas lights or even a shot of a sunset, ugly blue blobs everywhere in your image - worse on video because the image stabilization makes them 'shake' since the sensor is stabilized and not the lens.It's unusable for even basic corporate production or stock footage, so it boggles the mind why anyone would want to shoot a film on it.

I'm guessing they've either replaced the lenses entirely, or send them off to have additional coatings applied before shoving a cinema lens in front of it, so it's not really an 'iphone' camera anymore - at least not one you could buy.

I used to get a lot of lens flare on my iPhone 12 when shooting where there's a lot of off-axis Sun light nearby. I attributed that to the silver ring with an interior front bevel surrounding the lens. That reflected off-axis strong light (from the Sun, as an example) into the lens.

Since Apple introduced the iPhone 14 that's all gone (with no silver ring around the front of the lens). Ditto with my iPhone 15PM. And that's after making a ton of photos with both phones outdoors and indoors with strong off-axis light.

I've yet to see any flare on my 16PM, though I haven't used it enough to say with certainty. I suspect there will similarly be no flare as was the case with my 14 and 15 phones.

 

[steve09090]

Apple is fooling its customers, once again. But, yes of course you can shoot a movie with an iPhone - but why should you shoot a movie with several $100 millions of production cost with an iPhone? And even if you mount special lenses to the phone, the sensor is too bad.

For a professional movie, you‘ll grab some RED cameras and you are good to go.

So Oppenheimer was objectively wrong to use film?

 

[Algr]

Seriously, try taking a photo or video with point light sources like fairy lights or xmas lights or even a shot of a sunset, ugly blue blobs everywhere in your image - worse on video because the image stabilization makes them 'shake' since the sensor is stabilized and not the lens.It's unusable for even basic corporate production or stock footage, so it boggles the mind why anyone would want to shoot a film on it.

Two thoughts. Those rigs with the shades ought to prevent the blobs. (They look green to me.) I wonder if AI or other tactics could remove them? And I don't see them in daylight photography. If the movie is shot on cloudy days, it would not be a problem.

So Oppenheimer was objectively wrong to use film?

Sure, why not.

 

[Zest28]

Hollywood productions shot on iPhone don't make a lot of sense to me, but it's interesting nonetheless. If we look at the huge lens rigged up on the right side of the image, they might as well have attached a camera with a bigger sensor.

Why not? Most Hollywood movies look worse than videos from a YouTuber shot simply on his iPhone with all video editing down on his iPhone.

It seems they apply some weird “Hollywood filter” that doesn’t look like real life. But I must admit it looks cool on an OLED display.

Makes me wonder if someday we will have an AI which transforms your videos shot on your smartphone and gives it the “Hollywood look”. Because that is what you are paying $30.000 for those Red camera’s, to get that “Hollywood look”.

 

[Regbial]

28 Days Later is also completely unavailable online. You can only watch it if you get the DVD or BluRay.

Really!? Glad I bought it when it was available on iTunes then... still, i hope they rerelease it and 28 Weeks Later when this one comes out.. a 4K version or something.. and with Apple seemingly sponsoring (?) this movie, maybe the odds are higher..

 

[cjsuk]

Spot-on.

The camera used is pretty much mice-nuts. It's about the photographer's experiences, recognizing nice/quality light, ability to compose determining which elements should or should not be in the frame, recognizing the importance of gesture, recognizing potential narratives that can stimulate a viewer's imagination leading to conjuring a story, dropping elements into the shadows to provoke mystery, and at least a dozen other things.

Yes and no.

As much as photographers like the line "a decent photographer can take a photo with a potato", this simply isn't true and I really wish people would stop pretending it's just an art. There is some science in there too. It's always a compromise between the photographer and the camera. What the human does is subjective. What the camera does is defined by the specific technical and physical limitations it has. The photographer has about a 60% input into that and trades the remaining compromises off before they press the shutter.

As stated above the iPhone has a number of serious limitations compared to even a bottom end DSLR. That reduces the size of the toolbox the photographer has before pressing the shutter. As I stated earlier is the DoF problem, which is emulated with portrait mode, somewhat badly I'll note, is an attempt to correct the sins before pressing the shutter.

Now there are marginal gains the more money you throw at the problem, but when you start with a heavily compromised device, well you get a heavily compromised toolbox.

For ref I usually shoot on a Nikon Z50 with a 28mm f/2.8 prime lens and a good old 35mm Praktica w/50mm on film. The latter is really fun because it has some very hard compromises but considering it's 40-something years old, the glass is better than my iPhone 15 Pro by a mile. That says a lot. Occasionally I'll crack out the 140mm zoom on the Z50 if something is far away, but mostly I shoot with the prime.

Edit: technical problem of the week with the iPhone 13 pro / iPhone 15 pro - flat lenses = internal reflections. Really difficult getting rid of some point light sources bouncing around inside the lens when shooting some video on Friday. Urgh.

 

[cjsuk]

Sounds interesting but I’ve given up on modern Hollywood/western movies. More concerned about agendas than just a solid story. I’ve been taking a strong liking to a lot of Asian movies where you can just turn on the subtitles and almost guarantee you’ll be entertained with a storyline, not a political agenda.

Still pretty cool they’re filming this movie completely in an iPhone, though. I can imagine if there using Mac computers, etc that transferring the footage to be edited and everything else will be a breeze compared to the past

If you're going to pick on Hollywood, please pick on the awful colour grading. Apart from Wes Anderson.

 

[cjsuk]

Everyone seems to be focused on the tech specs (48MP vs 576i vs super 16), but no one has brought up how absolutely useless the iphone is with lens flare.

Seriously, try taking a photo or video with point light sources like fairy lights or xmas lights or even a shot of a sunset, ugly blue blobs everywhere in your image - worse on video because the image stabilization makes them 'shake' since the sensor is stabilized and not the lens.It's unusable for even basic corporate production or stock footage, so it boggles the mind why anyone would want to shoot a film on it.

I'm guessing they've either replaced the lenses entirely, or send them off to have additional coatings applied before shoving a cinema lens in front of it, so it's not really an 'iphone' camera anymore - at least not one you could buy.

Yeah that. My complaint about it above holds.

Again it's mostly about the glass and not the camera on the technical side of things and that is crap.

This is even more pronounced when you have the typical LED panel stage lights without diffusers on them.

 

[cjsuk]

Why not? Most Hollywood movies look worse than videos from a YouTuber shot simply on his iPhone with all video editing down on his iPhone.

It seems they apply some weird “Hollywood filter” that doesn’t look like real life. But I must admit it looks cool on an OLED display.

Makes me wonder if someday we will have an AI which transforms your videos shot on your smartphone and gives it the “Hollywood look”. Because that is what you are paying $30.000 for those Red camera’s, to get that “Hollywood look”.

This is, as I complain about above, mostly something that goes on when they are doing the colour grading, not at the camera end of things. You can do it yourself quite easily. All you have to do is be colour blind and interviewed by a colour grader who is also colour blind 🤣