Apple Discusses How it Created the iPhone 13's Cinematic Mode

Mr. Dee said:
It still doesn’t look great, watch Joanna Sterns review. All that blur around the subject. It has way to
go. Just consider it as the new Animoji, but one with potential. Hopefully Apple will perfect it with software and not require a new iPhone to get better quality. Also watching Zollotechs review, I still don’t see the 35 mm film quality.
Click to expand...
You bet they won't just software update it. Things like Portrait Mode, Smart HDR, Deep Fusion, Night Mode etc. are only updated when they release new models.
 
Mr. Dee said:
It still doesn’t look great, watch Joanna Sterns review. All that blur around the subject. It has way to
go. Just consider it as the new Animoji, but one with potential. Hopefully Apple will perfect it with software and not require a new iPhone to get better quality. Also watching Zollotechs review, I still don’t see the 35 mm film quality.
Click to expand...
Will be fixed it in iphone 15.
 
Considering the many limitations of Cinematic Mode, I cannot help but see it as a marketing trick to underline the fact that the cameras were upgraded this year.

Yes, the camera hardware was in fact upgraded a lot, that isn’t just marketing. But Apple quite obviously wants the inattentive to think that none of this Cinematic Mode and ProRes could be done previously and is tied up in the new cameras and A15 chip which just isn’t true at all:

Despite the hardware upgrades that we did get in the 13s, most of these added features are software based and could definitely also be added to the 11 and 12 Pro models, probably also the non-Pro and older than 11 models.
 
diogenis said:
So, all this simply means that depth of field is "artificial" or at least sounds like it. It is more an effect than the product of a wide open lens that will create a very tight depth of field.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Even with still photos in Portrait Mode on my iPhone 12, I see distortion artifacts around, say, frizzy hair where it can't figure out how to mask it out properly. I often dial back the simulated "f-stop" to 8.0 which makes it a lot less obvious. On some photos, though, I've had to disable it completely because it was so glaring. I can't imagine this is going to work seamlessly and consistently in video if there are complex subjects in the foreground, especially if lighting isn't perfect.

This is all super impressive technically, but if you're actually shooting something real with paid crew and actors you're probably going to spring for at least a basic DSLR or mirrorless camera to make certain you're getting the shots you
need.

This will definitely help people level up their casual videos, though, and should be fun to play with.
 
After seeing real-world examples of this feature in action, I'm convinced Apple produced a sample under absolutely ideal circumstances, possibly including flood lights on all subjects where focus will be. This is likely to be one of those features like the original portrait mode, where you're like "huh, that's kinda cool I guess," but it won't live up to its promise for 3-4 software and hardware generations.
 
This feature honestly looks okay. I'm sure it will improve over time. However, even during Apple's keynote—likely demonstrating this feature under perfect conditions—it looked just...fine.
 
w5jck said:
This is all marketing BS anyway. Apple, Google, and other smartphone manufacturers all do this. They take their lackluster smartphone cameras, put them in the hands of professional videographers in expensive studio locations then post process the bejeezes out of the video with a battery of expensive computers and software. First, those videos look crappy on the TV commercials. Almost every dark scene has the subject front lit via studio lighting, which is cheating IMO. Second, the average person will never be able to grab their smartphone and produce anything like that. It is total BS. It is putting lipstick on a pig. If you want to create TV quality video, then mortgage your house and shell out a small fortune for good equipment, don't buy a smartphone to attempt that. Or you can drink their cool-aide and be disappointed. Smartphone equals low quality images/video for social media. Smart advertising won’t change that.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to mortgage your house. You can rent the equipment for the days of the shoots and be done with it. Or you can buy a cheaper DSLR and some primes and learn to focus pull or use AF but focus pulling always the best way.
 
w5jck said:
This is all marketing BS anyway. Apple, Google, and other smartphone manufacturers all do this. They take their lackluster smartphone cameras, put them in the hands of professional videographers in expensive studio locations then post process the bejeezes out of the video with a battery of expensive computers and software. First, those videos look crappy on the TV commercials. Almost every dark scene has the subject front lit via studio lighting, which is cheating IMO. Second, the average person will never be able to grab their smartphone and produce anything like that. It is total BS. It is putting lipstick on a pig. If you want to create TV quality video, then mortgage your house and shell out a small fortune for good equipment, don't buy a smartphone to attempt that. Or you can drink their cool-aide and be disappointed. Smartphone equals low quality images/video for social media. Smart advertising won’t change that.
Click to expand...
Welcome to desktop publishing in the 90s.

You are right, they should just give up. If a $1000 multipurpose device can't match a $100,000 custom built tool what's the point? :rolleyes:
 
TracerAnalog said:
Yes, it is artificial, but anything but simple. The footage I've seen is impressive for it's ability to mimick the focus effect, but it doesn't convince me yet. I'm sure future phones will ramp up to 4K with even more convincing fields of depth. One thing's for certain: computational video- and photography is here to stay, and will allow for creative uses we cannot even imagine yet.
Click to expand...
The absolute exact opposite mentality of what Leica tries to do. Yet again, maybe this is what differentiates a professional camera with decent lens and an iPhone. However still the iPhone has the advantage of having it with you always and it is small and light.
 
diogenis said:
The absolute exact opposite mentality of what Leica tries to do. Yet again, maybe this is what differentiates a professional camera with decent lens and an iPhone. However still the iPhone has the advantage of having it with you always and it is small and light.
Click to expand...
Physics has a lot to do with that. There is a serious limitation on depth of field due to the sensor and lens size. A phone camera just can't capture the same DoF as a full size camera.
 
I wonder if the will make use of their Lidar data to improve this at some point... Would be a bit disappointed if it was not researched.
 
Laird Knox said:
Welcome to desktop publishing in the 90s.

You are right, they should just give up. If a $1000 multipurpose device can't match a $100,000 custom built tool what's the point? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Exactly!!! I was there in the 90's publishing world. I hate this gatekeeping done by terrified "professionals" that lean on the cost and prestige of their equipment to justify things staying status quo to prevent the masses from taking their jobs. Talented people can make amazing things with crap equipment, so something like cinema mode is very cool at letting anyone with an iPhone get their feet wet in the filmmaking medium. Yes, its not the be all end all. No Christopher Nolan will not throw away his IMAX cameras and specialty lenses for this. But it will make a kid in his bedroom make his first movie that might lead to him being a great filmmaker. Or it might make filming a birthday party more fun. It is a fun tool to enjoy how you see fit.
 
diogenis said:
So, all this simply means that depth of field is "artificial" or at least sounds like it. It is more an effect than the product of a wide open lens that will create a very tight depth of field.
Click to expand...

Just like every other camera. None of them exactly match the human eye. The idea that an effect is “artificial” if it’s produced by software but “natural” if it’s produced by (artificial) lenses is nonsense. Like saying food is “inorganic” if it isn’t grown by “natural” farming methods.
 
YPa said:
I wonder if the will make use of their Lidar data to improve this at some point... Would be a bit disappointed if it was not researched.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that iPhone lidar has a range of only 5 meters, which is sufficient for portraits but too short for many videos. And increasing that range is not trivial requiring higher power lasers, larger optics, or both.
 
Last edited:
Moonlight said:
Exactly!!! I was there in the 90's publishing world. I hate this gatekeeping done by terrified "professionals" that lean on the cost and prestige of their equipment to justify things staying status quo to prevent the masses from taking their jobs.
Click to expand...

But is it the professionals who are terrified? I haven’t seen any criticism from real working cinematographers, although that might come later. Right now, it seems to be just the usual whiners from the peanut gallery.
 
Moonlight said:
Exactly!!! I was there in the 90's publishing world. I hate this gatekeeping done by terrified "professionals" that lean on the cost and prestige of their equipment to justify things staying status quo to prevent the masses from taking their jobs. Talented people can make amazing things with crap equipment, so something like cinema mode is very cool at letting anyone with an iPhone get their feet wet in the filmmaking medium. Yes, its not the be all end all. No Christopher Nolan will not throw away his IMAX cameras and specialty lenses for this. But it will make a kid in his bedroom make his first movie that might lead to him being a great filmmaker. Or it might make filming a birthday party more fun. It is a fun tool to enjoy how you see fit.
Click to expand...

"But it will make a kid in his bedroom make his first movie that might lead to him being a great filmmaker."


Here's a movie 15 year old Steven Spielberg made using his friends and an old 8mm movie camera from his dad.

 
LonestarOne said:
But is it the professionals who are terrified? I haven’t seen any criticism from real working cinematographers, although that might come later. Right now, it seems to be just the usual whiners from the peanut gallery.
Click to expand...
It is the pseudo pros, that is why I put professionals in quotes. The ones that think specs make great art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top