Matteo Bertoli, a California-based cinematographer, got a chance to try out the iPhone X's video capabilities in Kauai and has just published the results. And before you ask – Bertoli states that it was all shot handheld.
"I DID NOT use any lenses, accessories, tripods or sliders. Everything was shot handheld, the only thing I had on the phone was the silicon case, that's it. Also I DID NOT use Filmic Pro. Everything was done with the native camera app. Shot in 4K at 24fps," he states on YouTube.
Bertoli did grade the footage in Davinci Resolve 14. He also stays that, impressively, most of the video was shot using the telephoto camera. The secondary camera module's inclusion of OIS and a brighter F2.4 aperture means it's more useful for these kinds of applications.
Take a look at the footage above and let us know what you think in the comments.
Yes it's soft. But not bad for a phone really, the broadcasters will rush to get these for their reporters, and for some fire brigade shoots, ambulance chasing and doorstepping it will be useful but "Cinematic" it is not. I have a cupboard full of once the best available but now outdated cameras including a Betacam, a Digital Betacam, (with its £10,000 lens) and other smaller format must have options, each one was a museum piece before it was first launched. When will people realise that the manufacturers' R&D departments are at least four generations ahead of their sales departments? The idea being not to sell one great camera per user, but as many cameras, phones, iPads, etc,. as possible and as often as possible to the same user, i.e. to milk "must haves". No matter how good the iPhone X is, it is but a small fart in a large storm.
don't abuse so much of the word "cinematic", c'mon, it's a nice smartphone camera, maybe the best one so far (since it's also the newest...).
what makes an image cinematic (random order):
lighting framing 12-14 bit file pro codecs log dynamic range 14-15-16 f.stop and up. shallow depth of field capabilities interchangeable lenses s35 o bigger motivated camera movements good cinematographer and some others...
there is no cinematic smartphone. there are nice image smartphones without all other features.
Um, that was pretty mushy and low contrast, TBH. I mean, it's good for a phone, but not really spectacular in anyway. I know Youtube does some pretty massive compression, so some of it could be that, but I saw smear that is typical of smartphone 4k video in a lot of the foliage.
One question - the video looked to be 2.39:1, with fairly tall black bars top and bottom on my UHD/3840x2160 monitor. Does the X have an ultrawide mode, or were these videos cropped in post processing, like the "dust on the film" effect from 0:18 to 0:22?
edit: please don't take the "mushy" comment as salt. I've seen the best that LG and Samsung are offering and they have the same limitations/drawbacks. 4K just doesn't quite hold up yet from phones, even when compared to good, fixed lens travel cameras.
I think it is great that a home video can look nice. The music is funereal and there are way so many cuts it is almost snaps strung together. Different tastes.
It's showing in 720p or 1080p for me by default. Kick it up to 4K and to me it looks fine.
But it's still a bit disappointing. Maybe it's the compression but to me it looks like typical iphone footage: Looks great in bright light but falls apart as the light dims where you loose resolution and DR.
Its not just the softness, its the lack of any sense of a third dimension. Flat and lacking in visual contrast: the sparkle and delightful play that comes from the dancing light and shade is utterly absent, IMHO.
Roland, it is odd, especially as towards the end there are some sharper scenes. But I can only view on a 1080p screen. Other than that, the video looks remarkably stable for being hand-held, and fluid.
I have to say it looks a bit soft, and I think this is compression related so a higher bitrate by an app like Filmic Pro should make a big difference. The other thing is that it seems the secondary lens with f/2.4 and OIS is at last usable! I have the Iphone 7 plus and on many cases the croped image from the wide angle lens is better than the image from the "zoom" lens.
Overall I am not really impressed. It does not seem to be that different than any other 4K video from smartphones using their main lens.
I see a very well made holiday video and it's great that you can make this one with a chocolate table sized equipment + some grading afterwards. But there is no need to emphasize that it is made without tripods or other "helpers". That is obvious. And while the colors and detail are great I miss some depth in the images - maybe this isn't possible with tiny sensors for 4k at the moment.
But if I were into video I would always prefer my SL2 which has "only" 2k video but gives me very good technical and "atmospheric" quality and - much more important - access to a large selection of optics. Some technical clips (for physics teaching) show great IQ and macro lenses are best friends for that.
And I am not into real video movie editing because I am overwhelmed by the complexity of a good movie. The only thing I maybe could do is some Koyaanisquatsi like work which is more a great merging of movie + photography with a large range of focal lengths and macro lenses.
For a non-native speaker your english is great! The translation give-away is that while a bar could be considered a kind of table and a chocolate bars a type of candy, a table is never a candy.
All this talk of chocolate has me hankering for a ritter sport bar (but that's square not iphone shaped....).
For me, it would have to be a Terry's Chocolate Orange. For those not familiar with it, it is about the size of an orange, the chocolate is segmented just like an orange, and flavoured with orange oil. Yummy.
I think it's great that technology has reached a point where a PHONE can do this. Love or hate Apple, such advances are great for our community as a whole.
the definition that some smart people throw around here that cinematic has to do with the effect of motion from a series of still images is great! becaus it means that everything that moves is cinematic! hooray to the first entry in google! makes life so much easier!
that the term cinematic has a history and was introduced to describe specific image paramaters that digital cinema wanted to adopt from analog film is lost on a generation that forgot how to use a dictionary.
I gaurantee any one posting negative feedback blames everyone but themselves for not being a successful creative person earning a living at what they love most...
What's up with this unstoppable force of lowering the bar? How about we discussing this for a change? Bar keeps lowering and lowering, and people pretend they're amused.
I was not a photographer (or even born depending on how far in the past you think of), but I get the impression people weren't afraid of doing the hard way in the past.
If MF gave more quality, MF was what people strove forward. If LF gave more quality, abeit a PITA to set up, people went that way.
In filmmaking, people would go from 8, to 16, to 35 mm. Hollywood DPs have always used 70mm, budget and logistics allowing.
Photographers and cinematographers didn't mind several kilos rigs in the past. Quality takes effort. It's a put-your-back-into-it game.
Now we're living this cr@ppy times of "ohh, tiny sensor is a bit better than trash, let's create a thousand articles saying it's better than sliced bread and lower the bar in the process because-who-cares".
It's not about lowering standards, it's about what anyone can achieve with an everyday device that fits in a pocket and is always with them. If a young person (or not so young) finds they have an aptitude for film making using a phone then they may move on up the equipment (and possibly career) ladder. Everyone has to start somewhere.
Rich, it's the very opposite. Continuing your example: as long as a young person keeps believing mediocrity is good enough (the cellphone), he will stay forever mediocre.
I've been a requested pro photographer (as well as an amateur filmmaker with some nationally acclaimed achievements).
For as long as I've used my Sony P&S from late 90s and early 2000s (equivalent to today's smartphones), my mind kept locked in mediocre mode, having zero desire to achieve anything grander than a snapshot.
The very first day I've started using "serious" gear (a Sony A100), something clicked. From a guy that had zero interests in photography, in just a year, I was starting a pro career.
Using *proper* gear unlocks the best of our creative minds. It proposes for us a bit more ambitious thoughts.
Same happened in 2002 when I bought my "serious" 3 thousand dollar VX-2000 camcorder. 1 year later, I was being interviewed in a prestigious Talk Show in national television (not kidding, I have links).
Holding in my hands the best camcorder I could afford back then, makes one feel ambitious.
So I've made a short film in 2003 that got me interviewed on that Talk show.
None of that would have happened using smartphones (or any alternatives from the early 2000s).
You need the proper thing, manual controls, form factor, decent weight, IQ, ability to change lenses, tactile feel so you trick your mind into believing that you're doing something worthy with your time.
A cellphone, even a good one, provides nothing more than a illusion of "good enough", and it keeps you in such a compromised mentality.
In short, it lowers your quality threshold and overall ambitions.
Filmmakers won't discover their passion using the latest iPhone.
Filmmakers are born when they put their hands on proper gear and feel the real thing.
"Good enough" is clearly relative. Grandparents looking to film their beloved grandkids don't need an Arri setup, yes? In that situation, an iPhone X would actually be overkill. No one is saying "filmmakers will discover their passion using an iPhone." This article was demonstrating what CAN be done today with just a phone, and it's a million times better than what Orson Welles used to film Citizen Kane. Tech advances are to be celebrated and is only good for us.
Don't get me wrong, I would never think to shoot any serious project with an iPhone, I just think you're overreacting a bit.
With all respect Marcio, you simply don't get it. If you want to be a film maker, you will know the limitations of a phone no matter how good the footage. But for everyone else this is great compared to the video capabilities of their p&s's from just a few years back. If just a tiny percentage of them then decide they like making films and are good at it then they will soon realise a phone has limitations and move on to better equipment if they can, and that is for the good. And I'm sorry to say this, but "Filmmakers are born when they put their hands on proper gear and feel the real thing" is just about the most arrogant and nonsensical comment I've ever seen on this site.
@marco - you realize that the award winning movie Mad Max used iPhone ~6 for slomo for compositing some effects? And that was at least 2 iPhone if not 3-4 generations back...
"Using *proper* gear unlocks the best of our creative minds. It proposes for us a bit more ambitious thoughts." And yet... you see *PRO* photographers and *PRO* film makers around using "lesser equipment" because it does something they are looking for in it. These are just tools. You found some tools that work well in the domains you are doing your work- that's great. But there's no silver bullet. It all depends what you are doing.
The tools are not your work. It's the work and skills of of the photographer and film makers that are what you can produce. Higher gear only unlocks things for you if you are motivated by using that, but best art is done within constraints anyway. You may pump your chest of pro stuff, but there's *masters* that talk about this.
On an iPhone, yes :D On a real video production, no, it means actually matching and correcting color from scene to scene, and usually also applying an LUT to a Log file.
In addition grading also includes creating the overall look for a film. A very common color grade is to desaturate the picture and to shift colors along the amber-blue or magenta-green axis. The most popular is to shift the shadows to teal while pushing the highlights orange Colorists are also experts at isolating elements within the scene–like costumes or backgrounds—and boosting or muting their colors relative to the actors skin tones.
Photography has changed and will continue to change. Nerds with their massive cameras aching over distortion and resolution graphs are on the wrong side of history.
Yup, now go and tell those stupid, dinosaur-minded directors of photography in Hollywood, all the press agencies, and every television channel that their huge investment in gear is completely obsolete thanks to the iPhone X! Show 'em how they're on the wrong side of history!
I haven't seen Tangerine and it's not available on Netflix in Australia but I did look at the short. What immediately stood out was the very restricted dynamic range of the camera(s) used.
BadScience: You come in here and bash a majority of the place's constituents, and you expect to get away with it? Yes, most of us DPR dwellers obsess over image metrics, but guess what? So do all directors of photography, and a lot of smaller but successful video creators. The iPhone X sucks balls for video work. A DJI Osmo is a *way* better tool for film making, that costs less and is much better suited to the task. But according to you, "we're all in the wrong side of history" because we care more for IQ and creative potential. Ridiculous.
When you can create a more creatively shot and beautiful video than Tangerine WITH ANY equipment then maybe you can say "The iPhone X sucks balls for video work"
When you can create a more creatively shot and beautiful video than Tangerine WITH ANY equipment then maybe you can say "So do ALL directors of photography".
obsessing over "image metrics" is nearly always to the detriment of creativity.
Put it this way - I can take better photos with a smart phone than any of the photos in your gallery - which are not exactly high on the image metric scale and lower on the creativity scale. But of course, creativity is just an opinion....buty maybe you should use a smart phone more to get the creative juices flowing.
What is your point with Tangerine? It's not that great a piece, in my opinion. I'd take a Kubrick film any day - from a man who was obsessed with specs and technology, and also a genius film maker. I'd expect you to cite at least four or five good films made with a smartphone to make your point, because an exceptional case hardly indicates a trend (as you imply). Also, nice one, bashing me for my gallery when you have a single unintelligible picture of some rock formation (I'm guessing, because it's unintelligible). Pretty much all of the photos in my gallery are impossible to make with a smartphone, because they're taken at wider or narrower fields of view than a smartphone will offer (surprise, surprise), or require more light gathering. And creative freedom comes with that - different focal lengths, different apertures, more latitude in files, better breadth and scope of accessories... If you want to waste $1,300 on a POS phone, it's your money. But don't expect me to do the same.
hey guys, i just won powerball and id like to start a youtube channel shooting videos of my cats sleeping. should i get the iphone X or 65mm IMAX for best quality????
So much salt in the comments. Can't we just be impressed by the footage a skilled individual is able to get with an extremely widely available tool. For all the comments saying 'other phones could do this' or 'zoom in to look at the terrible compression' - YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. If I saw any of this footage in a professional ad campaign or even an indie movie I wouldn't bat an eyelid, and in 2017 it is possible to do that with a smartphone, that is pretty incredible.
You can complain about Apple propaganda, or you can allow yourself to be impressed at how far technology has come, whether you choose to buy Apple or Android or whatever.
Sometimes I am fundamentally disappointed by the human beings who visit this site.
Right on. The majority of posters on this site, and others, are nothing more than fanatic gear heads and not photographers. It's the same in the high end audio industry--people in love with their expensive amps, processors, speakers, who have no clue what live music sounds like. Or one of my friends with a very expensive sports car and a garage full of equally expensive bike frames. He spends most of his time polishing or looking at them instead of using them. DPR needs an Ignore option.
If I saw this footage in any professional work I'd be appalled. Shaky, boring, flat and uninspiring, that's what it is. I mean, this kind of quality is great to start a YT channel, no doubt, but it doesn't even come close to what even an old HDSLR can do. Look kid, most people here aren't "salty" - they just have standards. And a bit of creativity as well, which usually demands at least a couple of fields of view, some control over DoF, some way of making decent camera movements, and some low light capability as well. All of these things can be obtained cheaply today - for much less than an iPhone X, certainly :D
Did you really just call me 'kid'? I'd take that as a compliment if you weren't trying so hard to be patronising and acerbic. You realise my point was that people here are unnecessarily dismissive and unpleasant, right? The expression 'you missed a perfectly good opportunity to not say anything' comes to mind.
This wasn't a low light test, etc etc etc, it was a showcase of what a professional can produce in one particular set of circumstances, with a tool that we'd never have conceived could be so capable only recently. My LG G5, a flagship from last year, certainly isn't as good.
As for saying any old larger camera would be better though, this footage is frankly more pleasing than anything my XT1, A5100, Nex 6, D7100, D5100 can produce, they all probably resolve more detail blah blah blah but each has weaknesses like artifacting or moire that this footage doesn't have.
Consider yourself and the way you have chosen to conduct yourself thoroughly judged (and found wanting)
I'm sorry, can I go upstairs to my room now, mommy? @_@
"Thoroughly judged", hah! If that's all it takes for you to "thoroughly judge" someone, well, you're missing on a lot of things from the world and its people. Bye.
The thing I don't get, is if you're going to troll, why set out any kind of argument at all? You could save so much effort by just writing the troll part of your answer, because when you call someone 'kid' who's going to care what else you have to say?
Not to mention - if you just want to troll, surely there are better places than a camera website. Either go full troll, or join the conversation without being nasty or using cheap rhetorical tricks. Surely that would be a better use of your time. Bizarre.
The way to test video quality on Youtube is to ramp the resolution down to 240p. If the codec is any good and the compression is mild, the footage will still look clear and detailed. In this case the footage looks over-cooked & over-compressed with apparent blotching and weird color.
Now take a look at footage from the LG V30 smartphone, at 240p it holds-up beautifully, with no messy blotching and good natural color.
But the Canon 77D is leagues ahead at only 1080p
Apple products to me are overrated junk, not to mention overpriced. Fashion victims love Apple, and Apple gladly siphons their money.
And forget any defensive replys, they have no affect on me, and I already made my case, and you don't get to tell me otherwise. I know how to spend my money.
Apple Laptops give half the value of a PC equivalent, and their phones are big, ugly and boring.
mbot wrote: "Apple products to me are overrated junk, not to mention overpriced. ... Apple Laptops give half the value of a PC equivalent, and their phones are big, ugly and boring."
You're such a respected tech expert we are blessed to have your insightful, in-depth analysis. I thought that being an engineer for more than three decades gave me insight, but apparently I needed you to set me straight.
I'll trade in my CNC-machined aluminum frame MacBook for a creaky, plastic Dell or HP at my earliest convenience. No longer will I be shackled to free OS upgrades for life, carry-in repair service at Apple stores all over the world, or a Unix-derived OS. Thanks, mbot!
mbot wrote: "And forget any defensive replys[sic], they have no affect on me, and I already made my case, and you don't get to tell me otherwise."
So your "case" is unsubstantiated assertions. Impressive.
utphoto wrote: "Mbot...who gives a $hit about watching a 4K video in 240P. You're delusional."
DarnGoodPhotos replied: "He has a valid point, that kind of test is absolutely relevant to everyone visiting YouTube ten years ago."
Try watching an iPhone X 4K video with a burlap sack over your head. The 4K video from Samsung and LG smartphones looks far better than the iPhone X's when viewed through burlap. That proves that the iPhone X is inferior.
I think iPhone articles need a “trigger warning” tag so all the Android and traditional camera people don’t sprain their wrists while clutching the pearls.
As someone who does not do video, just stills with a 5D3, I can only say that the film does look really very good, sharp, well exposed and pretty convincing. I don't own a Apple or anything Apple and never will MDE
1. common noun given to any Apple so-called "clever" phone advert when it deals with it filming capability. 2. B.S designed at making naives customers believe that their filming-able phone has almost the same ability to make animated pictures that are pro-RED-camera shot movies.
@WilliamJ: Why is Apple responsible for DP Review Administrator DL Cade using the term "cinematic" in the title of this article? If you have an issue with the use of the word, blame him, not Apple.
If even you understand that the iPhone X isn't equivalent to pro-quality 4K video gear, I'm certain that even a naive Apple customer will recognize that, too.
@fnaxwell - it was just a fun response, relax :) But anyway dpreview is using "cinematic" in the last ... 100 or so videos shot with any iPhone, so the only fun thing in these articles are these kind of comments.
Look up the word Cinematic... "Cinematic describes anything related to cinema"
They are just implying that the footage produced would be good enough to be used in the cinema. Nothing more, nothing less. Loads of phones and cameras fall under that category, and I won't start pulling teeth over the use of a very common word.
Heck, if google, android cinematic you will find loads of articles and adds for android phones and cinematic footage. Would you complain about their use for the word too?
it's a common word, used badly. "Cinematic" (as in the dictionary definition you quote) has nothing to do with the pixel quality of the image, but it is more related to the style and overall visual experience of the footage. A high resolution, balanced exposure movie recording of a random rock on the road is not a "cinematic video", the same way as an image of my morning sandwich shot with the latest Sony A7R3 is not a galley-worthy photograph, but a mere high-resolution snap-shot.
True... but is it not essentially a moving target? What was worthy in the cinema decades ago is not exactly the standard of today. The question is... can the iphone X produce a cinematic video (worthy enough to be seen in the cinema)? After all a 10 year old DSLR can still produce gallery worthy images, and that has to do with what is behind the camera and lens. Same should apply to this no?
exactly - the phone can produce cinematic videos, no doubt here. There are already full feature films shot entirely with iphone5 (or 5s) i think ...
But then again that has nothing to do with the fact that the presented video qualifies as cinematic :) ... in my opinion it is just a nice high res video that showcase the capability of the phone. It is a review video, not a "cinematic" one.
: So much daily "cinematic" BS. How much more of these "cinematic" daily doses from just about any and all devices that shoot video are enough for this to become unbearable already?
Go grade any 20 year old proper footage from a DV camera and that will equally look "cinematic". Heck go look directly at 30, 40 or 50 year old 8mm or Super 8 footage and that's even more "cinematic".
We live in a fantasy world where everyone one, every brand and every device claims to be able to do what in fact they cant unless masked by 1000 layers of tweaks and visual make-up.
The aspect ratio is considerably lower in all the historic cases that you mention! If cinematic (loosely defined) means similar to that seen in a cinema then both 24 fps and aspect ratios >= 16:9 are a closer approximation.
The aspect ratio of movies, in the sound era, started to change and move away from Academy format in 1953.
If you had checked other definitions in the: Oxford, Cambridge, Collins and Merriam-Webster dictionaries then you would perhaps have realised that in relating to cinema (in the last 60+ years) this would make aspect ratio an implicit criterion? The same is true of frame-rate: from 1927 onwards the standard was 24 fps for 'talkies'.
These borderline, almost fraudulent, "common-expert-man" promotional features crafted to serve the brand, trying to create the impression that "cinematic" equals "cinema" and that minimal, inadequate material is enough to produce a commercial-grade short or full-feature piece, should have no place in a serious photography site.
Can we make "cinematic" takes with the iPhoneX...Sure, with the 4K capability, it would be very strange if it couldn't be done.
I can do some aerial ones with my MavicPro that has a camera with significant lower specs than the one on the iPhone X...So?....Should I contact the production of the next Bond movie?
As for Mr. Matteo Bertoli, that is certainly giving this hand to Apple out of his kind heart, the real question is: As a cinematographer, should the industry expect all his future projects to be done with an iPhoneX?
You asked: "As a cinematographer, should the industry expect all his future projects to be done with an iPhoneX?"
Yes, all of his future projects will be shot on an iPhone X. That's the point of this article. He's mothballing his professional cinematography equipment and replacing it with an iPhone X.
It's just like when a professional racing driver praises some street car's handling and acceleration. It means that he is going to use that street car for all future competition.
@PhotoKhan ... and yet, there HAVE been commercial grade (and award winning) films, shorts and commercials shot on an iPhone. See "Tangerine" (the hit of the Sundance Film Festival and also winning numerous other awards) "Night Fishing" (from award winning Director Park Chan-wook of "Oldboy" fame) and the infamous "Bentley" commercial that was shot on an iPhone.
I think some people on this forum are either out-of-touch, or just plain afraid that now these things are in the hands of everyone, and anyone can now have a chance at making quality photos/films without having to shell out thousands on the latest Canon or Red camera. (my own iPhone Photos have been published in Magazines and exhibited in Galleries, and one of my iPhone short films have played in various film festivals, and has one a couple of awards.)
You'll have to excuse me if I am not that keen on a film that does not explicitly or implicitly makes clear that the featured violence over women is just allegorical but, otherwise, yes, I see your point.
...but my point is not that a movie can not be made with an iPhone (...or even a 1080p device...) and turn out to be a good one, if the story is compelling enough.
My point is that what is trying to be "sold" here is that it is good enough to make ANY film.
Sean Baker, "Tangerine's" director, went on to expand his tool belt into the Arri and Panavasion products prevailing in the industry and, as I believe it and contrary to his vote of faith in the iPhoneX, Mr. Bertoli will also drift away from it.
You see, being destitute on account of less than professional output is not a great motivator for a creative mind.
mbot wrote: "Dpreview still got their kickback, so they don't care."
I hope you have proof for that claim, since you're directly attacking their integrity. It would be like me coming into your place of business and telling people that you spit into the french fries.
"What does worry me is that Dpreview obviously thinks we have "stupid" written on our foreheads"
What worries me is that you are paranoid and delusional. DP Review highlighted video from one of the best smartphone cameras on the market and you came up with some crazy-assed idea about bribery and them trying to trick you.
I don't remember Dpreview < that's how I like to spell it) putting up a comment & video link for every other major phone. They can all do 4K "cinematic" too😉
Thus we may rightly wonder why Apple got special coverage, and subsequently will suspect certain things.
mbot wrote: "I don't remember Dpreview < that's how I like to spell it) putting up a comment & video link for every other major phone."
Do you have links to videos shot by top cinematographers using every other major phone? If the videos aren't there, what is DP Review supposed to do? I've seen some of the amateur videos people have linked to to "prove" the other phones work just as well and it would be unfair to the phones to feature those videos.
"They can all do 4K "cinematic" too""
I've seen a lot of 4K output that isn't anywhere close to what you see here, much less cinematic.
"Thus we may rightly wonder why Apple got special coverage, and subsequently will suspect certain things."
Wondering and suspecting don't give one a license to defame and slander. It's one thing to say "I wonder if they were paid for this" and something else altogether to say "they got a kickback."
I think optical image stabilisers are a complete game-changer for cell-phone video. Having a choice of focal lengths that are stabilised is a nice step up. BTW I think the stabiliser in my iPhone 7 is probably better than the one in my RX100V (only when shooting 4k).
I don't think the cost of the software in important but the time and work involved. SOOC means instant: i shoot and i send it to my friends... sorry, this is "cinematic", i've meant send it to the editors for publishing :))
No Resolve is actually pretty free only up until a few exclusive features most don't need (Noise reduction and 6K/8K and two/three bits)
Blackmagic bought the Resolve project and simply gave it to everybody. Amazing how most hollywood movies are graded on this free piece of software, it's incredibly powerful. Only needs skill though!
Try or read about it. Nothing even remotely basic about the free version of Resolve. It was basically a 999$ piece of hollywood software given for free.
Look, it's a fine phone. But only Apple takes it to the "You can't tell an iPhone from a Nikon D850" level (while focusing only on the easiest shots). And that's why they get flak.
Apple did not produce this video, nor did they claim that an iPhone camera was the equal of a Nikon D850.
Even pretending Apple did those things, why would you give "flak" to Apple's customers, calling them 'zombies'? I don't have any control over what Apple says or does.
They have done similar things before, and this is all part of the same hype machine. Just do a quick Youtube search. The zombie quote was not mine either, so well done for the straw man argument.
In the meantime, take the labels off a bunch of phones or cameras and you actually get very different responses in "blind tests" as I found when I swapped exifs on two shots and the guy who loved a brand turned around and said it was garbage.
And you might check out the "bakery" shoot on the iPhone. If you think Apple had no hand in that then I have beachfront property to sell.
It's ironic that you would accuse me of making a straw man argument after you accused Apple of suggesting that people can't tell an iPhone from a Nikon D850.
Again, Apple didn't produce this video. They didn't entitle or write the article that appears here. So I don't understand Apple is being blamed for the video, the title, or the article.
I've done photo swap tests in which I "compared" an LG phone to an iPhone, claiming that I preferred the iPhone images. The person with whom I was debating went into a complete meltdown about how horrible the iPhone images were and how much better the LG images were. Then I reposted the images with the EXIF data, told him what I did, and he went silent, never replying.
P.S. I didn't make a straw man argument. I made a mistake. I inadvertently attributed the other person's comment to you.
Not an Iphone user but... just a few years ago most would kill to have this functionality in one piece of electronics, 4K video, photo, (almost) full computer capabilities... phone... and yet, as I read, such a disappointment... not cinematic enough, digital looking, poor quality (unlike my DSLR), not a real thing, Pfft. Small sensor, yuck. Takes crap pictures as compared with 5DMkIV or D850. Meh, RED is waaay better... Yet they can't make enough of them. FB, Instagram and Youtube is full of videos and hell, they didn't go down yet, who's watching that poor sh*t? Could it be that people prefer instant message in "good" (LOL, I know...) quality over high pixel count, perfectly exposed and graded content? How dumb is that !?
Looks pretty good to me. Use this phone with an app like filmic and you can get even better results. The 4K from my 7+ is nice too. Lot of bitter people in these comments.
Whenever an article mentions an iPhone, the bitter trolls descend on us.
Some try to convince us that they are God's gift to photography by criticizing images and video that normal people are impressed with.
Others pretentiously claim that they have never been without a full-frame DSLR when they wanted to photograph something -- so they have no need for something as pedestrian as a camera in a mobile phone.
And still others act as cheerleaders for some competing brand, claiming that some past product from that brand could do the same thing, or that some current product does it better.
Some are even so unethical and morally reprehensible that they make baseless accusations of pay-offs and bribes. I take a very dim view of libel and defamation, so I wish that DPR moderators would warn them the first time, suspend them the second, and ban them on the third time.
Reading the comments, it somehow seems that the majority of the commenters are of the opinion that something needs to be Academy Award worthy to be anything.
A large part of the comments are dissing it, talking about how it is boring, just a holiday shot, etc etc etc. In conclusion, they must want more, better, closer to perfection.
And they probably couldn't even match it, themselves - this boring, yawwnnn video...
Hope you've never had an opinion on ANY Hollywood film then dude. By the way, I make TV shows and shoot for broadcast, and have for thirty years. What do you do?
No, it doesn't make my opinion more valid than yours, but that's where YOUR argument takes you.
"Until YOU can make "Avatar" or "Weekend at Porky's" you are not allowed to say it's garbage."
:) Mike, just a question for you. What does cinematic means to you? Most of the comments don't even care about the movie quality, but the fact that DPreview keeps calling *every* random 4k video "cinematic".
For me, a "cinematic video" means a video showing something interesting to view and presented it in an artistic style. The presented video is good for reviewing the phone ability but it is not cinematic for me. And it seems that it is not for a lot of people either.
You see? Here from it comes the misunderstanding. You expect the film to feature nothing, and you are happy. I expect it to show anything and it fails short :)
I see where you try to take the discussion ... but the point (my point at least) about a cinematic movie is not that it can't be made with cheap gear. I've seen more interesting (in both subject and style) movies recorded with phones that shoot 720p 30fps only.
Hi there, Michael! Didn't know you also existed outside of the astro-world :-)
To answer your question: this is a typical article that only serves to garner page clicks. DPR has been increasingly (re-)producing content with only that in mind.
Apple's premium iPhone X is the most expensive iPhone to date, so it's only fitting that it comes with optically stabilized dual rear cameras, impressively high-quality video capture and a gorgeous display. So does all that make up for the high price of entry? Let's find out.
Computational photography is by all accounts the 'new thing,' but in its current state, how does it compare against your average entry-level camera? Let's find out.
We're nearing completion of our iPhone X camera review. In the meantime, we've been doing plenty of shooting testing portrait mode, lighting modes and everything in between. Take a look at a fresh batch of sample images.
For the past few weeks we've been running a series of polls to find out what you - our readers - think of the major product releases of 2017. It's time to announce the winners of the first round of voting!
The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.
Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.
The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.
At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
A question frequently asked on the Internet is 'what's the best DSLR?' In this buying guide we've answered that question – but also whether it's the right question to be asking in the first place.
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.
It's not always easy to find marble, wood or concrete surfaces on demand. Enter Replica Surfaces, small tiles designed to replicate popular photo surfaces and backdrops.
Lensrentals Founder Roger Cicala set aside some time to take apart Canon's new 50mm F1.2L RF lens and in doing so revealed a number of interesting discoveries.
With a nickname like 'bokeh master,' we had to see what the Sigma 105mm F1.4 was all about. Take a look at our gallery of samples shot with the Sony a7R III.
On their latest models the two smartphone manufacturers have replaced the dreaded display notch by a design that features a circular hole for the front camera in the display.
With the latest version, Adobe Camera now lets you import Raw files from the newest iPhones, Pixel devices, the Samsung Galaxy Note 9 and Nikon Z6 among others.
The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.
The Sigma 56mm F1.4 combines a sensible sub-$500 price tag and excellent performance, providing a portrait-friendly 85mm equiv. view on Sony's APS-C mirrorless cameras.
The 250mm F4 is Fujifilm's longest lens for its medium-format system. It's equivalent to about 200mm on a GFX camera, and we put it to work on some portraits as well as some scenes around Seattle's waterfront – take a look.
A new patent from Canon lays out the schematics for a speedbooster-style adapter for mounting Canon EF lenses onto EOS M cameras, but with a variable baffle to reduce the risk of flare.
The Jackson Hole Travel and Tourism Board has started a campaign asking visitors to stop geotagging their specific locations when visiting Wyoming's national parks.
Film simulation app Filmborn has been updated with new presets, features, and overall improved support on Apple's latest mobile operating system and devices.
We've been shooting with the LX100 II both in and out of the studio, as part of our ongoing review. We're pretty impressed, so far, with the revised JPEG color and addition of a touchscreen both noticeable improvements.
Skylum's Luminar 3 arrives on December 18 with the long-awaited ability to manage your photo library. However, it won't be a full DAM (digital asset manager); the company plans to roll out features throughout 2019 and won't charge for updates from Luminar 2018 during that time.
Nikon's IPTC Preset Manager, a tool for creating predetermined sets of metadata, has received an update. Version 1.1.0 no longer uses Microsoft Silverlight, sheds the network connection requirement, adds extended language support, updates support for Windows 8.1 and Windows 10, and ends support for Windows Vista and Windows XP.
Comments