Travis Hodgkinson wrote:I don't care what a film is shot on, if the story rocks and the imagery is great, I'll buy the popcorn
And that
I think is most people.
But, for the nth time, creating dramatic illusion is all but impossible at the sort of budget which would oblige anyone to use an iphone. Unless you have shooting requirements that *only* an iphone can satisfy, or expect to gain a marketing advantage by using it (Soderbergh?), it makes no sense for dramatic material. Prores won't change that.
High Flying Bird, referenced above, looks exactly how'd you'd expect: a professional production shot on a phone. At the time of his first iphone feature, Soderbergh raved in the promotional interviews about the image quality, how beautiful he found it "velvety", etc. etc. etc. Whether he really believes that, only a mind reader knows. But I think it's fair to say his view is idiosyncratic. Look at the link above: “My attitude has always been, ‘So, you think you can improve on real life? Like, the way things look in the real world, you think you can do better than that?'” said Soderbergh. “I’ve always been amused by people who take that approach.”
Again, does he really believe that? If so, how does he account for cinematography generally, including some of his own past work? You know, what you get with, like, lights and s***? And who knew people go to movies for "real life".... For that matter, what a camera sees and records is not "real life". Which is the reason people use lights to get a "naturalistic" look. Soderbergh knows all this and more, so what is he really thinking? Or is it just copy for the indie tabloids?
But you're absolutely right: for all the movies you're not going to make, the camera doesn't matter in the slightest. Use an iphone! In the real world, however, anyone with the resources to create a persuasive dramatic illusion is going to look for something better -- unless the idea is to create novelty, marketing opportunities, etc.