Should have been behind the scenes vid of how they used Pages to type out a press release.
You obviously don’t get it. If you want to show off the ultimate quality possible with a camera, you use it with the best equipment possible. Remember that they didn’t use external lenses. Really, what we’re talking about are just what a good production would use on a large scale. If cameras like this will force a serious rethink for expensive video camera makers such as Arri, the most used camera for movie work, it will be a good thing. It’s around $100,000 for the base camera, sans lens which can easily add a minimum of $10,000 to that price, and over $100,000 to it.Such a pointless exercise, the rest of the gear is $$$ why skimp on a $1k phone. Spend more on a proper cinema camera or just use that $1K on a more consumer level camera that will still be leaps ahead of an iPhone.
Be hilarious if it turned out that one was shot on a competitors phone!Also wondering if that behind the scenes video was itself shot on an iPhone. If so, could we get a behind the scene of that please.
honestly I’d choose the Z9 over RED or Arri Alexa
Yeah, but I’m gonna and that’s exactly what I’m going to use 😊Lmao, you've clearly never worked on a set before
Yeah, but I’m gonna and that’s exactly what I’m going to use 😊
If you can’t see the difference between a 48MP sensor and a 12MP one, then this shouldn’t matter to you.I still can hardly tell the difference between my iPhone 12 and iPhone 15 camera honestly and by that I mean, the differences I do see, seem rather software related
If it’s not a high end production, then you’ll get away with it. But it’s not designed for that.Yeah, but I’m gonna and that’s exactly what I’m going to use 😊
It didn't have to be this way. A decade ago FCP was the gold standard.FCPX at this point is pretty much only used by Youtubers, and even then most just use Adobe Premiere. If you're actually serious about video production you're gonna be using Blackmagic and Davinci Resolve.
Apple has done this a lot in the past too, showing a lot of MS office instead of iWork for example. I think it’s mainly advertising how much the big name third party developers are onboard. Most people already know Apple apps will work very well with Apple machines.Very impressive video last night shot on a small bit of tech that fits in people's pockets.
The odd thing about the whole show in trying to show appreciation for this capability was how FCPX seemed left out of the equation. Adobe got explicit references, Blackmagic, etc but where was FCPX? In the same way one could showcase an impressive video capability of "our" phone hardware, it seems there was equal opportunity to showcase impressive video editing capability of "our" FCPX vs. Adobe and Blackmagic.
I presume the professionals involved in making it were just more accustomed to using Adobe, Blackmagic, etc instead of FCPX. But it still seemed a bit odd to me to not get some FCPX love in there somewhere. Apple Motion could have easily got a few callouts too.
Sadly does not surprise me, these are the same fun Folks who decided to dump Professional Photographers from the Equation by suddenly dropping support for Aperture. They didn't kill it outright they just stopped supplying RAW Profile Updates meaning files from newer Cameras could not be imported without a workaround. Aperture was a Brilliant Application it handled DAM, Editing and Tethering it was clean powerful and intuitive and they just Killed it. Right around the time the first iPad Pro was announced and Adobe wasted no time in cobbling a Pshop for iPad together, So seceded all that screen real estate to Adobe , when they could have been an Aperture for iPad.
inexcusable!
And this is the point many negative commenters are missing. It looked pretty good overall, and considering the size of the iPhone cameras, the vast number of things iPhone does every day outside of being a camera, and can still capture the raw data to make a professional event is really impressive.Very impressive video last night shot on a small bit of tech that fits in people's pockets.
The problem isn't showing off competitors like they do with Office or Photoshop. The problem is their lack of seriousness with the program and 5 years of stagnant updates. The competition is so far ahead now and they aren't even hiding the fact. Last night they mentioned Adobe and DiVinci 3x more times than FCP. It's been demoted to a half-baked iPad app.Apple has done this a lot in the past too, showing a lot of MS office instead of iWork for example. I think it’s mainly advertising how much the big name third party developers are onboard. Most people already know Apple apps will work very well with Apple machines.
To be fair thats also true of any other camera. Nobody walks into a Bestbuy and shoots something like this as is. Production value comes from the lighting, crew, talent and set design. The camera just captures pixels.Shot on iPhone... alongside millions of dollars of production equipment. NBD.
I must be the only person who doesn’t care one bit what camera is being used - lol
Shot on iPhone
Great
Why?
Well yes but Apple is selling a phone with a decent camera so they are promoting that of course.Such a pointless exercise, the rest of the gear is $$$ why skimp on a $1k phone. Spend more on a proper cinema camera or just use that $1K on a more consumer level camera that will still be leaps ahead of an iPhone.
I’m missing that little green dot that keeps appearing in certain lighting conditions.
It looks artificial because it IS artificial. There’s a lot going on in the image, but a big issue is the lights. Modern LEDs can set the brightness level and the color of the lights. In the past we took non-dimmable halogens on location shoots and made due with diffusing the lights.But why does it look so much more “artifical” than cinema? Although I have to say that some modern TV shows also seem to go for that look. I’m probably just getting old 😆