iPhone used on filming 28 Years Later

That's a real filmmaker right there, thanks for sharing this it's a real treat and an educational experience for me as I'm really into this sort of thing.

It was funny to hear him talk about the "rubbish" quality of 28 Days Later back when it was made, I just watched it again about a month ago and was reminded of what a cinematic masterpiece it is. It goes to show that it's who is behind the camera, not what the quality or standard of the camera is.

There was a compressed scene where they were driving on an empty road and as they were craning up it revealed the windmills in the distance, probably one of the more compelling shots I've ever seen in a movie. So I can see this guy using any camera at his disposal to convey they story, he's gifted.
 
The other day I was setting up to record a video of myself for youtube, I have a $3400 Sony video camera with a $1900 lens attached. Got everything all dialed in and recorded only to find out the lighting still wasn't good enough to reduce the noise levels to something acceptable in my office.

So I just set the iPhone up on a tripod, pressed record and boom that was it. Right out of the phone the quality was exceptional and the whole thing was hassle free. I know both have their place but the quality and ease of use of the iPhone cannot be ignored, even in the most professional setting.
 
Eric said:
The other day I was setting up to record a video of myself for youtube, I have a $3400 Sony video camera with a $1900 lens attached. Got everything all dialed in and recorded only to find out the lighting still wasn't good enough to reduce the noise levels to something acceptable in my office.

So I just set the iPhone up on a tripod, pressed record and boom that was it. Right out of the phone the quality was exceptional and the whole thing was hassle free. I know both have their place but the quality and ease of use of the iPhone cannot be ignored, even in the most professional setting.
Click to expand...

Spot-on. I've had countless arguments at the other place regarding iPhone picture quality, with people trying to slam me when I claim my iPhone "produces" excellent photos. The retort is usually something of the form, "Why don't you get a real camera... blah blah blah."

I reply back, "I have "real" cameras... dSLR, mirrorless, and even an Arca-Swiss 4x5. And that the strength of a photo has much more to do with the photographer and his/her eye, imagination, ability to read and assess light, making judgments about what should be included/excluded in the frame (or dropped into the shadows), the power of releasing potential narratives in a viewer's mind, life experiences of the photographer, and a dozen other factors." Rather than the pedigree of the gear used.

I'm convinced that's something they'll *never* understand.
 
Citysnaps said:
Spot-on. I've had countless arguments at the other place regarding iPhone picture quality, with people trying to slam me when I claim my iPhone "produces" excellent photos. The retort is usually something of the form, "Why don't you get a real camera... blah blah blah."

I reply back, "I have "real" cameras... dSLR, mirrorless, and even an Arca-Swiss 4x5. And that the strength of a photo has much more to do with the photographer and his/her eye, imagination, ability to read and assess light, making judgments about what should be included/excluded in the frame (or dropped into the shadows), the power of releasing potential narratives in a viewer's mind, life experiences of the photographer, and a dozen other factors. Rather than the pedigree of the gear used.

I'm convinced that's something they'll *never* understand.
Click to expand...
Yup. I don't recall where I read this, but saying to a photographer "That's a wonderful photo. You must have a great camera!" is like telling a cook "The meal was excellent. You must have great pots and pans!"

Having said that, when I go through my photo collection, the improvement in quality between my oldest iPhone shots from 2007 and recent images taken with my 15 Pro Max is astounding, especially in low light settings.
 
Citysnaps said:
Spot-on. I've had countless arguments at the other place regarding iPhone picture quality, with people trying to slam me when I claim my iPhone "produces" excellent photos. The retort is usually something of the form, "Why don't you get a real camera... blah blah blah."

I reply back, "I have "real" cameras... dSLR, mirrorless, and even an Arca-Swiss 4x5. And that the strength of a photo has much more to do with the photographer and his/her eye, imagination, ability to read and assess light, making judgments about what should be included/excluded in the frame (or dropped into the shadows), the power of releasing potential narratives in a viewer's mind, life experiences of the photographer, and a dozen other factors." Rather than the pedigree of the gear used.

I'm convinced that's something they'll *never* understand.
Click to expand...
100% this. A camera is a camera, when I used to hold meetups the biggest question I would get is "what camera should I get?" and I always replied with whatever you like, mirrorless, DSLR, iPhone, Android, etc. what matters is that you're out there shooting because they're all capable of great photos. All it's doing is capturing your vision regardless.
 
On a stand alone camera how much does it depend on knowing what you are doing? If you got a mid range camera with a mid range lens and just snapped a picture by default would it come out better, same, or worse than an iPhone?

For my ignorant ass it seems like the biggest hurdle with the iPhone is zoom, although improved with each model it still gets pretty blurry quickly on zoom and on macro you aren't going to be printing a crystal clear poster of a flies eye anytime soon.

I watched another video talking about the use of the iPhone on 28 Years Later that said it's important to realize they are also incorporating other expensive hardware and rigs with the iPhones. They aren't just pulling them out of their pocket and shooting a movie.
 
Yeah, it's very cool, and the portability aspect came up in videos with Danny Boyle discussing the use of iPhones. Where they had to lug gear, how they wanted to be very agile with filming, etc.

The movie is fantastic, we saw it on Friday :)
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
On a stand alone camera how much does it depend on knowing what you are doing? If you got a mid range camera with a mid range lens and just snapped a picture by default would it come out better, same, or worse than an iPhone?

For my ignorant ass it seems like the biggest hurdle with the iPhone is zoom, although improved with each model it still gets pretty blurry quickly on zoom and on macro you aren't going to be printing a crystal clear poster of a flies eye anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Right, there is a difference between quality of the shot vs quality of the shot ;) Ansel Adams once said "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" and it's probably the most profound statement about photography ever IMO. I used to be a guitar instructor in another life and would see these rich kids come in and buy all the latest and greatest equipment and many of them couldn't nail a solo to save their lives. Give someone like Eddie Van Halen a student level guitar and a cheap amp and he'll make that mother sing regardless.

Camera gear is no different, one can snap compelling shot on a box camera out of the vending machine and that shot is all people will care about. On some of the meetups I've participated in you can see all the different perspectives from people shooting the same subjects and it really opens your eyes, not what camera they used.

Chew Toy McCoy said:
I watched another video talking about the use of the iPhone on 28 Years Later that said it's important to realize they are also incorporating other expensive hardware and rigs with the iPhones. They aren't just pulling them out of their pocket and shooting a movie.
Click to expand...
This is a great point as well, they'll have all the awesome supplemental gear to pull of the shots. I mean look at the rig they're using in the opening shot of the video the op posted here, that and the software on the backend makes a huge difference. Still cool to see them taking advantage of whatever technology best suits their need though.
 
Roller said:
Yup. I don't recall where I read this, but saying to a photographer "That's a wonderful photo. You must have a great camera!" is like telling a cook "The meal was excellent. You must have great pots and pans!"

Having said that, when I go through my photo collection, the improvement in quality between my oldest iPhone shots from 2007 and recent images taken with my 15 Pro Max is astounding, especially in low light settings.
Click to expand...
Great analogy. In my opinion, the best food is from Italy, and if you have had the opportunity of eating at an authentic Italian restaurant in Italy, you'd be surprised at how simple the recipes are and not augmented with a 1000 step process and ingredients. Cacio e Pepe is one such example.
 
rdrr said:
Great analogy. In my opinion, the best food is from Italy, and if you have had the opportunity of eating at an authentic Italian restaurant in Italy, you'd be surprised at how simple the recipes are and not augmented with a 1000 step process and ingredients. Cacio e Pepe is one such example.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I've been to Italy a couple of times and have eaten at authentic (i.e., not tourist-focused) restaurants in Rome and Venice. The food was excellent. One thing that struck me was the way Italians take the time to enjoy their meals, rather than rushing through them, as too often happens in the U.S. The same was true in France. I recall dining at a restaurant in Paris while several patrons were waiting outside for their table(s). They were given wine, and there was no effort to push us out.
 
Roller said:
Thanks. I've been to Italy a couple of times and have eaten at authentic (i.e., not tourist-focused) restaurants in Rome and Venice. The food was excellent. One thing that struck me was the way Italians take the time to enjoy their meals, rather than rushing through them, as too often happens in the U.S. The same was true in France. I recall dining at a restaurant in Paris while several patrons were waiting outside for their table(s). They were given wine, and there was no effort to push us out.
Click to expand...

That's because outside the US every meal is considered something to do while enjoying time with friends and family. In the US meals are an unfortunate necessity to keep you alive between work, buying shit, and other obligations.
 
Back
Top