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 Soccer-Themed 'Shot on iPhone' Videos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Loving how on the bottom of these type of adverts they say in small letters that extra equipment was used. Brilliant!!
I don’t know if this is your quote or Apple’s, but the preferred terminology is Aboriginal or Indigenous Australian.
"additional equipment and software used" right at the end
Wonder what the equipment was? professional camera, gimbal, etc!
reason why to not fall for their gimmick commercials.
Exactly. Define extra equipment? It could be an actual camera for all we know. ha ha
Tripod , lighting rig, lighting engineer, mac pro, Photoshop, retouching specialist.. have I missed anything....
NOT videos !, this is an area where AAPL should really be promoting Burst Photography ... except, they don't have a credible Burst Photography offering ... as such, they should be promoting Ready-to-Go third-party app(s).
Sports, & in particular Sports Highlights, is a natural for Burst Photography.
This issue illustrates one of the main problems with the iOS App Store, & in particular, the men, namely Tim & Phil, who make the top decisions for the iOS App Store.
They're NOT doing the right thing for their customer base !
Sports, & in particular Sports Highlights, is a natural for Burst Photography.
This issue illustrates one of the main problems with the iOS App Store, & in particular, the men, namely Tim & Phil, who make the top decisions for the iOS App Store.
They're NOT doing the right thing for their customer base !
Yes, shot on an iPhone, with $30,000 rigs.
Thank you. I wasn't sure of the correct terminology so I used Apple's wording, but Apple changed the wording after I used its wording, so now I just look wrong. I've updated. Much appreciate the heads up.
Utter rubbish. Football with a round ball and kicked with feet is football. Soccer is an US phrase. Was always this.
Preach it! So many of these apparent loyalists are the whiniest bunch of people who would frankly be more of a hinderance to Apple. They troll these forums talking about 32 gigs of RAM and the Touch Bar. They don’t realise that without the people that they make fun of (Apple’s general consumers), they would have been forced into using PCs long ago.
Yeah, they should go back to original Apple financial success. That would be the smart thing to do. Why focus on the best consumer product of all time?
They also sell more Macs now than before anyway.
Blah blah blah blah... Something else I missed?
They're all shot in very bright conditions, you don't need much. I'm guessing they used a $100-$150 Gimball and maybe a neutral density filter (since they were extremely bright conditions) and possibly polariser (especially in the clip on water) (another $100 bucks possibly) that's about it. Oh the god damn horror... Man.
[doublepost=1530943285][/doublepost]
Not even sure they needed a tripod, a gimball is probably enough for the shots they made ( and they're getting really cheap even for decent ones, $100-150) (I've got 2, one for my Iphone and one for my Canon g7x and small DSLR), there aren't much static shots and considering how much light those shots were under, I doubt they needed any lighting anything. The quite short shots of the Japan temple being the ones that probably needed the most light.
They almost certainly used a ND filter (and those are pretty inexpensive too these days).
For the last film, I'm guessing they also used a polariser (which is also not that expensive).
They may or may not have used extra tack on lens. There wasn't zooming, just tracking obviously done with gimbals and quick viewpoint shots obviously made by moving the camera (and not zooming in).
As for retouching , etc, I'm not sure it would actually be any used. They obviously used Final Cut .
Last edited:
I'm not an avid soccer fan (german: "fussball" similiar to football).
However, Apple's videos have once again added some pleasant facets to the world of soccer. Very nice stories. Thank you, Apple!
However, Apple's videos have once again added some pleasant facets to the world of soccer. Very nice stories. Thank you, Apple!
Last edited:
I find that there is a broader point to be made about the differences between Apple then and now. Whether it should be interpreted as Apple "losing their way" is a matter of perspective.
The simple fact of the matter is that Apple is a fundamentally different company than it used to be. The company can't help it. It's like if you went from paycheck-to-paycheck living, crashing on friend's couches, to a million-dollar a year job. You can claim to be the same person inside, but you're not. When your relationship with your surroundings changes dramatically, that filters down into your core, and it changes you. You can't help it, and you can't control it.
15 years ago, Apple was a company that living on the edge, metaphorically couch surfing. Its existence buoyed by a small population of die-hard fans that looked to it for technology and aesthetic leadership. It had a flock. That was its sustenance. That core group that was willing to follow where it led. Its investor pool was also similar - believers (and a few long-play speculators). You don't hold shares in a company teetering on the edge of non-existence unless you truly believe in it.
When the vast majority of the population that drives your existence are true believers, it gives you flexibility to bring that population with you as you navigate your challenges. If that population is small, then the small revenue limits your options, but their strong loyalty also lets you do things. You can change technology stacks quickly (OS9 => OSX). You can kill off entire classes of partnerships (clones). The population backs you, because they believe. Back in the late 90s, Mac users held a special pride. It took a certain about of personal conviction to stand the tide against "the default". You suffered, and struggled to be a mac user in the face of lack of software choice, and lack of hardware compatibility, because it was worth it, and you "were a mac user”.
The proportion of Apple's userbase today that are true believers is far smaller. Likewise for their investor base. The current user base and investor loyalty is not based on conviction, or a personal identity-based affiliation
The current user base and investor loyalty is far more grounded in pragmatic self interest. For this user base, it’s a combination of their understanding of Apple products as “good products” and “cool products”, and their understanding of the Apple brand as a trustworthy, fashionable, quality, desirable brand. For investors, it’s the typical investor mix - some mix of growth-oriented investment and revenue-oriented (i.e. dividend-oriented) investment.
This is the kind of loyalty most companies have to work with. It’s not as strong as the kind of identity and conviction-based loyalty that sustained the company through its darkest days.
The problem is that this new, more pragmatically loyal user base and investor base is also what gives Apple its new identity as the most successful company in the world. If Apple’s product quality takes a stumble, some significant chunk of this user base moves on. If Apple’s brand is perceived as less fashionable than it used to be, or less fashionable than it used to be, some significant chunk of that user base moves on.
The user and investor base isn’t a flock anymore. It can’t “be led” like it used to. The company that could forge ahead with drastic decisions, relatively assured that its user base would follow, cannot make that assumption anymore.
Instead of leading a flock, it now has to cater to an audience. This is a drastically different relationship.
Their relationship with shareholders is likewise different. Heck, back in the 90s, people used to argue that Apple should just cash in the $4 billion they had in the bank, return it to investors, as that would be a bigger value than forging ahead with their products. Apple’s investors could certainly have forced that outcome, but they didn’t. They hung on, through dwindling marketshare and sales numbers, because they believed in the company.
Are the bulk of shareholders today just as likely to stick with them as those core shareholders from yore? If profits start dropping, is this new shareholder population as willing to just go along with it? Or are they going to start thirstily eyeing those juicy hundreds of billion dollars sitting in the bank? How much would it take for this new population of shareholders to decide “hey, it was a good ride, let’s force the Apple directors to squeeze some of that juice out for us”?
In this new reality, that original core user and investor base... those true believers... they don’t matter anymore. They got to enjoy the ride from the start, but now their secluded island has been inundated by a population of visitors that outnumbers them by a couple of orders of magnitude.
This new population sets the tone for what kind of company Apple will be, because they have the power in this new relationship.
Has Apple “lost its way”? Apple will slowly transition into a much more traditional company, and its behaviour will start to match those of a traditional company’s behaviour. If you want to consider that as them “losing their way”, then yeah.
I wouldn’t call it “losing their way”, though. Circumstances changed, and the company changed, and that’s just the way she goes.
Last edited:
I can't wait to see when Apple's devices have enough processing power to eliminate lens distortions in photos and films in real time even further. Every image corrected in postfinish and (e.g. Lightroom) rectified on optical axes suddenly looks professional. It's the same with movies. Perspective correction tools such as those available in Lightroom, etc. then become yesterday.
Last edited:
I don't, it was a pointless point to make.
It wasn't a "pro shoot", these are not even prosumer shoot (especially the first one, which is the most "amateur" like of the bunch), except probably the last one which took a bit more logistics because of the location.
What is added is quite trivial, especially for the first one and whoopeedoo, they're using an editor... You could edit this thing on some free ware, maybe even running on the phone, and get essentially the same thing. We're not talking world class cinematography here.
What's pointless is your opinion full stop fact!!! Do you really think they if these videos were shot on an iPhone and nothing else, they would look how they look. They had hollywood'd them up. It doesnt matter what they used, probably a gimball at least. But the non pointless fact is that they even tell you extra stuff was used. Stop being an apologist ffs. It's marketing, and of, it's meant to trick the less than Intelligent consumer...
Maybe said pros, like yourself, can take the hint that with THE worlds most popular sport by 100’s of millions of players, fans, etc across the globe ... that maybe getting into digital photography,video and even musical scores would have a home in anything soccer related.
Futbol, Fútbol not the American “football”
Futbol used internationally, soccer for nations that juts cannot grasp the sport and ill used the sounding of a similar word for a sport before it evolved from kicking an oval ball through upright elevated posts. Yeah that game where players mostly carry the ball ... Football or as Australians confused it with Rugby?
I can 100% guarantee that never happened on this forum in the 90’s.
I can 100% guarantee that never happened on this forum in the 90’s.
You are right. I meant to say that it was a popular argument back then. No idea what brain fart happened to make me type that way.
Actually, "football" was called "soccer", (or "socca") in the UK long before it was called "football"
From http://www.word-detective.com/121800.html
: 'It's true that the game known as "football" in most of the world (not just the UK) is known as "soccer" in the US, but we didn't just pull the word out of the air so that we could call our quasi-gladiatorial extravaganzas "football." In fact, you Brits actually invented the word. "Soccer," when it first appeared in the 1890s, was spelled "socca," which was short for "association" or "association football," meaning football played according to the rules laid down by the British Football Association. It was also called "socker" until the current form "soccer" appeared around 1895.