diy Nigerian teenagers make sci-fi films from their smartphones.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
Yep. very inspiring. This article goes into more detail.
We used to get several "Best Camera" questions a month. We don't seem to be
getting those much. Maybe first timers are getting the point that the camera doesn't
matter. It's the dedication and talent that makes a great short film.
These guys prove it. Good things can come to filmmakers anywhere.
We used to get several "Best Camera" questions a month. We don't seem to be
getting those much. Maybe first timers are getting the point that the camera doesn't
matter. It's the dedication and talent that makes a great short film.
These guys prove it. Good things can come to filmmakers anywhere.
Cameras and guitars, it's similar-ish. A higher quality instrument will help your talent come through, but the music comes from the player, not the instrument.
When I was young, I worked at a guitar store, and there were endless people coming through, playing bad versions of the Stairway opening on one guitar after another, buying the 4500 dollar les paul to "improve" their playing. The reality it that until your skill exceeds the reach of your current instrument, there is not much purpose to a better instrument. Buddy Guy still plays a 500 dollar strat, and he makes it sound better than any of the midlife crisis guys from my old guitar store.
If you are publishing to delivery networks in film, it's a bit different, as your camera is your baseline quality, and there are quality expectations for televised work. Still, overall, it's more about the filmmaker than it will ever be about the camera.
Nowdays, a Cannon 5d can take you a long way. I know Soderburgh made that one film with an iphone, but it looked terrible, so I have to say experiment failed.
When I was young, I worked at a guitar store, and there were endless people coming through, playing bad versions of the Stairway opening on one guitar after another, buying the 4500 dollar les paul to "improve" their playing. The reality it that until your skill exceeds the reach of your current instrument, there is not much purpose to a better instrument. Buddy Guy still plays a 500 dollar strat, and he makes it sound better than any of the midlife crisis guys from my old guitar store.
If you are publishing to delivery networks in film, it's a bit different, as your camera is your baseline quality, and there are quality expectations for televised work. Still, overall, it's more about the filmmaker than it will ever be about the camera.
Nowdays, a Cannon 5d can take you a long way. I know Soderburgh made that one film with an iphone, but it looked terrible, so I have to say experiment failed.
Very true. But they also needed funding (ie, charity) from wealthy donors.
Last edited:
Which they only got AFTER they proved how much they could do with just about nothing.
I get the impression you didn't read the article. As mlesemann pointed out,
they made several, excellent short films without any funding (ie, charity) from
wealthy donors.
I stand corrected. But how does their film quality compare to the ones used by Hollywood? The quality looks the same.
I, too, found the quality of their short films very good. I think the quality compares
very favorably to "Hollywood" films. And the quality is only getting better as they
grow and improve.
For me, the inspiration comes from watching them get better with each movie. These
kids have drive and talent and just did it. And it's paying off.
very favorably to "Hollywood" films. And the quality is only getting better as they
grow and improve.
For me, the inspiration comes from watching them get better with each movie. These
kids have drive and talent and just did it. And it's paying off.
Thanks, Rik.
To belabour the issue, if their smartphones are as good as Hollywood cameras, then why use Hollywood cameras? I'm asking to learn, not to be a troll, thanks.
I actually have a cine camera, the one they used to film the Hobbit trilogy, and an Iphone does not compare to the real thing. The footage looks similar in a youtube window at 4 inches across, but on a theater screen that's 30 feet tall, there is a world of difference. It has to do with a number of technical and practical aspects, but basically we're talking about items that are not at all similar. My main cam requires a support vest with a mechanical arm, or a crane on a truck. Real cine looks have a lot to do with good lenses for example, and you can't put a Cooke S4 or an Angeneix on an iphone. You need a pl mount to use cine lenses, and just that one mounting ring costs as much as 8 iphone cameras. Here is a picture of one of Riddley Scott's go to lenses, mounted on a cine cam.
I am reminded of the intro to Screen Junkies' Honest Trailer for Gravity As @Nate North points out, there's a world of technical difference between the optical capabilities of a smartphone/iPhone camera and a multi-component lens coupled to an image sensor ten times the size. The same logic applies to cinematography as to commercial still photography: there's only so far you can go with algorithmic re-processing of a captured image, so if that image is, from the very start, severely curtailed by using a lens of fixed focal length and a tiny image sensor, then you'll hit the limits of what's acceptable when you "go large".
Now if you know that your target audience is probably never going watch your movie on anything bigger than a laptop's HD screen, then an iPhone's 12MP sensor already gives you twice as many pixels as you need, so there's plenty of room for intelligent computing to make the images look great. But an entry level DSLR will have a 24MP sensor and the option of using real short-focal-length lenses and optical zoom rather than digital manipulation to get to the same starting point in post-production, leaving you with a lot more scope for further enhancement.
None of that matters, though, if the rest of the production is shoddy - which takes us back to the old maxim of first having a good story to tell.
Thanks, @Nate North and @CelticRambler. So a smartphone shot would not look good on a movie screen. Would the same apply for a TV screen? I'm asking because the shots do look good on my mac desktop.
Most TV have a youtube app. you could bring it up and see for yourself
Well, a smartphone camera isn't as good as pro camera. When I said
"the quality compares very favorably" I didn't mean the quality is as good.
Nate and Rambler pretty much said it all. In addition to the tech specs a
DP has more control over all the aspects of the image using a pro camera.
Since you have now read more about the Nigerian team you know that
their "wealthy donors" provided them with better equipment that they
are now working with.
Today's smartphone camera is very good to start with. A filmmaker needs
to make movies to show "wealthy donors" that they have the talent to make
a watchable film. While some established filmmaker have used iPhone cameras
to make features that were shown on a movie screen it isn't much more than
an experiment.
But the image quality can be excellent. If an aspiring mogul wanted to actually
make a movie or a web series to jump start a career using a smartphone camera
can be an wise choice. These kids proved that.
I may be able to cook restaurant quality food at home, but that doesn't mean chefs need to start using home kitchenware! "If you can cook the same quality in a toaster oven, why do chefs have expensive Viking ovens?"
This is not about those that already use professional tools and why. This is about those that can mimic those tools and how.
This is not about those that already use professional tools and why. This is about those that can mimic those tools and how.
It all depends on what you mean by "good". To quote from this article about the shot-on-an-iPhone movie Tangerine
This YouTube video explains how iPhones (and other smartphones) overcome their inherent physical and optical limitations (spoiler: they do it mostly with massive computing power). Is that a problem or an advantage? Well, that depends on what you or your DP want from the image and the platform on which it's going to be distributed. iPhone shots viewed on a Mac will look great, because it's the same company behind both the capture and display, and if Apple does one thing right, it's "presentation". Underneath it all though, the unprocessed image is still a relatively modest 12MP shot through a fixed focal-length lens and no physical control over the aperture.
However, you can throw as many megapixels at an image as you want, but if the camera is in the wrong place, or the lighting is off, or the sound is crap or the script was written by one of the "infinite number of monkeys" then you won't be getting a seat at the Oscars!
Last edited:
My advice would be to start out with a cheap beginner cine camera, so you can learn. That's only about 5 grand. For about 12K you can get one that flies and hovers well enough for studio work.
BMCC is a good place to start.
Also I would note that youtube isn't good for comparing cameras, since all data streams are normalized into youtubes native bitrate. Its about the same as the iphone, but the cine cameras get completely decimated by the bitrate crush.
BMCC is a good place to start.
Also I would note that youtube isn't good for comparing cameras, since all data streams are normalized into youtubes native bitrate. Its about the same as the iphone, but the cine cameras get completely decimated by the bitrate crush.