Maybe for editing photos, yes. They need a lot more RAM than they currently have. This 1 GB thing needs to go away now. I didn't say they wouldn't be a major tool, I was strictly referring to sensor size and taking photographs.
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.
Filmmakers in 'Noah' Used an iPad to Control a Huge Overhead Lighting and Rain System
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This thread is amazing. It has jumped from freedom of religion, the offensiveness of the new Noah movie, Tim Cook being gay (I didn't know that so news to me), camera optics, and it keeps evolving. All in FOUR pages.
All because they decided to dump some water on Russell Crowe using an iPad as a controller.
All because they decided to dump some water on Russell Crowe using an iPad as a controller.
Sounds like somebody hasn't watched Blair Witch Project.
----------
That much is true.
----------
This is also true.
----------
The possibilities are already endless when Steve jobs unveiled a new kind of tablet 4 years ago. You're 4 years late.
You're missing my point. You are not going to shoot an epic Hollywood style film using an iPhone.
Blair Witch Project could have been easily shot using an iPhone had they been available at the time and for the style of the movie it would have fit. For Noah it would not have, which is my point.
Sounds like we need to move this to science, politics and religion?
Speaking of evolution.. Has anyone else been watching Cosmos? That show is incredible. The vast expanses of the universe, the evolution of all beings, you can't deny that stuff.
I wonder how many iPads they use to run that show. Lol.
Speaking of evolution.. Has anyone else been watching Cosmos? That show is incredible. The vast expanses of the universe, the evolution of all beings, you can't deny that stuff.
I wonder how many iPads they use to run that show. Lol.
Part of me says that what they did with the iPad is nothing new or special. It's not rocket science to understand the concept. But the other part of me says that the movie was somewhat disrespectful to the bible.
It adds confusion to something that was not confusing to begin with. I left the theater second guessing what I read.
I think that the iPad being used in a mission critical application is a testament to how advanced and trusted it has become. It has replaced part of an extremely expensive dedicated control system in a situation where if it failed it would be incredibly expensive.
No comment on the movie itself as that's not what this thread is about.
No comment on the movie itself as that's not what this thread is about.
Again, never say never when it comes to technology. Sensor size CURRENTLY prevents iDevices from taking professional photographs, but do you really pretend to know what advances will be made in the future? And that the current limitations will always be present? Don't mean to be blunt, but your argument sounds similar to dozens of ones made by CEO's who got left in the dust because of a lack of vision.
It isn't even remotely similar. No amount of technology is going to defy the laws of physics to make mobile device cameras compare to sensors and/or lenses that are usually much larger than the entire mobile device itself. It's not going to happen. Technology has crammed faster and better things into smaller and smaller sizes... much like computers used to weigh several tons and take up the size of a house and they now fit into our pockets. This is the exact opposite direction. You can't cram a professional size lens into a mobile device... that would be counter-productive. Mobile cameras will continue to improve, but this isn't a matter of "figuring things out" with technology that hasn't been discovered yet. Huge sensors and gigantic insanely expensive lenses are not going to have any competition from the mobile device market. The closest thing we've seen in mobile cameras getting bigger is Nokia's PureView... which makes the phone a bit gaudy and still can't shake a stick at professional grade cameras. Maybe somebody will create tiny sensors/lenses capable of defying physics and drawing in the same amount of light [among other things] that a $15,000 camera setup will, who knows? It could happen. I'm not close-minded and I'm not blind to the history of technological progression. It's just highly improbable and illogical for something like this to happen to mobile devices unless they stick something similar [and huge] on the things, which would no longer make them portable. The only way for them to compare would be to have large accessories/attachments that could do such things. But then that would defeat the purpose of having a mobile camera in your pocket and you might as get real gear. What you're proposing is like saying we'll have mini telescopes that will be on par with what the Hubble space telescope can do. The size difference is there for a reason.
Last edited:
It's not defying physics. It's figuring out how to get around the physics. And the people who will do it obviously don't think like you do, which is why they are able to do the things that we once thought to be impossible.
I didn't want to get into the biblical part, but since you got into it quoting me, I suppose now's my chance!
The reality is that almost anything done regarding christianity in movies is going to get torn to shreds. Passion of the Christ did too (for different reasons) and that tried to be as historically accurate as possible.
Another poster made a good point about making Germanic Gods into comics (Thor). There are also various renditions of hercules. "Nobody" is up in arms over that because "everyone" accepts they are just stories.
It's tough for me to understand (though I do accept) how people feel this is disrespectful of the bible. At the end of the day, writers make decisions to tell stories. They also have a job to do to make the movie exciting and available for many people. I am not sure I agree with the choice of "rock giants", however the movie would have been pretty boring for me had we just seen Noah build and ark and then load it with a ton of animals. Some posters have pointed out that we are a Christian country by and large. While that may be true, there is a large enough number of people (some maybe even Christians) who wouldn't be terribly interested in sitting through a movie the way I just described it.
More on point with the actual article, it's neat an iPad was used, but not groundbreaking. I am willing to bet that this isn;t the first movie an iPad was used in this way. I am also willing to bet that other tablets (but not Windows tablets LOLOLOLOL) have been used in similar ways in different movies. If I cared enough, I would look it up and see if my theory is correct. But honestly, I had (and am continuing to have) more fun just reading the comments and the crazy tangents people are taking this topic.
----------
it's mr. Hello !!!!
hi!
Yes, you said that several times now. "Get around the physics"... ok... go with that. Making things up isn't a basis to solidify your argument nor is it a means to invalidate mine. I agree with the point you're making that technology continuously evolves, oftentines in unimagined and unexpected ways. Let's leave it at that.
@ lordofthereef: It was still boring with the rock monsters... although I must admit I was laughing quite a bit at the absurdity of the rock Transformers. I could not wait for the film to end. Unfortunately, it was over 2 hours in length and felt like 5. The last half hour had me gritting my teeth.
For clarity:
About 77% of Americans identify as Christian
About 30% of Americans believe the Bible is literally true
(about 43% of Christians)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx
For the 57% of Christians who don't think the story of Noah is "historically accurate" to begin with, I think the concern would be on whether or not the movie "rings true". Actually, it sounds like the movie is more of a demonstration of special effects than anything else.
As for using the iPad for mission critical work, I think one of the advantages it has is its portability and the fact that spares are easy for this type of situation. (There was this old movie joke about Cecil B. DeMille and his four redundant camera stations during a hugely expensive scene ... ). I'm not sure that the iPad is ready for reliability-critical control work where there would be a single system in the control loop.
Think of it as quantum computing compared to what we have today. It's not so much physics being broken, but having a new way of taking photos that obsoletes the old way of taking photos, much like film -> digital. If that method of photography means that we can take professional photos with an iPad sized device, then so much the better and I welcome it.
----------
Right, because there was never any remotely controlled artificial rain in movies before
I think what he was getting at was that touchscreen devices that could control external devices were expensive, such as control panels. That's why people mostly used devices with physical buttons before the iPad came in and changed the market.
Unclear as to why you quoted me and gave me these statistics, really. Thank you, nonetheless.
As far as the story "ringing true", I really don't see why that matters. It's either entertaining, or it's not. If only viewers knew how often and immensely "based on a true story" films tend to stray from actual reality... It's because reality, in general, is very boring. I am not saying this film wasn't boring, rather suggesting the additions were there in an attempt to make it not so. It most certainly would have been boring if, as I mentioned before, we simply got a building of the ark and a loading of animals as its entirety.
Last edited:
Intresting, about this usage of the iPad, to bad though that this didn't improved the movie itself, besides water it rains cliches in Noah, it's an avarage simplistic B level action movie and the ending with all that water effects done by ILM, well I've seen better effects and, more important, way better movies.
Yes, but even with the leap from film to digital, only the end product has changed (physical to digital storage), not the tools needed to obtain the best quality imagery possible (large lenses, etc,). Quantum computing is another matter entirely that would require a complete rethinking of the way computers function as they have absolutely nothing in common with transistors or binary. Things like quantum entanglement and other crazy crap. I also don't see how that has anything to do with photography. The way photographs are captured and stored has changed over the years (again, physical film to digital media), but the need for lenses and whatnot hasn't changed at all... only better quality lenses, sensors, etc. For mobile devices to compete with this, it would require some unfathomable new tech unbeknownst to us and so far out of the scope of present technology that it's not even worth discussing right now because it would be all theory.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't know what's being defended here. And using examples like "people used to think the earth was flat" isn't an argument. We also used to burn witches at the stake. We're far less stupid and ignorant than at any other point in human history and it isn't wrong to deduce current technology trends with basic logic and understanding of what is available to us now. Believe me, I would be all for a mobile device that could take pictures like a $15,000 Canon or capture video like a $50,000 RED recorder... It's just a silly debate of wishful thinking with present circumstances. It's also important to note that as mobile tech develops, so will the tech for professional photographers and filmmakers. The gap is always going to be there.
I have no doubt the iPhone 97 is going to be unlike anything we can imagine right now, but by then we'll probably have super cool HD alternate realities being fed directly into our neural circuitry or something. Joking aside, it would be downright cool to see a new way of taking photographs or capturing film that doesn't rely anything on what's currently available. It just doesn't exist yet.
Last edited:
Well, I find it hard to "reason" with people who feel being disrespected based on a delusional and fictional story, the Bible, to begin with. These people also felt that Life of Brian by Monty Python was disrespectful towards their believes and the movie even got banned for many years in various countries just because of that. Decades later we learn to accept that these movies, any about religion, are merely based on a directors "view" on a fictional story, nothing more and nothing less. That view has been changed during the decades and even more during centuries when you look at it.
With all do respect, I've difficulties to respect those who tend to "ban" "art" based on their views then instead respect the view of others and let these kind of movies to be viewed as they are by people who can decide themselves if the story presented would be disrespectful or not.
In short, one can't ridicule enough towards those who tend to think they have the only truth in their possession, if only for the sake to put everything in context which is, in this case, that moviemaking is nothing more then a form of art from the perspective by those whom are making the movie.
Last edited:
The simple truth is that there are plenty of physical limits to a camera like the ones used in smartphones that put some serious restrictions on the pictures you may produce using those.
1. Small sensor = very little control over DOF (=little or no out of focus area)
2. Small sensor = weak performance in low light
3. 29.7mm (equivalent) is a rather wide angle and due to no zoom (digital zoom does not count, it's just cropping and enlarging the remaining pixels) the applications are limited
4. dynamic range is way below that of real cameras
I could probably continue this list but you get the general picture. In the end it all comes down to this (and that is also what you can read in the linked article): A Smartphone camera can be used to take certain shots (wide angle, large DOF) under certain conditions (good lighting, low dynamic range within the frame) for certain uses (web or small prints) without problems. BUT for anything that is beyond these limits a smartphone just won't deliver.
Let's face it: Smartphones replace simple point and shoot cameras without optical zoom and they do that very well, but then again, no one in their right mind would book a photographer for a wedding with one of those either.
In many aspects it IS defying physics. A small sensor within a thin case and with a physicaly short lens will ALWAYS have a wide angle of view and little or no control over the depth of field. There is no magic way around this. (well maybe there is, but that is somewhere in the regions of travelling faster thatn the speed of light)
They can invent new sensortechniques that perform better in low light, they may even invent sensors that are so advanced that even digital zoom may be viable because the small arfea used for that may still deliver enough details to get a desireable result.
Yeah, but dumping all that water on all those people, filming it, editing it, distributing and marketing it, projecting it and selling popcorn with it is how thousands if not hundreds of thousands of peole provide for their children.
They say there's nothing enough clean water in the world. But here they are wasting it for a movie.