Apple Shares Video About '28 Years Later' Being Filmed With 20 iPhones

[MacRumors]

A few months ago, we reported that select scenes in the post-apocalyptic film "28 Years Later" were shot with a rig of up to 20 iPhones. Now, the film's director Danny Boyle has discussed this feat in a YouTube video uploaded to the Apple TV channel today.

Boyle said that using iPhones provided "the ability to work in remote places, very quickly, and very lightly, leaving a light footprint."

"We wanted our landscape to look like it hadn't been touched for 28 years by any human, so it was very advantageous for that," he added.

"Director Danny Boyle pushed the power of iPhone to new cinematic heights in select scenes of 28 Years Later," says Apple. "In fact, the portable and powerful form factor of iPhone enabled the production team to build a custom rig using a unique 20 camera setup. Discover how his crew's camerawork innovations immerse audiences into shocking scenes."

"28 Years Later" was released in June, with the film building upon the events of "28 Days Later" (2002) and "28 Weeks Later" (2007).

The film grossed an estimated $150 million worldwide.

Article Link: Apple Shares Video About '28 Years Later' Being Filmed With 20 iPhones

 

[macduke]

I'm still waiting for the sequel/prequel "28 Months Later"

 

[BGrifter]

A camera capable of producing feature films is completely wasted on me.

I just take pictures of food and cats.

 

[Hogswarts]

I use the iPhone 16 Pro Max to shoot all of my horror.

 

[nfl46]

I was so underwhelmed by this movie. We could have done without it and just kept the first two. I am still pissed at the video quality of the first movie.

 

[wyliej]

It wasn't shot on film and therefore was not "filmed." Was it even printed on film? If not, then it isn't a "film."

 

[ignatius345]

Saw this at the theater. The video quality really was a pretty big tell that this was shot on iPhones instead of the usual high-end cameras cinematographers use. Shooting on a phone seems like more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Apple’s slant: You can shoot a movie on just an iPhone!

The real horror: $100,000 rig

 

[CapitalIdea]

I use the iPhone 16 Pro Max to shoot all of my horror.

Be careful. Sending nudes can lead to trouble down the road! 😜

 

[CapitalIdea]

Saw this at the theater. The video quality really was a pretty big tell that this was shot on iPhones instead of the usual high-end cameras cinematographers use. Shooting on a phone seems like more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

Not familiar with the originals?

 

[rileyes]

A camera capable of producing feature films is completely wasted on me.

I just take pictures of food and cats.

Yeah, I just don't understand what Apple has been going for these past several years. Are they a camera company now? If you had no other context, it might be easy to think so, given that has seemed to be their main focus for the past how ever many iPhone version releases now.

It feels like such a gimmick to advertise shooting a movie scene using an iPhone. Can it get the job done in the hands of true professionals? Sure. Am I going to get the same results if I attempted the same thing? Nope.

But if there wasn't some kind of cross-promotional deal going on here, would a Hollywood production choose to use an iPhone over something else? No, I find that extremely unlikely.

 

[MallardDuck]

Next up, modifying a Ford F150 to use iPhone as headlights.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should....

 

[ignatius345]

Not familiar with the originals?

I saw 28 Days later when it came out. I get that it was shot on lightweight DV cameras so they could run with them and whatnot. Innovative at the time, but here in 2025 we have much, much better cameras that aren't any bulkier than what they shot 28 Days Later with. Why not use one of those?

Besides, when you take an iPhone and build a rig around it all the extra stuff you need (battery, mounting hardware, external SSD), you're already bulking it up a lot and still taking that hit to quality you get by using that tiny-ass sensor.

 

[Janichsan]

Saw this at the theater. The video quality really was a pretty big tell that this was shot on iPhones instead of the usual high-end cameras cinematographers use. Shooting on a phone seems like more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

The original 28 Days Later was shot on (for that time) small Sony digital video and certainly looked like it. It's more of an artistic choice to pick such cameras to achieve a particular raw and "unprofessional" look.

On the other hand, that in particular iPhones were used for 28 Years later is definitely a publicity stunt.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Yeah, I just don't understand what Apple has been going for these past several years. Are they a camera company now? If you had no other context, it might be easy to think so, given that has seemed to be their main focus for the past how ever many iPhone version releases now.

It feels like such a gimmick to advertise shooting a movie scene using an iPhone. Can it get the job done in the hands of true professionals? Sure. Am I going to get the same results if I attempted the same thing? Nope.

But if there wasn't some kind of cross-promotional deal going on here, would a Hollywood production choose to use an iPhone over something else? No, I find that extremely unlikely.

Danny Boyle had a budget of $60M. He didn't need a "cross-promotional deal," he was using the right tool for the job.

The iPhone rigs were used for certain scenes that had a certain look. Not for the entire movie.

 

[KENESS]

Saw this at the theater. The video quality really was a pretty big tell that this was shot on iPhones instead of the usual high-end cameras cinematographers use. Shooting on a phone seems like more of a publicity stunt than anything else.

Only select scenes were shot on the iPhone, not the whole thing. The style was an artistic choice, harkening back to the first movie.

 

[Skimac]

They must have had infinite storage because apple ProRes uses a ton of space just for 10 mins

 

[wigby]

Yeah, I just don't understand what Apple has been going for these past several years. Are they a camera company now? If you had no other context, it might be easy to think so, given that has seemed to be their main focus for the past how ever many iPhone version releases now.

It feels like such a gimmick to advertise shooting a movie scene using an iPhone. Can it get the job done in the hands of true professionals? Sure. Am I going to get the same results if I attempted the same thing? Nope.

But if there wasn't some kind of cross-promotional deal going on here, would a Hollywood production choose to use an iPhone over something else? No, I find that extremely unlikely.

The number one reason people buy smartphone is the upgrade in camera technology every year. Whether it's legitimate or just a gimmick, pointing to major film releases using iPhones in production is a no-brainer as far as marketing goes.

 

[wigby]

The original 28 Days Later was shot on (for that time) small Sony digital video and certainly looked like it. It's more of an artistic choice to pick such cameras to achieve a particular raw and "unprofessional" look.

On the other hand, that in particular iPhones were used for 28 Years later is definitely a publicity stunt.

How dare you accuse the director and the phone company looking to cross promote their products use a publicity stunt.

 

[Plutonius]

I'm waiting for the sequel "28 iPhones Later" .

 

[rileyes]

The number one reason people buy smartphone is the upgrade in camera technology every year. Whether it's legitimate or just a gimmick, pointing to major film releases using iPhones in production is a no-brainer as far as marketing goes.

Maybe, but I feel there is an undercurrent of exhaustion from users to Apple's iPhone strategy for a while now. At some point there is not much more you can do with a phone, certainly that's part of it, and I think the average person understands that. But another camera enhancement to an already sufficient camera for 99% of the user base, feels like desperation to me. And if it's not the camera, it's trying to hype up a custom apple chip? Yeah, nothing gets the average consumer excited like microchips. No doubt Apple know their market far better than I do, but if it were me, I'd be focused on true engineering innovations/inventions. Easier said than done, I realize. And I'm sure they're trying. But, something like keeping the same or similar camera quality but inventing a way to reduce the size of the camera, inventing a way to squeeze the same battery capacity into even smaller form factors, thereby reducing the thickness of the phone, eliminating the camera bump, inventing a Face ID camera that can work behind the screen to eliminate the notch. Any of these things would be actual steps forward in innovation that no one else has done. Instead we get a bulky camera improvement, because Samsung did it. A feature upgrade, because Google did it. A Wi-Fi update, because the newer standard has been out long enough that they can't push it any longer. The list goes on.

So just like the comment I originally quoted said, the ability to use an iPhone in a feature film does nothing for me. I actually don't think I'm alone in this sentiment, because it seems like Apple just plays catch-up nowadays. So it's really not a stretch to think they're also playing catch-up in understanding what their customers really want.

 

[wigby]

Maybe, but I feel there is an undercurrent of exhaustion from users to Apple's iPhone strategy for a while now. At some point there is not much more you can do with a phone, certainly that's part of it, and I think the average person understands that. But another camera enhancement to an already sufficient camera for 99% of the user base, feels like desperation to me. And if it's not the camera, it's trying to hype up a custom apple chip? Yeah, nothing gets the average consumer excited like microchips. No doubt Apple know their market far better than I do, but if it were me, I'd be focused on true engineering innovations/inventions. Easier said than done, I realize. And I'm sure they're trying. But, something like keeping the same or similar camera quality but inventing a way to reduce the size of the camera, inventing a way to squeeze the same battery capacity into even smaller form factors, thereby reducing the thickness of the phone, eliminating the camera bump, inventing a Face ID camera that can work behind the screen to eliminate the notch. Any of these things would be actual steps forward in innovation that no one else has done. Instead we get a bulky camera improvement, because Samsung did it. A feature upgrade, because Google did it. A Wi-Fi update, because the newer standard has been out long enough that they can't push it any longer. The list goes on.

So just like the comment I originally quoted said, the ability to use an iPhone in a feature film does nothing for me. I actually don't think I'm alone in this sentiment, because it seems like Apple just plays catch-up nowadays. So it's really not a stretch to think they're also playing catch-up in understanding what their customers really want.

People have been saying Apple is playing catch-up for many decades because that's the way they operate. Apple is doing every single thing you list. They do it all behind the scenes and do not release until they are happy with it because they know a bad customer experience will hurt them more than others. Google and Samsung care more about getting there first rather than getting it perfect. The folding phone market cut itself off at the knees because the first 5 years were full of poor design and inferior folding screen technology. Samsung could've sold billions of devices instead of just millions. Apple knew this and waited many years, and if they cannot find reliable suppliers for that design, they might never release a folding phone. That's just one example but it's much more complex than that because Apple wants as much control as possible in order to execute designs they envision. All tech companies attempt this but none are as disciplined as Apple.

At the end of the day, if you're an iOS user and you are thinking about a new phone, this publicity will help push most over the edge to spring for a new phone. And most Android users will probably assume that if iPhone is good enough for major features, it probably does everything as good as Android phone cameras too so they might consider changing platforms if a few other incentives align as well.

 

[1rottenapple]

I'm still waiting for the sequel/prequel "28 Months Later"

I was expecting too much and left disappointed. The first two kicked off my zombie addiction that lasted up to the train to busan and all of us are dead. The Koreans are definitely killing it with the zombie genre not so much with western directors.

 

[Regbial]

Great movie, very much enjoyed it last night.. (unexpectedly) beautiful in it's cinematography and message.. but... those goofy 20 iPhone killshots were the silliest / most immersion breaking thing about it. 1 or 2 would've been fine to show off the tech, if you really HAD to... but you saw it on like almost every kill. Other than that the audio levels were wonky and randomly dropped and went up, not sure if it's because of the iphones.. maybe it was just my copy? idk..

 

[JosephAW]

Could do the same thing except with 20 iPhone 4 devices. 📱 📱 📱