I saw it is a hit and run. We'll never see the OP again.
-
You are welcome to promote here, but members are also welcome to reply with their opinions.
iPhone Filmmaking. The New Indie?
- Thread starter mariaajudice
- Start date
They shouldn't. They should let the observer figure it out.Why not? You can make a mosaic out of dick pics, but part of the art is, it was done with dick pics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-its-breathtaking_us_56464bb5e4b08cda3488c07e
What's wrong with waving an iPhone flag? It's an accomplishment.
I guess painters who paint with blood shouldn't say anything. Or if I use aluminum cans or bottle caps for my sculptures, or whatever you use... don't say anything, because it is art. That makes no sense.
Of course they mentioned they made a feature with iPhone! They'd be stupid not to.
So, you're conceding it was likely used as a gimmicky marketing ploy? Well, actually you did. So, it's not about the story, a great one at that, it's about let's do it iPhones when we don't have to to drum up interest?
You don't understand marketing?
"Hey, we made a film." vs. "Hey, we shot a film on iPhone"
Which sounds less generic?
I bet you wouldn't even react or look if they used the first approach. Let alone you would ask what it was shot with.
So, yes, I understand why they mention it.
lol, this debate mirrors reactions on the paintings by Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning in the previous century. They didn't use the tools ina traditional way.
Even William Turner was distrusted because he dared to used his fingers to paint instead of brushes.
I can see where both positions are coming from.
The one is optimistic, because it seems like anything is possible. The other is more conservative, some might even say elitist, as is partly about how things are supposed to be done. If we would always stick to the latter, the art of film would not have developed at all.
"Many things are impossible, because people say so. Until someone does it, because (s)he didnt know it was deemed impossible."
In the end 2 things will be true: a lot of video will be shot on smartphones and crap might hurt your eyes, but it will sink into oblivion.
Even William Turner was distrusted because he dared to used his fingers to paint instead of brushes.
I can see where both positions are coming from.
The one is optimistic, because it seems like anything is possible. The other is more conservative, some might even say elitist, as is partly about how things are supposed to be done. If we would always stick to the latter, the art of film would not have developed at all.
"Many things are impossible, because people say so. Until someone does it, because (s)he didnt know it was deemed impossible."
In the end 2 things will be true: a lot of video will be shot on smartphones and crap might hurt your eyes, but it will sink into oblivion.
True.
But to get attention on a forum where a large part is about 'which camera is the best', it is an effective angle. That is also marketing: adjust the message to the audience.
Oh indeed just pointing out they aren't flying that flag on their site. Appears to be more in the social buzz.
You don't understand marketing?
"Hey, we made a film." vs. "Hey, we shot a film on iPhone"
Which sounds less generic?
I bet you wouldn't even react or look if they used the first approach. Let alone you would ask what it was shot with.
So, yes, I understand why they mention it.
Who's ever said "hey, we made a film"? ironically, in the real world if one says we shot a film on an iPhone, they'll get side-eyed (not taken seriously). So, I don't understand what point you're making.
Here's marketing... "You ever saw the person of your dreams? No? But *female protagonist* has."
Instantly, it's no interest or a person wants to know who and how FP saw the man of her dreams.
No mention of an iPhone. If one has to mention iPhone then one doesn't have any business being a filmmaker.
Last edited:
Moving the goal posts.
There's an iPhone audience now. Let me start shooting and tap into that.
There's an iPhone audience now. Let me start shooting and tap into that.
This!
I bet that if they send a press release to a local newspaper it would be about where they shot it, because that is what local news is about.
If it where a 17th periodpiece and there is a community about (making) corsets, that would be the angle to the story over there.
You turned to the dark side so quickly?
And yes: some people jump into every hype to make money. Did you miss the stereoscopic craze or haven't you seen the terrible 360-videos that are being made because they can?
BTW, I wouldn't shoot a feature on iPhone. But others are free to do what they want. iPhone footage looks better than most direct to video stuff from 20 years ago
I'll concede the bold.This!
I bet that if they send a press release to a local newspaper it would be about where they shot it, because that is what local news is about.
If it where a 17th periodpiece and there is a community about (making) corsets, that would be the angle to the story over there.
You turned to the dark side so quickly?
And yes: some people jump into every hype to make money. Did you miss the stereoscopic craze or haven't you seen the terrible 360-videos that are being made because they can?
BTW, I wouldn't shoot a feature on iPhone. But others are free to do what they want. iPhone footage looks better than most direct to video stuff from 20 years ago
You'll concede that, but not the statement immediately preceding that "others are free to do what they want"?
Seriously, dude... your own introductory post here proclaims that you're new to filmmaking AND that you shoot on DSLR. You shoot on a DSLR?! Respect the film, man! I mean, DSLRs are plagued with cheap, highly-compressed codecs that fall apart in post if you try to push them too far. Aliasing, moire, banding... utter garbage.
Except that lots of us shoot on DSLR and get some pretty damn good stuff out of them. And major productions that have used DSLR have gotten press for just that. Remember the episode of "House" that was shot on Canon 5D? Or hearing that Anthony Hemingway used the 5D for several shots in "Red Tails"? Because those got tons of press. It wasn't gimmicky, it was just highlighting new technology that was being used in professional production.
Hell, Steven Soderbergh shot his feature "Full Frontal" on a Canon XL-1 (miniDV) back in 2002, and that sparked a whole lot of discussion and publicity.
You are way too new to this, and holding such an elitist attitude about filmmaking is not going to help you grow.
The quality of image that iPhone 5, 6, and 6s can acquire is stunning considering that it's a damn cell phone. Add an app like Filmic Pro and you have a tool that allows folks to shoot anytime, anywhere, and get good results. As for the choice to use an iPhone on a feature, sometimes creativity is enhanced by working with a very limited toolset. And sometimes, the camera choice has to do with the ability to move around quickly and without having to set up a huge rig to get the shot.
Talk to me when you've worked professionally in TV and film for 20+ years. Because I have, and iPhones and GoPros are popping up all over the place these days, even in professional production. And that's okay.
Seriously, dude... your own introductory post here proclaims that you're new to filmmaking AND that you shoot on DSLR. You shoot on a DSLR?! Respect the film, man! I mean, DSLRs are plagued with cheap, highly-compressed codecs that fall apart in post if you try to push them too far. Aliasing, moire, banding... utter garbage.
Except that lots of us shoot on DSLR and get some pretty damn good stuff out of them. And major productions that have used DSLR have gotten press for just that. Remember the episode of "House" that was shot on Canon 5D? Or hearing that Anthony Hemingway used the 5D for several shots in "Red Tails"? Because those got tons of press. It wasn't gimmicky, it was just highlighting new technology that was being used in professional production.
Hell, Steven Soderbergh shot his feature "Full Frontal" on a Canon XL-1 (miniDV) back in 2002, and that sparked a whole lot of discussion and publicity.
You are way too new to this, and holding such an elitist attitude about filmmaking is not going to help you grow.
The quality of image that iPhone 5, 6, and 6s can acquire is stunning considering that it's a damn cell phone. Add an app like Filmic Pro and you have a tool that allows folks to shoot anytime, anywhere, and get good results. As for the choice to use an iPhone on a feature, sometimes creativity is enhanced by working with a very limited toolset. And sometimes, the camera choice has to do with the ability to move around quickly and without having to set up a huge rig to get the shot.
Talk to me when you've worked professionally in TV and film for 20+ years. Because I have, and iPhones and GoPros are popping up all over the place these days, even in professional production. And that's okay.
Last edited:
I'll concede to that they can do whatever they want. I don't have to like it. Honestly, I perused your post and missed it.
FYI, I'm doing filmmaking in steps first mastering a DSLR then grow and besides I can rent and/or get better stuff in-kind.
Next, I don't care to spend 20+ years proudly working for anyone. Want a gold star? Owning a production studio and help building an economy is what impresses me. Example: Tyler Perry and Oprah. That's what I'm after. Not a padded resume.
You sound elitist. I did this, I did that. Maybe you own a production studio and didn't mention it. I hope so. However, I don't care for or respect anyone who says using an iPhone is the new it thing. If it was an absolute necessity, that's commendable. If it's insinuates a particular vision of a director, that's commendable. However, using it as a fad and marketing ploy to advertise is tasteless. That's my opinion.
An elitist is the one trying to change someone's mind to match theirs because they feel what they say and think is right.