Tangerine is filmmaker Sean Baker's latest movie, and was on show earlier this year at the renowned Sundance independent film festival in Utah. It is about two transgender prostitutes who meet in a Doughnut-shop in LA when one of them finds out that her boyfriend had been cheating on her while she was in jail.
However, not only does the storyline sound intriguing, but the movie is also interesting from a technology point of view. Tangerine was entirely shot on the iPhone 5. Initially the decision was made in order to keep the cost for equipment and crew down as the total budget for the movie was only $100,000.
Shooting with an iPhone also helped create a signature look throughout the film, using higher than usual saturation. Baker also used anamorphic adapter prototypes from Moondog Labs and the Filmic Pro video app for shooting. The latter allowed for capturing footage at lower compression rates than the standard app and a Steadicam rig was used to keep things smooth. According to Baker using 64GB iPhones meant there was no need to worry about storage, but a lot of Mophie external batteries were in use in order to avoid running out of battery.
The iPhone was also helpful in another important way. Some of the characters in the movie were played by first-time actors who felt less intimidated by the iPhone and its accessories than they would have been by professional movie equipment and the large crews that go with it. In addition to shooting with a mobile device, Baker relied on social media for some aspects of the production. He found some of his cast on Instagram and Vine and discovered part of the movie's music on SoundCloud.
If you're interested in the Tangerine movie you can find more information on its Facebook page or watch the (NSFW) trailer below. You'll also be able to see it in selected theaters across the US starting Friday.
No matter what is said or done, this is creativity and, will be duplicated to great advantage. Maybe more movies will be made with this type budget. Unfortunately, we have given the filmmakers grist for their mill. We are harsh, hard, and downright mean too often. That this would become material for a movie is nothing new. These creators wanted to make money from their investment. I perceive that they may have succeeded. Kudos to them for that. I too don't like the subject matter. But, in a sense, their creativity should be heralded rather than criticizing them for their choice of subject matter. I don't like the subject matter. But, I too am a creative and take my hat off to them.
I saw the film, the director and sound director were on stage among with some of the cast. The film, in theater looks great. Sean Baker reiterated what he said at Sundance, in an interview with laist. "I wish I could say that we were looking for something new, but basically it all came down to this: we had no money. It was down to the DSLRs, [which would] increase the size of the crew by three and we couldn't afford that. And we would need to purchase some expensive lenses to make a film to set us apart from the others shot on DSLR. I went on Vimeo there was one channel that was focused on iPhone experiments and short films. I was really impressed with what I saw. But I wasn't sold yet. I came across a Kickstarter campaign for a company called Moondog Labs they created this anamorphic adapter that fits over the iPhone lens and allows you to shoot true 'Scope [2.35:1 aspect ratio]. I thought, "It might not be the first iPhone movie but it'll be the first iPhone movie shot in 'Scope."
Ok, I've just watched the trailer for the first time. The film probably isn't for me, but the production is a brilliant achievement.
Oh, and I had to Google for anamorphic lens (ana-what?) to work out what that was all about.
Now, why not a Lumia with a large sensor, or the latest Android (or even my Nexus 5)? I guess it boils down to the quality of the software for recording and editing? The iOS ecosystem still seems quite a long way out in front of Android, for photo and video.
I thought the IQ is as horrible as the content? This is a great candidate in a Video CD medium. Who needs DVD or Bluray if movie producers will use worthless phones for recording.
I guess I would rather see the film first rather than deciding it was "a gimmick". Funny, nowhere in the trailer does it say "WE SHOT THIS WITH AN iPHONE!" So I guess maybe they are trying to tell a story (yep, films do that sometimes) without asking the bank for a whole load of money.
Let me play the devil's advocate here: maybe they don't want to give Apple free publicity (with a trailer that can be distributed more widely than during a film festival) but during Sundance, it's nice for them to spread the word around that they shot the entire film with the phone just to generate curiosity and thus could possibly bring in bums on seats? :)
Or maybe they could have gone to Apple and said "We are making a film with an iPhone, fancy helping out?" but the fact they are not sponsored by Apple suggests, to me, they just wanted to make the film and used what they had.
@Natureimmortal: But when you want to market your film, you have to find a USP. Their is "feature-film shot entirely with iphone"! That suits the Sundance/Indie audience and generate interest.
I find no fault with the visual aspects of the trailer ; in fact I'm rather impressed by how ordinary it looks (does not scream "film with iPhone" at all). Why the negativity?
I think this film is more a celebration of the team's overall artistic skill than any display of an iPhone's technical prowess. That they could pull this off is incredible, but it's not like they shot with "only" an iPhone: there were lighting rigs and props and professional audio recording. Even the iPhone was rigged with a Steadicam. In the end, this film could have been shot with a Samsung/HTC/Sony phone just as easily, maybe even a GoPro. Kudos to the team for pulling this off. In this case it's more about the people than the tool.
I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
Barney, you should do a pull of all DPReview readers to see how many prefer the super expensive shot-in-IMAX-3D John Carter over the grainy Lost in Translation.
Everything you said makes sense and I agree wholeheartedly with every point, so I'm not here to argue. Just wanted to say that even though the average viewer doesn't give a hoot about IQ, we as shooters should and it's totally reasonable to complain about the IQ of a smartphone versus a Red Epic. I agree that if a good story is told, IQ isn't a problem unless it's absolutely horrible. Just saying that we should care.
@whyamihere: just to add another POV, this is not a film critic website, but a gear/photography/videography website, so when it's linked here and entitled that this film was shot with a mobile phone, people will tend to concentrate on that aspect of the film making. I LOVE films in general, especially Indie films, and loved the quirky film called Tadpole (which was one of the films in its time that was shot digitally). I enjoyed seeing the likes of Sigourney Weaver and the then newcomer Aaron Stanford (now better known as Pyro in the X-Men series). The horrendous digital artifects in that film was not a problem for me because once I got to see the film I forgot about the technicalities and concentrated on the journey the protagonist Oscar was going through...
Nonsense, what is the point? Anyone can use a $50 camera and do the same thing. Apply some Instacrap effect and it is not different than this. Just so you can brag that a movie can be done with smartphone? I would spend my hard earned $15 to watch a movie with professional quality and detail.
Colors are terrible, quality is terrible. Stabilization is terrible (if there's any). Looks like... a movie shot with a smartphone. A $500 video camera would have given much better results. Ah, but then they wouldn't have been able to say that they used an iphone... I hope the price of the ticket will be as low as the quality.
Seems like a strange statement. What is wrong with the depth of field? Are you looking for shots with "bokeh"? There's nothing wrong with deep focus. It's been used often in cinema. Orson Welle's "Citizen Kane", from the 1940's, is a great example of deep focus cinematography.
I haven't watched the movie on my computer screen yet, but I think it's amazing that they used iPhones to create a movie. Just my 2 cents.
I can understand and also agree with this comment. For example in the cafe scene the background of the road and traffic is completely in focus, which is very distracting (IMO) from the actors. To me this highlights the limitations of phone.
Yes a good photographer as well as a cinematographer understands that the background is just important as the foreground in a image or scene. A poor background can destroy the most wonderful foreground, as in the case of the footage depicted in this thread.
Just a headline grabbing gimmick. I mean, with the same price, they could buy the RX100 and they will have even better quality and no extra cost (or maybe even less cost than the iphone 5). Also, that instagram colour grading is so 2012, definitely no-no for me. I hope there is a strong storyline and then I can look past those hype and concentrate on the characters portrayed therein...
But why do you need anamorphic lens when the resultant quality is so terrible that they need to hide the quality with nasty 'instagram filters' grading pretending that that's the 'look' you are after?!
I want to see this movie because I'm into independent cinema, not because of the equipment used to shoot it. From the trailer it looked like there were some blown highlights and lots of 'stutter' in moving subjects such as people walking, but overall colour saturation contributes to the look of the movie, so it's OK. Not the death sentence for Arri, though...
I love this for its uniqueness and that is probably why they did it. I'm sure using a slightly more versatile camera like a Canon 5D or Panasonic GH series would not have added much to the budget though.
A good story is indispensable and carries the film of course. But what does the iPhone actually bring to the table? It's awkward to use and there are plenty of better, inexpensive, equally unobtrusive cameras. Maybe the iPhone is good for publicity, but that's about it.
They spent $100,000 . Another $2000 would have gotten a much better camera, and a far superior end product. This was done for the marketing value. They hope a lot of people will go see the film BECAUSE it was shot on an iPhone, just like the one they have in their pockets.
Could be true. If that was their mission it seems to be working. That's exactly why I'm interested in seeing it. ;-) but with a more expensive camera could come with additional expenses to run it. More experienced camera crews for example. I don't know their entire thought process behind their decisions, but it's still interesting. To me anyway.
"Budget, I believe was a main factor, and the filmmaker wanted a specific 'look'. Clearly, the equipment they used did the job..."
I don' think $500 real camera from Sony or Panasonic with much better quality would hurt in completing this project. It is very far from being a budget issue. Clearly, the iPhone 5 did a good job in producing mediocre quality video here.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
The New York Times has teamed up with Google to start the process of digitizing more than five million photos stored in a vault nicknamed "the morgue."
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
After years focused primarily on landscapes, Erez Marom leapt on an opportunity to return to his roots in wildlife photography. A trip to the mountains of Uganda photographing endangered mountain gorillas yielded some stunning photos – and an experience of a lifetime.
Digital cameras have made it incredibly easy to do time-lapse photography, thanks to the ability to take hundreds—or even thousands—of photos without interruption. This week, Chris and Jordan walk us through the process of planning and shooting compelling time-lapse videos.
The Nikon Z6 is the lower-resolution, faster sibling to the Z7, and has already shown impressive results in our preliminary testing. Take a look at how it performs outside of the studio.
Photopea is a free Photoshop alternative that works directly in the browser and offers advanced features including spot removal, clone tool, layers, filters, and masks.
Since publishing our full review, we've continued shooting with the Fujifilm X-T3 here and there – sometimes on assignment, and sometimes because we just like it so darn much. Our sample gallery has been updated with fresh images.
Flickr has announced that it will not delete images from its Creative Commons or Flickr Commons collections and is working hand-in-hand with institutions and non-profits to "keep these photos safe and available for the world to view and enjoy."
The Nikon Z6, paired with the new Nikkor Z 50mm F1.8S produces the sort of result you'd expect from a baby Z7. The lens is consistent across the frame and the sensor looks good but, like the Z7, the PDAF stripes aren't perfectly corrected so can occasionally become visible.
Tokina has listed an announcement on its website detailing an issue wherein the Canon Ef-mount version of the Opera 50mm F1/4 FF lens doesn't properly expose the image on Canon 1DX Mark II cameras.
NASA has shared the first 8K footage filmed from outer space. In addition to streaming on YouTube, you can also download the full-res footage to your computer.
We've created a trio of new Buying Guides, covering lenses for Canon and Nikon DSLRs, as well as Sony mirrorless cameras. If you're thinking of adding to your lens collection, these guides may be just what you're looking for.
Fotolia sent out an email notifying users that, beginning November 2019, they will no longer be able to access their Fotolia accounts and will instead need to transition to Adobe stock or another stock photography service.
Filmmaker Jimmy Chin has worked all over the world, in some of the most remote places on earth. Read about how he used DJI's new Mavic Pro 2 drone on a recent trip to Greenland.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Comments