Blackmagic Forum

AndreeMarkefors wrote:The iPhone, in this case, and BMD cameras in general, can be thought of as 'enablers'. Talent should be easy to recognise.

But even at its most rudimentary, filmmaking is an industrial process. You need something to shoot, for one thing. A script is an enabler. Money is an enabler. Good actors are enablers. People who will stick by you are enablers. Even great locations are enablers. But a camera? A tool, no? Most people who are serious won't choose one poorly suited to the task, like an iphone. I think that's all it amounts to.

Long before the digital revolution, Francis Coppola famously remarked that one day, some fat girl in the sticks would make a masterpiece with her dad's camcorder. Well, we're still waiting. It just doesn't work that way. When it came time to produce his own kids' movies, they were elaborate, well-funded 35mm movies with stars.

AndreeMarkefors wrote:Regarding the power of iPhone filmmaking: my guesstimate is that those who overthink the technical aspects less and get off their butts and shoot more, will be richly rewarded*.

As in: well, not actually rewarded per se, as JB has already established, but might get some approving nods and street cred.

At the end of the day, in this type of filmmaking and in the general audience, no one gives a flying kucf about the shifting tone mapping and such.

The iPhone, in this case, and BMD cameras in general, can be thought of as 'enablers'. Talent should be easy to recognise.

+1

If it’s a convoluted, the sound is bad, it’s a bad story, the editing is bad, there’s bad acting, bad lighting - no camera can fix this.

A great story, shot on a phone with good lighting and editing will better than any bad story shot on a cinema camera.

That’s a longer way of saying cameras are a tool. The new IPhone is a tool. Is it ok to use as main camera? Depends on delivery requirements. Instagram? Yes. Theatre? No. Television? No. Streaming (Netflix, Apple (I’m sure they may WANT to do this) Amazon etc. No

Bcam? Maybe. Crash cam? Sure.

I use my IPhone 11pro for Artemis and Helios plus blocking and tests. It works for that but can you imagine shooting anything longer than 5 minutes on it? Pfffft…. That’s silly!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clever iPhone campaign video with pointers on shooting with a smartphone. (in French).

John Paines wrote:But even at its most rudimentary, filmmaking is...

I don't agree with you. But in the realm of online discussion, that's a non-event.

AndreeMarkefors wrote:Regarding the power of iPhone filmmaking: my guesstimate is that those who overthink the technical aspects less and get off their butts and shoot more, will be richly rewarded*.

As in: well, not actually rewarded per se, as JB has already established, but might get some approving nods and street cred.

At the end of the day, in this type of filmmaking and in the general audience, no one gives a flying kucf about the shifting tone mapping and such.

+1. The general audience does not care how the picture was made… only that it entertained them is how much of it they remember. If we all think of it this way and shoot more and better content, this discussion would have not started and of little value.

I think the audience is smarter than we give them credit for.

They might not know the technicalities of the why and how. But they know what they like.

JB

John Brawley wrote:I think the audience is smarter than we give them credit for.

They might not know the technicalities of the why and how. But they know what they like.

JB

+1. My last contribution to this post.

John Brawley wrote:I think the audience is smarter than we give them credit for.

They might not know the technicalities of the why and how. But they know what they like.

JB

Very true. I completely agree. And, in part the audience knows what feels like a theatrical experience and whether it’s worth seeing a movie in theaters or waiting for it at home based on the advertising and marketing.

As to the box office numbers and distribution of the money made from the theatrical release that has partly changed for cinema owners over the last decade. Disney is particularly hard on what they take of the box office receipts. It’s a number like 90% these days, and the theater is getting less than 10%. Bucks from concessions is now the main source of revenue for theater owners. Disney also forces the theater to give them three weeks on the best screen or not to receive the movie at all for the biggest releases like Star Wars and Marvel.

There’s been many articles written on the subject of breaking down how the analyze box office “profit” and “loss” and Hollywood accounting is notorious for how a movie never makes money so the filmmakers never see a dime of profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we're talking about different things here.

Even with the new iPhone's updates, I don't think anyone expects a small mobile device to phase out professional cameras. Who in the right mind would choose the iPhone as a primary device for any well planned project meant for theatrical release, or even film festivals? Although, in the latter case it's more likely, since the reason you WOULD choose it, is for marketing reasons. Maybe for another generation or two you might get slightly more buzz trying to push the "SENSATION of shooting ONLY with an iPhone".

*gasps*
*you cinematic genius, you!*
*ONLY iPhone?? You must be SUPER GREAT! Surely.*

No, when I say filmmaking I mean mobile filmmaking. The new features will allow filming with an iPhone with the language of cinema, such as shallow DoF. The features don't have to be perfect. Just good enough to make the result more similar to "film" and less "home video".
I think these new tools will make more people want to try it out. Many of whom would not otherwise buy a 'cinema camera'. That is what I meant by enabling.

The new wave of mobile filmmaking that is about to wash over us competes with, and compares to, previous mobile filmmaking. Not anything shot on BMD, ARRI, RED... or the rest.

And these are just my thoughts. Not necessarily an argument against anyone else's beliefs.

AndreeMarkefors wrote:I think we're talking about different things here.

Even with the new iPhone's updates, I don't think anyone expects a small mobile device to phase out professional cameras.

I dunno. The very first post in this thread AND the thread title asks that question. I've seen the same blow ups on Facebook.

Is it driven by a fear of investment in hardware becoming redundant? Gasp.

I think it's this and also a darker fear. One that works around the idea that equipment is exclusionary, that if "everyone" can shoot with a tool that makes great pictures and does things you used to have to hire "professionals" to do, then a lot of people will be out of jobs and the niche they've created and worked into a business will vanish.

Personally I keep trying to remember that the best thing to work on is myself. If I'm a good storyteller If I keep nurturing my own creative insight, if I can know where to be to tell the best story, if I know the best moments to roll and the great way to execute a shot that someone else wants, then all of this only factors as a discussion of mild interest because it's just another paintbrush in the toolbox.

JB

Ye... new most popular content is Love Island
+ Netflix and their series full of pretended 'diversity' even if no way it fits into story.
Sad world.

Ohh..forgotten about product placement. Maybe soon 90% of the content will be just product placements

I watched the videos released promoting the iPhone as a cinema camera. The footage quality looks pretty good and if you don't have a big budget, you could certainly shoot with it and a lot of people would be impressed. But is it as good as a Blackmagic camera all rigged out? Of course not. Is it getting closer? It certainly is getting better.

The big notes I saw after watching the promotional videos:

1. The sets and props were awesome. That always improves your footage and makes it more cinematic looking.
2. They had good looking actors/models. That always helps, too.
3. Everything was lit well.
4. The sound was definitely not recorded with the phone.
5. The shallow depth of field looked OK, but for us pixel peepers, you'll tell right away that it's not as good as a real lens.
6. They used talented directors, camera ops and editors to shoot the footage and put it together -- of course that makes a difference. Good music as well.

If you shot those same scenes with pretty much any Blackmagic camera, it would look better and you would have more room in post to fix things and modify the look.

So am I impressed with the new iPhone's camera? YES
Would I ever chose it over my Blackmagic camera? NO

If it's the only camera I had, would I use it? YES

Will technology keep improving? Of course. It's also a good time to learn filmmaking because it's much easier to get your hands on affordable gear.

Here are some of the videos I watched:

There is only 1 thing here.
Why do they have to so hard tell you that iPhone is a PRO tool.
It's all one big crap. Just leave it and let it live its own life. Market, people, etc will decide how good it's.
Apple already massively FAILED once with XDR display (not so long) and if they keep pushing again they will do more bad than good.

With the whole setup and people which Apple used to shot it, recording device was about irrelevant

I think it's because they know how powerful the dream of wanting to be a filmmaker is. Some of us make a living in the business, even if it's not making big Hollywood movies. We buy gear, but at least we profit off of it. I'm sure there's a bigger market of people that just like the idea that if they own the phone, they can make their dream happen. Some of them may even be able to pull it off. Most probably won't, but the possibility brings in big bucks for companies like apple. Just my guess. That need to want the best keeps the money coming in.

But I wonder if the people in those promos really believe that it's "PRO". They certainly say it, but do they really believe it? It makes you wonder if there's an apple rep off screen saying: Can we try that one more time and this time, can you use the word "PRO"?

LOL

Does a fake dentists in commercial believes what the says ?
At least those directors were not 'fake'.

Lets ask Apple to reveal how much has their short movie cost ?
Maybe it would be enough to shot a 'proper' movie with real cameras
And then people will be saying:

"Crap I need to spent that much to be able to shoot anything decent on iPhone 13?
I better use proper camera!"

So true!

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:ets ask Apple to reveal how much has their short movie cost ?

My thought watching the keynote was that the camera may not be expensive, but everything else sure is.

Based on that piece, Katheryn Bigelow might as well be a fake dentist. Every claim she makes for the iphone is either ridiculous or unsupportable.

Give her an iphone, no crew and $1.79, and see what kind of movie she makes with it.

John I’m sure she’d make an interesting film with those parameters because she’s a talented filmmaker.

It would just be a “different” film to a marketing film for Apple.

JB

Jack Fairley wrote:

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:ets ask Apple to reveal how much has their short movie cost ?

My thought watching the keynote was that the camera may not be expensive, but everything else sure is.

So you agree it’s not about the camera but the story?

I see it like this after DSLR, BMD kinda pushed its way in, maybe mobile phone will be the DSLR of Tomorrow?

lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They basically already are.
How many people take still camera when going on holidays these days (specially those with good phones)?
It will be going only further.
Samsung announced 576MP sensor for 2025 (they want to match human eye):

John Paines wrote:Based on that piece, Katheryn Bigelow might as well be a fake dentist. Every claim she makes for the iphone is either ridiculous or unsupportable.

Give her an iphone, no crew and $1.79, and see what kind of movie she makes with it.

Seriously?

Kathryn Ann Bigelow: “The iPhone doesn’t require any ancillary pieces of equipment …with so much accessibility, I think all pretension tends to disappear. And so it makes the set and the filming process much less apprehensive…It’s a completely integrated process now”.

Those don't seem to be outrageous claims in the least. In practically every interview of those involved in the making of films shot with iPhones, they say pretty much the identical thing - actors feeling more at ease, being more nimble, the process being liberating, etc.

Compare Joshua Leonard, actor on Unsane:

“I’ve never moved as fast on a production as we did on Unsane,” Leonard says, adding, “I think part of that was due to technology and the lack of lighting. We only had a single LED panel that we used for the entire shoot, and even that panel only got broken out one of every four, five scenes or so. … [Soderbergh] goes into the day knowing exactly the shots that he wants, and then I think the technology, both the speed of the iPhone and its ability to move around the room and get in inaccessible spaces, allows for a profound conflation between impulse and executions for him, so for us actors there’s never any waiting around.”

Or how about Radium Cheung (Billions, The Blacklist), cinematographer on Sean Baker's Tangerine:

One of the great advantages of a minimal camera and lighting package was that passers-by barely gave them a glance. “Nobody realized we were filming or took it seriously,” says Cheung. “After the first two days, we realized this approach really had a benefit!” Although the production obtained permits for all locations, they didn’t have anyone to lock down streets, so life on Santa Monica and Highland cruised through the shots. In this sense, the mobile phones added considerably to the filmmakers' goal of realism. “Trying to make it an entertaining film and a social-realist film was a balancing act that went all the way through production and post,” says Baker. “We found the style slowly.” - asc mag,

Or cinematographer Maxime Héraud, who's worked on several pictures with Claude Lelouch:

“…it’s [the iPhone] really, really good. It can deliver a picture that can transmit an emotion. Really. What is nice is the weight. Because it’s so small and light you can put the camera everywhere, it can move fast, which is really great".

So no, not every claim that Kathryn Bigelow makes is unsupportable or ridiculous.

Kathryn Bigelow was paid to do an Apple commercial, and probably wouldn't want to offend that company, as a major source of film funding today. And Joshua Leonard was promoting his own movie, as well as his career and future with Steven Soderbergh.

Are these objective and believable sources of information? Did you believe Soderbergh when he insisted that the iphone 7+ look like "velvet" on a 40 foot tall screen? Or Ms. Bigelow when she says the iphone 11 doesn't need any "ancilliary equipment"? Did it look like that production lacked "ancilliary equipment"?

Meanwhile, as the rich and famous promote their products, this thread runs in a circle. We're told on the one hand that the iphone11 is a great cinema camera, and no worries because general audiences aren't discriminating enough to assess its shortcomings. Or it's great cinema camera because whoever buys it won't actually try to make cinema. And on and on.... It's another phone that records video, not the Second Coming.

[EDIT: you added examples after my post, all promoting their own movies. This is not worth addressing. You either want to shoot with a phone or you don't.]

John Paines wrote:Kathryn Bigelow was paid to do an Apple commercial, and probably wouldn't want to offend that company, as a major source of film funding today. And Joshua Leonard was promoting his own movie, as well as his career and future with Steven Soderbergh.

Are these objective and believable sources of information? Did you believe Soderbergh when he insisted that the iphone 7+ look like "velvet" on a 40 foot tall screen? Or Ms. Bigelow when she says the iphone 11 doesn't need any "ancilliary equipment"? Did it look like that production lacked "ancilliary equipment"?

Meanwhile, as the rich and famous promote their products, this thread runs in a circle. We're told on the one hand that the iphone11 is a great cinema camera, and no worries because general audiences aren't discriminating enough to assess its shortcomings. Or it's great cinema camera because whoever buys it won't actually try to make cinema. And on and on.... It's another phone that records video, not the Second Coming.

You have not proved that Kathryn Bigelow's perfectly sound and reasonable statements, echoed by nearly every filmmaker who's ever shot with an iPhone, are ridiculous or unsupportable. You don't have to accept bribes to realize that shooting with an iPhone is less cumbersome, puts the crew at ease, and allows you to work quickly and unobtrusively. In all the interviews I've seen, they talk about working with a minimum of gear. No one ever claimed that the iPhone was the Second Coming, that really came out of left field!

And how many of the endorsees are making movies with iphones today?

John Paines wrote:And how many of the endorsees are making movies with iphones today?

Attacking an argument by calling into question the source is a common type of logical fallacy. In other words, insisting that an argument's validity depends entirely upon the source, when in reality, the validity of an argument depends not on who is making the argument, but solely on its merits.

"Kathryn Bigelow was paid to do an Apple commercial, and probably wouldn't want to offend that company, as a major source of film funding today. And Joshua Leonard was promoting his own movie, as well as his career and future with Steven Soderbergh".

Another ploy is to attack a person's credibility by insisting that they have ulterior motives, such as fame, wealth, etc. Because it is impossible to know precisely what anyone is thinking, this is a convenient subterfuge when one runs out of genuine arguments.

A filmmaker can absolutely be a spokesperson for a brand and still be honest about their products. Even if Apple paid Kathryn Bigelow to create five genres with the iPhone, that does not in and of itself make her observations any less factual.

"Let's see what she can do with $1.79". Yet another common fallacy, that of turning a reasonable argument into an absurd one, by taking the argument to ridiculous extremes.

And lastly, a spokesperson not using a product their entire lifetime in no way invalidates their impressions at the time they were made. I can praise Bright Tangerine's Titan Arm to the skies, but it can remain in my closet for a year without in any way nullifying my opinion.

Titan arms weren’t successful. Bright Tangerine just stopped making them.

John’s question is absolutely relevant.

JB

John Brawley wrote:Titan arms weren’t successful. Bright Tangerine stopped making them.

John’s question is absolutely relevant.

JB

All logical fallacies. The Digital Bolex might have been a financial failure, but it was beloved of filmmakers. If Blackmagic loses money on one of their products, that in no way nullifies customers' impressions of it. The Titan Arm has next to nothing to do with what I've written, but good way to try to derail the conversation, though.

Everyone on this thread understands the argument. Whining about not being a good argument ? Cmon.

Who is making iPhone shot narrative content? Is that going to change with this phone?

Some have done it, I’d argue more as a proof of concept. Just like your HDR utopian dreams.

Has it stuck ? Nope.

JB

(Dude you brought up Bright tangerine titans. I thought it was funny you chose a failed product as an example)

John Brawley wrote:(Dude you brought up Bright tangerine titans. I thought it was funny you chose a failed product as an example)

You genuinely fail to understand the notion that someone can enjoy a movie that didn't do well at the box office or a product that has been discontinued? And a hypothetical statement at that... just like, wow.

JonPais wrote:You genuinely fail to understand the notion that someone can enjoy a movie that didn't do well at the box office or a product that has been discontinued? wow

Most of the movies I enjoy aren't financially successful.

You fail to see the irony of using an example of your own tacit endorsement of a product that has actually failed, which you presumably weren't aware of.

JB

John Brawley wrote:

JonPais wrote:You genuinely fail to understand the notion that someone can enjoy a movie that didn't do well at the box office or a product that has been discontinued? wow

Most of the movies I enjoy aren't financially successful.

You fail to see the irony of using an example of own tacit endorsement of a product that has actually failed, which you presumably weren't aware of.

JB

You're just trolling now. I'm out of here.

JonPais wrote:You're just trolling now. I'm out of here.

GREAT!

JB

JonPais wrote:

John Paines wrote:Based on that piece, Katheryn Bigelow might as well be a fake dentist. Every claim she makes for the iphone is either ridiculous or unsupportable.

Give her an iphone, no crew and $1.79, and see what kind of movie she makes with it.

Seriously?

So no, not every claim that Kathryn Bigelow makes is unsupportable or ridiculous.

How many A/B class movies were shot on iPhone? 5, 50, 100- any stats for it?
I assume all were more like experiments and sort of special projects alike treated?
Of course some of those statements are true: small, you can move fast, go everywhere, etc.
How many scenes in typical movie do require those features? How often holding iPhone while shooting is actually a pain because it’s so small and so easy to ‘move’?

If Apple made a movie where eg. 50% scenes which needed such a small camera were shot on iPhone and rest on Alexa, BM etc and shown that whole thing looks seamlessly then I would be more impressed.
In the same time you should be able to find few other devices with about same features which offer even better quality, yet no one is shooting full movies with them ( only scenes which do need it).
It all feels just ‘to much/to fake’. As I said- if iPhone proves by itself that it’s a useful tool on sets then people will use it. There is really no such a big need for these shows which try to prove fraction of the truths.

Am I getting an iPhone 13 Pro? Yes. Am I using it for "Cinematic Video?" No.

I did the base 128 GB model since I don't need more than that. I have had 64 GB for years and been fine. In fact I'm looking forward to having more music on my iPhone than doing more video. Maybe some more Photos storage space as well.

Again, I think this phone could be a great scouting and planning tool. It could be great to help you realize what the vision might be with a given focal range. But then you have true cinema lenses on a real cinema camera to actually shoot the thing.

Amazing because the poster here was busy posting about how much product placement there was in Apple TV shows with the inference being that the Apple overlords are forcing Apple TV shows to have apple product in every shot and yet they aren’t forcing anyone to shoot content using iPhone, surely a more likely scenario.

Yes I’ve done Sony shows and YES they want you to shoot Venice if possible or have a good reason why you shouldn’t. I’ve done Apple shows and they are threes stages removed from the creative on-set process and have never dictated what I shoot.

JB

John Brawley wrote:I’ve done Apple shows and they are threes stages removed from the creative on-set process and have never dictated what I shoot.

Well, Siri dictates me all day along what she thinks I said or wanted to type...

Robert Niessner wrote:

John Brawley wrote:I’ve done Apple shows and they are threes stages removed from the creative on-set process and have never dictated what I shoot.

Well, Siri dictates me all day along what she thinks I said or wanted to type...

Siri Joke: “A Roman walks into a cafe, holds up two fingers, and gets five coffees.”

Thanks! Now I’m making that into a Sketch shot on the iPhone 13 Pro.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Robert Niessner wrote:Well, Siri dictates me all day along what she thinks I said or wanted to type...

Ain't that the truth. I asked Siri this morning what cinema camera I should get for my upcoming project and she replied "There's the new IPhone 13 Pro with cinematic mode and features."

As a small-time video creator with a Pocket 4k budget, I don't think the latest iPhone will replace cinema cameras for what most people would consider movie theatre-worthy productions (yet). That being said, the latest upgrades are another step that will help low-end productions easily get their story out quickly with a bit more quality.

From personal experience, I could see iPhones replacing the mirrorless camera for event coverage (like mirrorless cameras replaced DSLRs and DSLRs replaced shoulder carried video cameras). That's probably the next area where the gear costs and ease of use will get low enough to allow the new guys to bring down the revenue for the older guys. I do remember one wedding film company that created great videos that decided to shoot a wedding on their iPhones. It ended up looking like their previous work, but shot on an iPhone. They've not tried that again, but we will see if the iPhone wedding makes a comeback.

Many of the YouTube/TicToc millionaires that make quick turn around and (subjectively) dumb content for people who love that content are already making a living with their phones. The millions of broke YouTubers will continue to be broke, but at least they will have a new iPhone.

Ellory Yu wrote:

Robert Niessner wrote:Well, Siri dictates me all day along what she thinks I said or wanted to type...

Ain't that the truth. I asked Siri this morning what cinema camera I should get for my upcoming project and she replied "There's the new IPhone 13 Pro with cinematic mode and features."

Like it

Ask it what is the best video camera?

I'll tell you: Tracfone! Their locked LG and Motorola smartphones go for $49.99 and up, plus a year's service. The image is crap, but so what? The real enemy of low and no-budget filmmaking isn't lack of detail, it's too much of it.

The canniest aesthetic choice and marketing move ever in the American indie film world was a guy who made a first feature on pixelvision, years after that child's toy was discontinued -- this is B&W, maybe 100 lines, which (everyone should know) is perfectly capable of carrying a mature adult drama. And that low-res imagery was evocatively suited to the mystery of the dreamy vampire movie it depicted.

So buy the Tracfone, hire some help with the money you saved, then reduce the detail in post. If you have feature film pretensions and no money, you'll be at least as well off as you would with an iphone13.

John Brawley wrote:Amazing because the poster here was busy posting about how much product placement there was in Apple TV shows with the inference being that the Apple overlords are forcing Apple TV shows to have apple product in every shot and yet they aren’t forcing anyone to shoot content using iPhone, surely a more likely scenario.

Yes I’ve done Sony shows and YES they want you to shoot Venice if possible or have a good reason why you shouldn’t.
No one needs to tell you that shooting a Sony show with a Sony camera is not product placement.
I’ve done Apple shows and they are threes stages removed from the creative on-set process and have never dictated what I shoot.

JB

First of all, nobody said anything about Apple demanding shows feature an Apple device in each and every shot. Those are your words, Mr Brawley, not mine. Apple has already revealed in federal court that they rely heavily on free product placement in television shows and movies. And there's no disputing the massive amount of product placements in Apple TV+ shows. It's been well documented, not only in court records, but also by industry reports, leading business magazines and papers and even blogs dedicated to Apple product placement, one of which is 80 pages long - which is remarkable, since Apple doesn’t pay for product placements in television.

Secondly, I'm sure you'd agree that it would be imbecilic to expect Apple to dictate that their shows be shot on iPhones. So I'm afraid that is not a more likely scenario.

Apple TV+ is having a tough time attracting viewers, with a market share of just 3% in the US, placing it in seventh place on the list of the most popular streaming services. The overwhelming majority of Apple TV Plus subscribers — a whopping 62% — are on free promotional offers, 29% of whom have no intention of resubscribing once the promo period expires; and only 30% said they plan to renew at the regular $4.99/month price (and the rest were unsure). Forbes, one of the top five financial sites by traffic, has called Apple TV+ DOA.

Disney and WarnerMedia have been strengthening their original content offerings, Apple, not so much. Apple's strategy? to drive hardware sales, incentivizing consumers to purchase its smartphones, tablets, computers or Apple TV set-tops.

CNET writes: “Apple is taking aim at original video because it could be a crucial enticement for people to buy more iPhones and other gadgets. You can’t overstate the importance of the iPhone to Apple. The phone, one of the most popular in the world, still accounts for more than half its sales and was critical to Apple’s march to become the first US company worth $1 trillion."

Former Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller, testifying in federal court, said Apple didn't even need to do any advertising when releasing a new product, relying instead on two strategies: (1) relying on media buzz and (2) product placement.

Schiller added that Apple employees work closely with Hollywood on product placement so its products are used in movies and television shows.

Only by using their streaming service as a golden platform for peddling their merchandise can Apple hope to justify continuing as they've been doing with Apple TV+ (i.e. small subscription base, little new original content, subscribers not renewing and even cancelling).

At the rate of 1.24 product placements each minute of Ted Lasso!

250 product placements across ten episodes of The Morning Show.

704 product shots across 74 episodes of various shows.

Just FYI Apple iMovie and Clips have been updated with support for ProRes videos, ProRAW images.
Maybe we will see more “Pro” Apps for the iPad?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tim Franks wrote:Just FYI Apple iMovie and Clips have been updated with support for ProRes videos, ProRAW images.
Maybe we will see more “Pro” Apps for the iPad?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the update. Apparently, iMovie now supports Cinematic Mode and can be used to add, adjust, and delete focus points and modify the depth of field effect in Cinematic Mode video.

Connect by cable and use iTunes or one of the many third-party tools.

I'm regularly using a charger platform by SanDisk called iXpand Base (sic, iStuff again), which makes a backup to an SD card automatically. The problem is not having tools, but the connection being slow.

Kim Janson wrote:How do you get the movies or photos out of the iPhone without any iStuff or sending them few at the time over airdrop?

I have used iPhone since iPhone 4 and have not figured this out, most annoying I can not access/copy them as files from computer.

Also doesn’t it work directly over the Finder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk