He ran out of money for film. This is explained in the very article you're commenting on.
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.
Director Ran Out of Money, Finished Shooting his Oscar-Nominated Movie on an iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He ran out of money for film. This is explained in the very article you're commenting on.
Small White Car
macrumors G4
Say what?
What "point and shoot" is "a million times" better than an iPhone for video?
Yeah, they're better in low light, but if you're lighting correctly (which I'd assume he was doing) then I'd say that the iPhone and the point and shoot are extremely similar when it comes to video recording.
The next step up would be to get something with a better lens. Like, if you'd said "couldn't he borrow a DSLR from anyone?" then that might have been a good question. But you pretty much picked the exact other thing that makes video similar to an iPhone for your example.
notjustjay
macrumors 603
Well, I got the impression from the news clip that he was mainly looking for B-roll by the time he was using the iPhone, and he wanted it to look "old" and low-grade, even intentionally shooting a video being played off his computer screen "for that 70's look". So he clearly wasn't aiming for "good looking" film quality.
He should have just filmed it with the iPhone from the beginning and save himself the money in film and processing. Live and learn I guess.
robert05au
macrumors regular
In the video it looks like he is holding up a iphone 3gs as it shows a silver edge which looks rounded like the 3gs was
theanimaster
macrumors 6502
I've met many people that were so uncomfortable with new technology that they simply REFUSED to use it, even if it were craploads better than what they were familiar with.
Some old tech is still needed to get a certain flavour or effect, but seriously. We're talking people who will refuse to use a 12MP digital SLR because they swear their ol' 3.5mm film camera is MUCH better than "those darn automatic ones" (remember we're talking digital __SLR___ here). They could have made that case a decade ago when digital SLRs were just too expensive and at crappy resolutions less than 2MP... but wake up people. Embrace technology. It ain't as hard as, say, learning how to run computer software was thirty years ago!!
Then again, I could be wrong.
A couple years ago I made a brochure for our school and against my own 'rules' there was one picture I had that was NOT up to the standards I usually set. It was taken with a Sony Ericsson k750i. I did my best to colour-correct it and make sure it was 'print worthy' enough but on my mac it looked as though it'd surely print out like crap -- as it did in the test prints (on a standard office printer). On the offset prints however -- it turned out really crisp -- and thanks to the colour corrections, you wouldn't have known it was from a 'crappy' (by today's standards) phone!!
Some old tech is still needed to get a certain flavour or effect, but seriously. We're talking people who will refuse to use a 12MP digital SLR because they swear their ol' 3.5mm film camera is MUCH better than "those darn automatic ones" (remember we're talking digital __SLR___ here). They could have made that case a decade ago when digital SLRs were just too expensive and at crappy resolutions less than 2MP... but wake up people. Embrace technology. It ain't as hard as, say, learning how to run computer software was thirty years ago!!
Then again, I could be wrong.
A couple years ago I made a brochure for our school and against my own 'rules' there was one picture I had that was NOT up to the standards I usually set. It was taken with a Sony Ericsson k750i. I did my best to colour-correct it and make sure it was 'print worthy' enough but on my mac it looked as though it'd surely print out like crap -- as it did in the test prints (on a standard office printer). On the offset prints however -- it turned out really crisp -- and thanks to the colour corrections, you wouldn't have known it was from a 'crappy' (by today's standards) phone!!
Last edited:
Yes, because clearly the Oscar would have been won squarely on the quality of the iPhone's camera.
What iPhone 5?
I guessed I missed a reference to an iPhone "5" either in the video or on the page (used Find command). I only heard or read "iPhone." Couldn't find the app "8mm vintage camera" in the app store to check if it requires iPhone 5. Oh well.
And I agree, the award isn't for cinematography, but simply for "Best Documentary." When they start handing out awards for best "iPhone" anything, then it will matter.
It was a great film either way and I don't care much which Iphone he used. Couldn't find the app "8mm vintage camera" in the app store to check if it requires iPhone 5.
I guessed I missed a reference to an iPhone "5" either in the video or on the page (used Find command). I only heard or read "iPhone." Couldn't find the app "8mm vintage camera" in the app store to check if it requires iPhone 5. Oh well.
And I agree, the award isn't for cinematography, but simply for "Best Documentary." When they start handing out awards for best "iPhone" anything, then it will matter.
It was a great film either way and I don't care much which Iphone he used. Couldn't find the app "8mm vintage camera" in the app store to check if it requires iPhone 5.
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 603
Seems like a lot of people missed the idea... good job to the director, I liked how he recorded off the recording to give a more realistic vintage look rather than just adding a vintage effect on the computer.
I use a dSLR but give me an old leica or contax film rangefinder and I'll gladly trade any day. Megapixels mean nothing in SLRs....
I use a dSLR but give me an old leica or contax film rangefinder and I'll gladly trade any day. Megapixels mean nothing in SLRs....
Mr. Retrofire
macrumors 603
szw-mapple fan
macrumors 68040
Have you ever heard this thing called google?
----------
macrumors removed the "5" from the article. see comments page 1.😉
Resolution wise 8mm is usually scanned at 1280X960, so the iPhone 4S's resolution is a bit higher than 8mm. But of course film will look better than an iPhone 4S footage. But still the quality of the iPhone was "enough" to fill in the missing shots. Meaning it doesn't detract from the experience, not that it's the "same" as 8mm.
designs216
macrumors 65816
The overall effect might work well in the movie and could explain the shaky cam/bad lighting we from many other filmmakers who serve it up without commentary.
J.J. Abrams I'm looking at you..... Oh wait, he uses expensive "normal" movie cameras and gives them an iPhone like feel. 😱
jclardy
macrumors 601
If he bought a P&S he would have had to do the retro effect in post...Most of these shots were probably just 3-4 seconds max so the viewer won't be able to tell the difference when watching the film.
androidphone
macrumors newbie
ctdonath
macrumors 68000
It's a pretty darned good sensor. 8mm film delivers the equivalent of 700 lines resolution, so a 720p or 1080p can match it. Color depth is pretty good too. 8mm film might be better, but both are close enough that most viewers would not notice the difference short of a side-by-side comparison focusing on quality differences.
It's not so much the resolution & color depth at issue, it's the "feel" characteristic of typical 8mm systems (camera, film, processing, editing, transfer...), the little color degradations and scratches and jumps, which viewers will be far more sensitive to. Seems this app recreates that feel well enough that a transition between film and digital will go unnoticed by most of the audience.
I'm sure the director could discern the difference. I'm sure he also knows whether his audience would. A subtle shift in visuals is far less an issue than not getting shots critical to completing the movie.
harrisondavies
macrumors 6502
More than possible with this how to: http://youtu.be/Ptz_ybNRavg
http://youtu.be/I-KrhgwtXLg -Short film
http://youtu.be/I-KrhgwtXLg -Short film
ctdonath
macrumors 68000
Of course not.
The point is that the iPhone's camera is good enough that, at worst, it doesn't detract from the movie. That is, in fact, a big deal: a $2 app on someone's already-owned pocket phone vs. thousands of dollars in consumables (film) does make a difference.
For perspective, consider that major blockbuster movies are being shot on RED cameras which outperform film for as little as $15,000. Yes, a relatively excellent cell-phone camera can nowadays outperform 8mm film.
street.cory
macrumors 6502
C'mon people
I don't interperet the article into saying "iPhones are perfectly good replacements to conventional video cameras". I see it as a testament to the cameras Apple puts in their products and how technology has evolved over the years.
Just look at image and video quality differences between the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4(4S,5). Then look at those differences between other phones on the market. Especially video quality.
I don't interperet the article into saying "iPhones are perfectly good replacements to conventional video cameras". I see it as a testament to the cameras Apple puts in their products and how technology has evolved over the years.
Just look at image and video quality differences between the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4(4S,5). Then look at those differences between other phones on the market. Especially video quality.
inscrewtable
macrumors 68000
I think you misunderstood me. Whatever the 'quality' of the iPhone 5 and iPod Touch 5 may be at 30fps and 1080p I was guessing that they'd be the same in spite of the extra mp on the iphone still camera because I'd assume that would be irrellevant on a movie as surely a lot of pixels are thrown away.
phillipduran
macrumors 65816
skinnylegs
macrumors 65816
Dude. He was shooting a *movie*.
This has to be one of the single coolest apps I have seen in years. Feature rich, nice UI and hella fun! If you are over the age of 40, this is a must-have app. LOL
