Video: Those &#39;Shot on iPhone&#39; ads are not what they seem

The difference being that most people already have a smartphone with decent cameras for other reasons.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

aruky

"We don't know exactly what gear Apple used on its latest 'Shot on iPhone' commercials, but we're betting ..."
Sorry, but this quote from your article makes the whole premise worthless.
Not the kind of quality I expect from DP-review. Please, don't become another clickbaiting-headline generating site!

Jul 2, 2017permalink

JT26

Huh? Weird. They dont know, because they, dont know. You know? Did you watch the video? Pretty interesting I thought. How does this whole article and video become worthless because they are making an assumption?

Jul 2, 2017permalink

aruky

pretty easy: "betting" is NOT reporting. Headline says "ARE not what they seem". Article says "we don't know".

Jul 2, 2017permalink

The point is that some of the editors on this site represent themselves as journalists and journalists don't speculate and they don't assume. And they don't quit for the day just because it's happy hour at the local pub. They dig until they find out the answers.
So the question is whether we, their readers, want to hold them to the highest standards of professional reporting or would we rather that they waste our time with second-rate Work.
As with government, we get out of the media what we are willing to put in.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

rluka

Even without equipments, and not ignoring that most peoples using the phone camera will just be casual shooters.

Shot on iPhone
"with skill, experience, effort, chance, and flight ticket to exotic location"

Jul 2, 2017*permalink

I always love the exotic location. It's a great bonus to have, and often included in press media, but not necessary either.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

dmanthree

The iPhone replaced the Instamatic. Except with much better image quality. It's wonderful for what it is, but limited.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

p51d007

For selfies d "snapshots" they aren't bad, but photography is about capturing light, & given the size of cellphone sensors, they do an "ok" job, but can't even match that of a small camera, in sensor size or lens quality.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

rwol1970

Considering that most images are viewed on a phone screen, there's no point in using a better camera. The images taken with my S8 look fantastic on the device, on Facebook, Instagram, etc. But on my PC monitor they look ok-ish. But the target users don't view their images on a PC monitor. And I have to admit: since I have a Fujifilm camera with WIFI, I view most of my images on my S8 or iPad as well.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

achim k

I totally agree! My smartphone is not the latest model (Galaxy Note3) but the colors look fantastic and very realistic as far as I watch the images on this very device. As you said: on my Eizo computer monitor they just are "ok" and mostly have to be a little pimped when mixing them with images from my real camera.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

2stepbay

Market and financial forces exert tremendous influence on how and when product or content is disseminated to target audiences. In that regard, any meaningful standard of transparent accountability seems tenuous, at best. Sadly, each day seems to reach new lows in the realm of how to artfully present distorted information. Or perhaps we are now becoming more and more painfully aware of how low this marketing bar was set a long time ago.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Navmark77

So camera phones are the modern equivalent of the box cameras of the last generation. As we suspected all along.

Yes I realize the metaphor is not exact since camera phones are not fixed focus, fixed exposure, fixed everything. But the gap between a camera phone and a real camera is roughly the same.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

The problem with the premise of this article is the author does not know what was used. But one thing we know for sure, it was shot using an iPhone, so its sensor is what's in question. And we know it has a great lens. So the bottom line is, the answer is, we don't know what was used.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

wetsleet

But we know that Apple (other manufacturers are available) did not feel they could rely on the phone alone to produce the results they wanted. So neither can you. There is a reason they used extra kit - the phone itself is not able to produce those results.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

photo_rb

We don't know that because this article doesn't tell us. For all we know the extra gear could have been a lens hood or a tripod. I don't like this article because it implies that thousands of dollars worth of accessories were needed but gives no proof of that.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

tompabes2

Amazing how fans will always try to justify Apple no matter what. The truth is that those ads trick people into thinking that, if they buy an iphone, they will get the same results, and this is not true.

Jul 1, 2017*permalink

photo_rb

Nothing to do with Apple. It is about an article that makes claims without any evidence and suggests the disclaimer means thousands of dollars worth of additional equipment was needed to bolster the results.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

MyReality

The point of the video is that if you see the disclaimer "Additional Equipment and Software Used" it means something besides the iPhone was used.
The only conclusion we can draw from the videos is the additional equipment may or may not have been used.
Since the iPhone has a very wide angle lens, you might be able to tell by perspective if any additional equipment was use.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

ZeBebito

"The truth is that those ads trick people into thinking that, if they buy an iphone, they will get the same results" No, they only said: "Shot with an iPhone" period. Not: "Your videos will look just like this".

Which is different to those Samsung ads with pictures taken with Canon cameras.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

Kaso

Interesting video. Not too surprising, though.

I don't care for the so-called professional photographers. I am happy with my photographs, created with a camera and a lens, without human, equipment and software assistance.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Barty L

You create you photographs without "human" assistance? Are you a 'droid?

Jul 1, 2017permalink

larrytusaz

Well how about that. Color me surprised. I thought "gear doesn't matter," it DOES? Wow. [/sarcasm off]

And by the time you've done all that the "bulk" of gear starts seeming pretty irrelevant I'd say. It makes all of these comments about how even "lugging" a Sony RX100 is just SO much grunt work or such seem really silly.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

white shadow

The smart phone camera definitely has its uses but it can never replace a camera, even for a P&S one. First, the handling is worse off than a camera. Secondly, one seldom can keep it on shoot mode for too long. Thirdly, a phone call can come in anytime to disrupt you while you are trying to shoot. Forthly, the lack of an optical zoom make fast composition a bit difficult. Well, the list goes on.

Even with a good camera, one still require an eye for composition, lighting and exposure. So, thinking that one can shoot "award winning quality" photos by just having an expensive i-phone is an illusion.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Most PS cams are PoS tho. And I'm not sure I understand your last point. Even with a good camera, one still require(s) an eye for composition, lighting, and exposure. Correct. But the illusion then should be that gear doesn't automatically lead to award winning quality, not that iPhones can't shoot such quality.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Indik

Main problem with smartphone cam is that it doesn`t motivate you to shoot properly (e.g. spend your time, think, look for composition) because you already know it`s abilities (but not yours) and the result can only be good in ideal conditions.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

I have no idea what you mean. What makes a smarphone camera so demotivational for you?

Jul 2, 2017permalink

Indik

Dull results and little control over the process.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

You get all the control and results better than most point and shoots

Jul 2, 2017permalink

Indik

My point is that:
- aperture is fixed, you cant change it
- depth of field is huge - no control over it
- ISO higher than 400 is mostly useless, so very little control over ISO
- lens is fixed, so no control over FoV
- at least you can change shutter speed

Jul 2, 2017permalink

PS cams that allow you to change more than that (other than zoom) are rare tho and mostly high end.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

wetsleet

" Forthly, the lack of an optical zoom..."
Ah, yes, but you are forgetting about the famous iPhone "optical" zoom. A development from their Marketing Engineering department's optical labs. Amazing how many reviews, blogs and commentators now believe the iPhone has an "optical zoom". Perception is reality, and if can adjust the meaning of words a teensy bit through the power of marketing, voila - an "optical" zoom in a mobile phone.

Jul 3, 2017permalink

If you are talking about the dual cam switching, it works very well

Jul 3, 2017permalink

wetsleet

So let them call it "dual cam switching", and promote it on its own merits, and not pretend it is something which it is not. After all, if it is better than optical zooming, why would it want to pretend to be something worse? And if it is not, well, there's the deceit.

Jul 4, 2017*permalink

Mike_V

Close enough.
Compact Primes, RT Motion follow focus are both pretty cheap.
Anyone could hire that for a couple of hundred a day.

Camera gear used on a normal commercial is thousands of times more than this cheap stuff.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Akpinxit

What a shock ...

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Sho-Bud

I consider ANY advertisement or commercial to be fake, companies will say and promise anything to get that money out of your wallet.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

rwol1970

It takes one to know one.... Is faking common practise at the company you're working for?

Jul 1, 2017permalink

vadims

@rwol1970

I think we all know what Sho-Bud means, and it's hard not to agree with him. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are few and very far between.

Level of stupidity in ads is intolerable. "Chew this NEW AMAZING bubble gum, and that girl will be YOURS!" Unsurprising, though; after all, they sell image/emotions, not products. Average level is so bad that, say, on YouTube I automatically vote down a video that does not allow me to skip an ad (that goes before it) after 3 seconds, I just can't stand the torture.

There are ads that are, arguably, works of art. Say, MasterCard's campaign ("There are things that money can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard"). It's a marketing masterpiece. And yet, it doesn't make it any less stupid in my eyes. What information does it give me? Why is it better than Visa? No info, just an attempt to manipulate me based on emotions.

So... Sho-Bud is right ;-)

Jul 2, 2017*permalink

Nicolas06

"It takes one to know one.... Is faking common practise at the company you're working for?"

Ah but you really feel what the advertisment show? You really get the impression you are in an exotic location down in a boat on a river each time you drink coca-cola?

Your previous brand of laundry detergeant couldn't make any of the clothes you had before look clean but the new one manage to remove any issues even hopeless ones ?

Your mobile phone always download everything instantly whereever you are on earth than to the perfect coverage of your provider?

And if only you had the right brand of underarm deodorant, you could do intensive sport for 4 days in the most difficult conditions and still not stink at all without needing to wash.... I wonder why people that do sport before work even think they need to take a shower before putting back their suit...

Jul 2, 2017*permalink

Girls do love a man whose kisses taste like bubble gum.

Jul 2, 2017permalink

JEROME NOLAS

Just don't buy it, it's that simple...

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Elliot H

& don't watch is simpler

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Kilrah

"Yes, they were technically shot on those phones" Not even always the case as proven several times...

Funnily enough I've worked on such a shoot and SOME images were shot on the phone, but some from other cameras were mixed in too. And since the production company made no proper prior research to check whether mounting a phone on the intended "thing" was possible nor whether the phone's features were even at all capable of shooting what it was supposed to in the first place (hint: they weren't) it nearly ended being all lies.
I did drool a little when proposing a solution and getting the OK to root the sample phones from the representative of the manufacturer on location so that we could edit system parameters and use a couple of apps to work around the limitations and make the whole thing work at all.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Dude—share! For the shots that were actually done on phones, what were the techniques that produced the best images?
What two or three things did you learn that day that helped your own iphone video shooting and that you can pass along to the rest of us?

Jul 1, 2017permalink

I am skeptical of your claim. Which phone? Which production company?

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Kilrah

There was no "technique to make the best images", it was merely "put the phone on an action thing where there's usually a GoPro so we can show the phone fiming something crazy"... when the GoPro is obviously much more appropriate. There were only a few seconds of worthy non-vibrating phone footage, but that did the job for them.
Was 2 years ago for "a popular Android phone that charges fast".

Jul 3, 2017permalink

IOW it goes back to the advice from long-time National Geographic photographer Jim Richardson. “If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.”
One thing I think I have noticed is that in a lot of the iPhone videos they don't move the camera very much or very fast. They have a lot going on in the scene but the camera is locked down. Yes?

Jul 3, 2017permalink

huyzer

These types of advertising should be made illegal.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Sir Corey of Deane

I find them useful to practise caveat emptor and honing one's critical faculties :).

Jul 1, 2017permalink

chrshale

Don't we already have enough rules, laws, prohibitions, and regulations? Every time someone doesn't like something they demand another government intervention in our lives. What happened to caveat emptor? Exercise your own responsibility for your actions instead.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

How do you expect any single person—even a smart cookie like yourself—to be able to outthink a company with unlimite resources that can call on the country's smartest (and devious) most writers, heartbreakingly soulful art directors, steely-eyed cinematographers, the most advanced imaging and processing technology, the pick of exquisite lenses...
Get the right talent together and they can make a movie that you won't even know is a movie—for all you know, you could be in a movie right now.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

huyzer

@chrshale
Apparently not enough.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

huyzer

@MrBrightSide
Talk about being long-winded and condescending in tone. Don't try to be too "Bright".

Jul 1, 2017permalink

otto k

While phone makers have a long history of "faking" promotional videos (hello Nokia) phones have been "good enough", especially for video, for some time now.

Providing that you can work with wide angle and deep DoF, you might not need anything else (even an extended selfie stick hanging vertically down can be an effective stabilizer).

Now, the tricky part is lighting and composition and no amount of equipment will help you if you suck at those.

That's why they hire highly capable professionals to film those videos.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

oldfashioned

exactly.
and the zacuto people made it pretty clear 5 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJTrXONeEZk

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Niko Tod

Every company is lying to a degree. If you think Samsung are honest... or LG...
Apple ads though with their clinical cleanness and brightness, also promote fakeness as a style, which is probably the worst element in their videos.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Elaborate on the fakeness...

Jul 1, 2017permalink

What are you smoking?

Jul 1, 2017permalink

anthony mazzeri

That rig in the photo is a prototype of what Nikon should have been producing for ten years now - a DSLR where the phone clips onto the back to provide all the controls/apps/storage/connection/etc/etc/etc imaginable.

But they don't.

They could argue that people wouldn't upgrade their DSLR regularly any more, just their phone hardware or software.

But that's happened anyway. And worse is they're using their phone's inbuilt P&S camera instead of that DSLR with its 10 year old firmware and lack of connectivity any more which just sits in the cupboard.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Most of the magic of phones comes from amazing processing (power). The fact that dedicated old cams with better sensors can't match them is saddening.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

CameraLabTester

Bill Gates wasn't very happy when he learned that the Annual Reports of Microsoft were done on Macs for a number of years.

But he's not so annoyed anymore after buying into Apple shares after that personal revelation.

Ooops! Wrong forum...

Carry on, then...

Jul 1, 2017permalink

anthony mazzeri

That probably had a lot to do with Excel 1.0 being only available on the Mac in the 1980s.

There was no Excel for DOS or Windows until v2.0 in 1987 (technically v1.0, but labelled 2.0 to match the Mac update).

If he had really wanted his own accounts dept to use PCs back then, they would have had to use the competition Lotus.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Lars V

Apple were struggling and needed the investment money.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

That money was paid back and they didn't need it. It was money to prove sincerity in porting Office to Mac. Apple was in trouble, but $150 million was a drop in the bucket even then.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Navmark77

Hey it took time to reverse engineer Lotus 1-2-3 and repackage it as a Microsoft product.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

GaryJP

The bs isn't as much in the ad as in the suckers who then go on to use the ad as evidence of what their phone of choice can do.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Tom Holly

Next you'll be telling us L'Oréals skin repair animations aren't accurate...

Jul 1, 2017*permalink

Sactojim

Know what you mean..still waiting for that all natural "men's secret formula" ED pill to kick in..been two weeks now..guessing it takes awhile..

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Triplet Perar

This is same as the US space programs mania during the Cold War; spending millions on expensive rigs and rockets, hiring best minds in science and PR only to put — a monkey into a rocket. (While their competitors decided to put a real man instead and beat them with real results).
That futile advertising mindset lives today; braindead companies go the same lengths to spends millions, use best videographers and hire incredible rigs only to tie in a monkey camera.

Jun 30, 2017*permalink

Scales USA

There were very good reasons to use a monkey versus a man. The US space program was very transparent, and every launch was watched live by millions of Americans. A failure would devastate the entire program. The USSR did not have public launches, but did put a dog in orbit first, perhaps your memory is selective?

Jun 30, 2017permalink

m_black

And the dog died of a heart attack.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

GaryJP

Laika, who had previously been a stray, launched on a one-way trip on board Sputnik 2 in November 1957, was originally claimed to have died painlessly in orbit about a week after blast-off. She actually died from overheating and panic just a few hours after the mission started. The original plan had been to let her starve to death. Let's be a bit more accurate about the so-called "monkey-cam: here.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Stanchung

DPR now has another false equivalency article idea.

Jul 1, 2017permalink

Dester Wallaboo

Did anyone really think it was different than this? All of the ads supposedly shot on smartphones are totally made just like this.

Jun 30, 2017permalink

Stanchung

Except the Huawei ones that were using a Canon 5DIII

Jul 1, 2017permalink

cosinaphile

the video did little to actually show the type of extra gear they use or pp for that matter ..... that would have been interesting to see

more of an advert for consumer add ons ......

tastes like clic bait

Jun 30, 2017permalink