Unsane - shot entirely on iPhone 7 Plus

I was going to post this in the NAB 2018 Predictions thread in the middle of the back and forth on resolution/compression but pretty sure it is too OT.

The Verge isn't particular impressed with what the iPhone 7 Plus delivered in "Unsane":

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/23/1715 ... claire-foy

Apparently Steven Soderbergh considers the use of an iPhone to be a "game-changer":

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/steven ... 201921769/

It looks like an interesting movie but not sure when I'll see it. I'd be interested in the opinions from the professionals here who do see it. What do they think was gained or (more likely, I guess) lost by using the iPhone 7 Plus, exposure-wise, optically, etc.?

I'm not sure why a BMPCC or BMMCC couldn't have done a much better job and offered more lens choices.

Thoughts?

I think the idea here is the ability to shoot with a device that everyone always has while being able to get great quality out of it. Which is true for the most recent phone's only, which is where I think the amazment comes from.

I am skeptical about quality of anything except Blackmagic, Red and possibly ARRI.

Some days ago I thought about buying some simple 4K camera. (I am not going to recommend anything so no name. I only disclose that it's a small cheap camera with MFT mount.) I tried to DL some test footage, and there was a LOT of test footage on Youtube only. I looked at this footage at my monitor's native resolution of 1920x1080, and it was quite nice, not much worse than from my BMPCC.

Then I looked at it in it's full resolution of 3840x2160 which required a download tool, media player and windowed mode. It appeared to be a total nightmare, with clearly visible compression artifacts and dirty colors. It appeared almost as bad as my other 10-years old camera that is still US$345 on E-Bay used, the only positive side is 30fps progressive instead of 60fps interlaced.

I have no idea what is the source of these artifacts: camera or Youtube.

Moral: Yes, you could shoot with everything including the security camera. But you should know it's limitation and be sure that the resulting quality is OK for _you_.

Not crazy about the quality here.

I think this short film is a better example of what the iPhone (in this case an iPhone X) is capable of in the video department:

Overall, my feeling is that the smartphone is just another tool, one that can be useful in some situations and less useful in others. Making a film entirely on a smartphone, just to show that it can be done convincingly, feels like a gimmick. If the main marketing point for your film is that it was made on a smartphone, that's no testament to your storytelling or directing prowess. How many novelists draw attention to the pen, pencil, typewriter, or word processor they used to create their works?

The main advantage to a smartphone as a stills or video camera is that it's likely to be with you when the magic moment arrives. I think smartphones are fantastic tools for capturing opportunities that would be missed with a more cumbersome camera that you'll leave at home unless you're actively out on a shoot. I bought one myself (a Pixel 2) for exactly this purpose, because I like to travel light and I find that I'm capturing some great images that I would never have obtained with my regular camera, simply because I don't like lugging around my regular camera (which is a small mirrorless camera but still takes up much more room than a phone).

The other argument to be made for smartphone filmmaking is that it brings the possibility of affordable good-quality video closer to many more people; it's democratizing. The phone itself is expensive, but less expensive than a BMPCC plus lenses, cage, monitor, or whatever other paraphernalia you end up buying for it. Smartphone video is sort of where desktop publishing was maybe 20-25 years ago: suddenly tools that were previously only available to professionals became available to everyone, and the result was a ton of very bad design, but then professionals using those same tools raised the standards so people could see what could be done when the tool in their hands was handled by a professional. Smartphone photography and video are like that too, and in that sense it's a good thing that a few professionals are showing everyone else what can be done with it if you take the time to learn (and maybe buy a gimbal, sliders, tripod, external sound recorder etc. etc etc...) .

A colleague of mine, Jeremy Rouse shot this on an iPhone X and I think he did a much better job that the visuals of Unsane.

Clearly you CAN do good work on an iPhone but I’m just not sure what the story telling advantage actually is.

I’m Unsane I was expecting it to be related to social media and stalking but actually it turned out that it seemed to feel like a regular shooting approach but substituting an iPhone for a different camera.

JB

As technologists and "Gear Heads" we get seduced by the beauty of a piece of technological marvel.
No different to falling in love with the sheer beauty of the engineering marvel a BMW motor cycle (if you are that way inclined). We tend to get carried away by the romance we have with our cameras and supporting hardware.

However if what turns you on is telling stories, it then does not really matter what device you use to record the story you have in your imagination so that the rest of the world can see it.

In this case the artist(a director not a DP) chose an iPhone as the brush to paint his picture.
I find this kind of free thinking encouraging.

When you work at the level that this director works at, money is no object. He could have used a camera made of gold. Yet, he choose an iPhone.

This is a creative decision.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

I for one respect the right of a creative spirit to make creative decisions and will go along for the ride.

Long live the Free Thinkers!

On the other hand, maybe Apple is paying him a lot of money to mess with our heads.

Short live the the Capitalists!

What exactly is uniquely "liberating" for Soderbergh about an iphone, when there are any number of other cameras which also fit in one hand, but with far more features, convenience and control?

And then there's the matter of quality.... Like "velvet" on a 40 foot screen, as he claims? It sure doesn't look that way on a 23" screen; youtube usually does manage to suggest the quality of the original.

Has he lost his mind or is it just marketing?

Steven Soderbergh on using an iPhone to shoot Unsane & the Future of Movie Making

There’s a lot to be said about using the ubiquitous phones that are always with you to capture something that is fleeting whether that be a still or video that can be used to add to your pool of footage. Same argument can be made for the drone cameras or a GoPro.

None of the examples in this thread are capturing a fleeting moment. They’re making careful controlled shots that could have used any camera. Many of the shots would have perhaps looked better using a better camera in terms of their dynamic range or grading, but the point is these films are illustrating the use of a phone camera for any number of motives: reducing the cost to a client, to get more attention than they otherwise might merit, and even embracing the limitations of the phone cameras as part of the desired aesthetic of the film.

Overall the videos are compelling and look especially good in the hands of the artists who made them. But I think these professional examples are a far cry from really saving money and putting a great filmmaking tool in the hands of everyone. It wouldn’t surprise me to know all the cameras were rigged and used additional lenses and lighting and external sound and music and post grading and audio sweetening like any other good professional movie not called Blair Witch.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unsane may be low-budget by Hollywood standards, but look at the imdb listing: there were dozens on the crew, and he hired an internationally famous actress, who probably didn't work at SAG scale.

The camera rental (or purchase) would not have been a significant cost on this production. So the question is, what conceivable advantage did an iphone offer over any number of other light-weight portable cameras, when it's image quality is worse? Other than hype, that is?

I have pointed enough cameras at art pieces to know by now that art is what the artist says it is.

You either get it or you don't.

That is the freedom of choice.

Thank goodness we still have that right.

I have pointed enough cameras at art pieces to know by now that art is what the artist says it is.

You either get it or you don't.

That is the freedom of choice.

Thank goodness we still have that right.

Soderbergh isn't making claims about "art". He's arguing that the iphone is wonderfully convenient and has great image quality.

But he hasn't explained why an iphone is more "liberating" than any other (and superior) small camera (while being far more cumbersome to operate), and "quality" may be subjective, but I doubt you'd find many DPs arguing that an iphone satisfies industry standards or looks like "velvet" on a 40 ft screen. In this respect, he would appear unique.

I think Soderbergh is a wonderful and unique filmmaker.

I love that he is ALWAYS inquiring and trying out new ways to tell a story. He is truly one of a kind because he can flip from very successful studio films and then do something truly indie and borderline experimental.

I love that he sometimes works with non professional actors (The Girl Friend Experience, Haywire).

Some of my favourite films are ones he's directed (and shot and cut)

He's also announced previously that he's quitting and retired from directing and yet here he is making films.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/j ... -from-film

I think he's genuinely inquisitive and just like Lars Von Trier and Rolf De Heer they're interested in other story telling modes. Improvised acting or artificial rules (Dogme).

This is more of the same idea.

Also, no one has yet acknowledged that Soderbergh is also his own DP and has shot is own films for many years now.

This is part of his process. Like a handful of directors that also operate and sometimes DP, they have a different way of approaching camera. (Robert Rodriguez, Luc Besson, Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Doug Liman Michael bay !)

I don't think it's for us to judge him for that. But I did see a handful of shots in Unsane that could have ONLY been done with an iphone. But mostly it was shot in a regular style of coverage. I noticed that Soderbergh was often shown operating with a gimbal on the phone too.

Sometimes these artifically created barriers force you to innovate in other ways.

I highly recommend watching the lars von trier documentary film "The five obstructions".

It's one of the best examples of testing your own creative process and was wonderfully illuminating and liberating for me to watch. Watch it and think of it as an investment if you want to be a better filmmaker.

I just don't think in this instance it added to the storytelling.

JB

I think he's genuinely inquisitive and just like Lars Von Trier and Rolf De Heer they're interested in other story telling modes. Improvised acting or artificial rules (Dogme).

This is more of the same idea.

Also, no one has yet acknowledged that Soderbergh is also his own DP and has shot is own films for many years now.

This is part of his process. Like a handful of directors that also operate and sometimes DP, they have a different way of approaching camera. (Robert Rodriguez, Luc Besson, Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Doug Liman Michael bay !)

I don't think it's for us to judge him for that.

I don't think there's any disrespect or slander in saying a filmmaker as successful as Soderbergh isn't a stranger to self-promotion and advertising -- the movies business isn't for the pure of heart. He made a big deal of shooting a Julia Roberts movie on DV, he made another big deal of shooting with the first Red cameras on "Che", then still another big deal of shooting The Girlfriend Experience without lights (but with lights; go figure!) and he's doing it now for the iphone, though others like Sean Baker beat him to it.

Whatever his actual reasons may have been, the public marketing of these methods sounds to my jaded ears like just another way of drumming up interest in the movie, particularly among the actual and would-be filmmakers mostly likely to seek out his stuff -- even if he has to make claims which, on their face, don't seem to make a lot of sense. For how long now have we been hearing about the "democritization" of filmmaking? It's great movie marketing, but not great for movies themselves, or people with no money trying to make them.

But he hasn't explained why an iphone is more "liberating" than any other (and superior) small camera (while being far more cumbersome to operate), and "quality" may be subjective, but I doubt you'd find many DPs arguing that an iphone satisfies industry standards or looks like "velvet" on a 40 ft screen. In this respect, he would appear unique.

Maybe what he finds "liberating" is that he does not have a linear thinking DP telling him what he can and cannot do.

I just don't think in this instance it added to the storytelling.

JB

Strangely enough it has the opposite effect on me. Now that I know that it was shot on an iPhone I will be experiencing the experience with different sensibilities.
With all that is going on at this time with smart phone and body-cam footage exposing the abuse of power, using a smart phone to shoot the movie adds another dimension to our present viewing "pleasure".

What is the sound like in Unsane? I would rather have the best sound crew/editors and an iPhone than an Alexa 65 and amateur sound for a narrative feature. I think it's cool that Soderbergh is pushing the "everyone can make a movie with their phone" but that totally leaves out the sound aspect.
I'm talking about actual theatrical release here, not short films or DIY features for YouTube or Vimeo.

What is the sound like in Unsane? I would rather have the best sound crew/editors and an iPhone than an Alexa 65 and amateur sound for a narrative feature. I think it's cool that Soderbergh is pushing the "everyone can make a movie with their phone" but that totally leaves out the sound aspect.
I'm talking about actual theatrical release here, not short films or DIY features for YouTube or Vimeo.

I think the audio was recorded on an Android device.

...and you can clean your whole bathroom with nothing but a toothbrush and get a lovely result. That doesn't mean you should

...and you can clean your whole bathroom with nothing but a toothbrush and get a lovely result. That doesn't mean you should

The point being that if you choose to, you can.

Who are we to tell others what they must do?

I learnt very early in life from the nuns that I had the freedom to choose.

That is what makes our Western civilization envied by those that do not have that right.

The point being that if you choose to, you can.

Who are we to tell others what they must do?

I learnt very early in life from the nuns that I had the freedom to choose.

That is what makes our Western civilization envied by those that do not have that right.

It's a slow Sunday so we might as well beat this one unconscious. I think everyone loves freedom, but if that bathroom cleaning guy had his PR agent book a publicity tour so he could announce to the world that a toothbrush is a "game-changer" and "liberating", there would be reasonable skepticism among the toilet cleaners of the world.

If the comparison sounds far-fetched, consider that the Sundance Film Festival receives about 4000 American indies a year, most of them shot on cameras which, for our purposes, are no different than iphones -- cheap, lightweight DSLRs, palmcorders. This has been going on for many, many years.


All those filmmakers would likely be surprised to hear that iphones are game-changers in cinema.

I'd say he finds it liberating specifically because he works in a world where you must shoot Arri and even Red is taboo. Big cameras, more crew to take care of them, heavier tripods that he'd most likely need help to move etc. I think the iPhone just let him do more things himself. I'm not sure he'd have had someone focus pulling at all.

I could see how not worrying about having to lug around 80k lenses would be nice. Myself I find the lack of gear limiting but I could see how feeling forced to have gear could also be limiting.

...and you can clean your whole bathroom with nothing but a toothbrush and get a lovely result. That doesn't mean you should

Ha! I love that analogy.
Unsane had a 1.2 million dollar budget. The cost difference between the iPhone and an Alexa isn't more than a rounding error at that level. Soderberg made an unorthodox creative choice, and it was a very smart one considering all the free press coverage that this film has gotten for it. For movies with budget levels in the few millions, a marketing campaign can cost far more than the entire film. A couple years ago the film Tangerine got the same novelty boost of press from the same choice to shoot on iPhone. Soderbergh is just following that example to further his passion for making lower budget films and the freedom it allows him as a creator. And more power to him.

And, I also agree with Stephen and others posting above that the iPhone really is not a "game changer". Cheap consumer cameras have existed since Kodak released super8 in 1965 and the iPhone is just another consumer camera in that tradition. It's the internet and free online distribution that are the radical change, not the iPhone camera.
Computers didn't disrupt publishing because word processors are easier to use for writing than typewriters. It was the internet that blew up previous models of distribution and profit that have made for tough times for traditional print journalism. Newer, cheaper, faster cameras will make our jobs easier and may even facilitate some new creativity, but it's the internet and mobile technology that will upend the film industry, not new cameras.
This article is a good read about where things could be going:
http://endcrawl.com/blog/film-industry-disruption-smiling-curve/

Steven Soderbergh on using an iPhone to shoot Unsane & the Future of Movie Making

At about the 3:00 marker of this link he explains he did have to use a DSLR for extreme closeups. He also used attached lenses on the iPhone. I've got FiLMiC PRO (about $25 bucks if you get their "raw" option) and now that my iPhone has a new battery ( ) might get the Moondog Labs 1.33x anamorphic adapter ($175) that FiLMiC PRO supports. The new DJI Osmo 2 Gimbal is down to $129. So I can definitely see the appeal for someone just getting starting to experiment/use this technology. I don't get it as much if you're a pro.

It's a given, to me at least, that Soderbergh has the creative freedom to make his movie however he wants to. There is still benefit in hearing from others how they would have done it, and their opinions on what he gained, what he lost, etc. without in any way disrespecting him as an artist. The responses here show that respect while at the same time being "critical" in the positive sense of that word. I find this all very helpful.

Whatshisface can get whatever camera he wants. He shot on Red cameras for a long time, but he uses film, too. Where Soderberg is he is going to be thinking of gear that not only expediates the production process and gives his back less strain...BUT, he is mostly going to decide on a camera or lens or film stock based on the aesthetic the tech brings. I betcha shooting on an iphone was as much a dramatic and artistic choice than it was purely budgetary. I preach a lot about cameras as tools which serve the movie, and it’s no better summed up for me than Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later which used mini DV during the grimy, awful parts of the movie, then used lush gorgeous Kodak film for the hopeful parts. Purely a dramatic choice. And audiences felt it. The awful parts looked and felt awful and psycologically that was helped with the standard def mini dv blow up. So I dont know but Soderberg has never seemed like someone afraid to do the digital thing or take risks. Of his movies ive seen ive liked. Hes a good filmmaker. If using an iphone helped tell his story then great. Im sure hes well aware of blackmagic cameras and im sure iphone was an artistic choice.

It should always be an aesthetic choice. Remember "Night Fishing" by Park Chan-wook and Park Chan-kyong, shot on an iPhone 4 ? It won the Golden Bear in Berlin's 2011 short film section…

Searching for Sugar Man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searching_for_Sugar_Man

"Initially using Super 8 film to record stylised shots for the film, director Malik Bendjelloul ran out of money for more film to record the final few shots. After three years of cutting room work the main financial backers of the film threatened to withdraw funding to finish it.[5] He resorted to filming the remaining stylised shots on his smartphone using an iPhone app called 8mm Vintage Camera."

"On 10 February 2013, the film won the BAFTA Award for Best Documentary at the 66th British Academy Film Awards in London, and two weeks later it won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature at the 85th Academy Awards in Hollywood."

Great memory, Leon! The app is still available in the Apple App Store, under $3. Records 4K too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great memory, Leon!

Not so much memory, more about love.

I grew up in South Africa and the musician Rodriguez was very much part of our conscientiousness at the time.
When the documentary came out it brought back the affection I had for his music.

The fact that an iPhone was used to shoot part of the documentary added to the myth.

My apologies to Steve Holmlund for hijacking your post.

I found this video about the making of "Searching for Sugar Man".

From what I've gathered from a number of interviews with cast, crew and director, Soderberg likes the iPhone speed and intimacy most of all. He can burn through setups at an amazing clip, and rewrite his shot list on a whim.

He also never cared for the way actors would subtly shrink back as the massive camera rig approached them for their closeup. The iPhone gives them a more intimate feel. With minimal lighting, turnarounds happen very quickly. He can also go back to the other direction if he thinks about a new shot. Everything just moves faster. It's more freedom for the director.

If you listen to Soderberg in a number of interviews, you find that he says that the iPhone is "good enough." He thinks the image is acceptable for theatrical projection. He's never said that it's a better camera than the Red. Just that it makes a good enough image and gives him a lot of advantages.

My apologies to Steve Holmlund for hijacking your post...

No problem! Let 'er drift!

I am skeptical about quality of anything except Blackmagic, Red and possibly ARRI.

"possibly ARRI"?! I guess the cinema world has made a big mistake.