Yet another installment into Apple’s dark and disturbed era. Started with AppleTV programming. Now its bleeding into their ads. Their ads used to be fun and happy. I give Steve Jobs a lot of credit for the family friendly content created under his direction. Maybe this new era is a reflection of attitudes at the top. So depressing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Shares Three New Humorously Dramatic Ads Showing Off iPhone 13 Pro Camera Capabilities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is the most awesome camera one can buy? The one they have with them. Kids birthday party, camera in ones pocket. Allows everyone the ability to make creative movies. What they’re showing, not what a studio might use but how a kids birthday party video can have many of the same features, right in one’s pocket. Remember the comments, somewhat like yours, about film vs digital cameras. Almost impossible to buy film and get it processed today. Amazing technology that is with us.
Tell me you haven't used a recent iPhone model without telling me
Those are some fun ads.
"This slow unnerving zoom suggests you are descending into madness." is going to be my new go-to line for awkward silences.
"This slow unnerving zoom suggests you are descending into madness." is going to be my new go-to line for awkward silences.
For a second there, I thought that was Idris Elba in the thumbnail with the detective clip.
But well played with the ‘shift for cinematic’ mode with the Detective dialogue. And the satire was the perfect amount towards the end.
But well played with the ‘shift for cinematic’ mode with the Detective dialogue. And the satire was the perfect amount towards the end.
I'm glad I'm the only one in the office today... I would have gotten some pretty peculiar stares upon laughing out loud after watching that first commercial. (The other two were okay too, but the detectives definitely won the day, for me.)
Well, filmmaking hasn’t only been about the camera. If other factors are done well then the quality of the footages can be exempted. iPhone cinematography is actually quite fun even though they couldn’t catch up the professional level. The only weird thing about these footages is that they were shot at 30fps and higher shutter speed. (Should had been 24fps at 1/48) They could perfect the feeling of cinema by using some ND filter to lower the shutter angle but they didn’t. Also the cinematic mode only lock at 30fps which is very dump.
Pavel Spot: How do you pull off that "gradual" optical zoom effect? It looks like a shot made with a camera Dolley...
I've looked online and can't find anything...
I've looked online and can't find anything...
Blatant Copaganda portraying police detectives this way.
Apple should be ashamed for supporting such an agenda.
Apple should be ashamed for supporting such an agenda.
And yet there will be some who are creative and will make outstanding videos because they haven't been informed what they aren't able to do. Rather, their unburdened child-like imagination will foster vision, creativity and perseverance, and will rule over the cynicism of others who are stuck in a deep well of limitations and impossibilities.
Impressive and quite funny. But it could be argued that the third one is false advertising. What is described as "zoom" is actually a "dolly forward", that is the camera is actually moving forward toward the subject (possibly on some sort of stabilizing device). You can notice that yourself by looking at the shifting perspective (on an actual zoom the perspective doesn’t change). I'm surprised Apple went with that.
I'm wondering why they stuck on 30fps instead of 24
You kind of think 24 is less frames to process than 30 so it should be easier. But then maybe the computation looks more fake at 24fps because the frame is shown for a longer time and maybe it cant process it well enough to make it look convincing right now. 60fps would be too much processing so they settled on 30 as they could get a better image perhaps?
Also, doesnt 24fps have to drop a frame for some weird reason? Maybe there's so weird maths involved?
You kind of think 24 is less frames to process than 30 so it should be easier. But then maybe the computation looks more fake at 24fps because the frame is shown for a longer time and maybe it cant process it well enough to make it look convincing right now. 60fps would be too much processing so they settled on 30 as they could get a better image perhaps?
Also, doesnt 24fps have to drop a frame for some weird reason? Maybe there's so weird maths involved?
Yep, so if you want to get into movie making and be the next Spielberg, you don't need to go out and buy an expensive new iPhone 13, you can just do it with your mom's old iPhone 7, or videocam, or whatever else is around that can film video. As you say, just create. And if you do get right into it, and invest in video equipment, it won't be an iPhone. Sure, it's cool that iPhones are getting better at this stuff, but they are the last thing you'd deliberately choose as your equipment for professional video or stills. The only advantage they have, is that if you're not going to bother with doing any post-processing whatsoever, then they produce half decent results with the built in automatic processing. So they are great for the purpose of whipping out your phone to catch some stills or vid in any situation where you aren't going to bother to do any post, and simply want to take memories of family and friends. But for professional use, they are laughable.
Whoa!
It appears you're intentionally ignoring the spirit of my post so you can create/knock down straw men, apparently for attention.
Yep...those who are motivated, creative, and possess a fertile imagination will create. As with photographers, painters, musicians, dancers, actors, and on and on with anyone engaging in a creative endeavor. You're not saying anything new.
"Sure, it's cool that iPhones are getting better at this stuff, but they are the last thing you'd deliberately choose as your equipment for professional video or stills."
Your notion that some will go out and purchase an iPhone for the purpose of creating professional level movies and photographs is another one. And a real knee-slapper. Especially as I never made that claim.
"So they are great for the purpose of whipping out your phone to catch some stills or vid in any situation where you aren't going to bother to do any post, and simply want to take memories of family and friends."
For you, perhaps. Though I have an Arca-Swiss 4x5, several dSLRs, a couple of "mirrorless" cameras and compacts, and have also been shooting with iPhones for a dozen years, the last 6 or 7 exclusively, I post-process every iPhone photo I print or display in Lightroom. You might not be aware that works just fine.
Creating expressive photographs that stir a viewer's imagination has little to do with camera gear. That comes from the photographer, his/her life experiences, imagination, creativity, recognizing nice light, ability to compose, recognizing narrative potential, gesture, and on and on. It has always been that way, whether using a view camera, SLR, compact camera, or phone camera.
Again...it's about creativity.
Taking the OPs argument to its logical conclusion, "full-frame" digital (based on a 35mm frame) is crap. It can't hold a candle to the larger sensor in a Hasselblad.
Funny, professionals said similar things about shooting 35mm film (in Leicas) vs. 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. If you believed those people, some of the mid-20th Century's greatest photographers should not have been published. The image captured was not as important as the size of the negative upon which it was exposed.
I studied Ansel Adams technique in my youth, but never shot my landscapes with anything larger than a Nikon F. My bad! And me, a professional photographer and all (well, for about 15 years of my working life). In my experience, a tripod is a far more important tool for Adams-style photography than a huge negative/image sensor. (Of course a large negative/image sensor is certainly icing on the cake.)
And as I said back in the days of 35mm film photography, I'm not shooting with the intent of producing 16 x 20 exhibition prints, full-page magazine spreads, or billboards. I never had any expectation of a mounting a gallery exhibit. What was the point of shooting 4x5 if the end product was an 8X10 print, a newspaper using a 150 lpi halftone screen, or an inset image in a print book? Today, one can say the same about using a full-frame sensor for a 200 x 300 dpi web graphic.
My ability to communicate with a camera is not appreciably changed by having a smaller sensor. Despite their inherent technical "inferiority," the vast majority of my best photos over the past 10 years have been taken with iPhone.
Every camera, regardless of film/sensor size, has its strengths and weaknesses. Part of the craft is knowing how to shoot to the camera's strengths and to minimize its weaknesses. There's little point to shooting a soaring Bald Eagle at 500 feet with a wide angle lens, regardless of sensor/negative size. Of course, with a huge negative/sensor you have a chance of enlarging that tiny dot into something recognizable as a bird. If there's no motion blur/camera shake perhaps you'll even be able to identify it as an Eagle. On the other hand, if you happen to have a long telephoto attached to a small sensor camera, you might have a usable photo. I often shoot with a Micro Four Thirds-format camera - among other things, it means a lightweight, compact 300mm telephoto becomes a 600mm-equivalent birding/sports "cannon." Which would you rather carry all day in a backpack?
So, can professionals use the features of iPhone to make videos that the layperson would not recognize as "shot on iPhone?" Sure. That's part of what makes them professionals - they're capable of producing professional results with less-than-professional tools. However, the camera is only one of many ingredients in the end result - composition, lighting, blocking, set decoration and wardrobe, scripting.... A better question than "Were the images captured with the iPhone camera" is whether the audio was captured with the iPhone's built-in microphones (I'd wager the answer is a solid 'no') - but then, they usually don't clamp a mic to an Arriflex or Project RED either - camera-mounted mics are rarely in the right place to capture clean sound.
I will quibble with the premise of "Pavel." No iPhone to date has had a continuously-variable zoom lens. The iPhone 13 Pros have three rear cameras, each with a lens with a different, fixed focal length. You can switch from lens to lens, but you cannot continuously zoom ("dynamic zoom"). While it appears that all three focal lengths have been used, each shot also includes a dolly-in (or, more likely, steadicam-in) move - the entire camera is being moved towards Pavel. Digital zoom/cropping has almost definitely not been used.
Last edited:
It's very smart, considering the camera is the only good thing about the iPhone 13 Pro. Mines been gathering dust in a top drawer for a few months now. My 13 Mini takes photos 95% as good and it doesn't feel like a brick or give you early stage arthritis in your fingers from picking it up all day.