Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Soderbergh's Thriller Shot on iPhone Premieres in Berlin (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Director Steven Soderbergh said this week he so enjoyed making his psychological thriller "Unsane" on an iPhone, he would find it hard to go back to conventional filmmaking. From a report: "Unsane", which premieres at the Berlin film festival, was shot over just two weeks - way shorter than the months a movie usually takes. It tells the story of Sawyer Valentini, who moves to a new city to escape her stalker David but finds herself admitted to a mental health institution where he works.

43 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. What makes the iPhone Superior to... by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    a GoPro or small video camera?

    I can see the advantages of a small camera, but I don't see the advantages of an iPhone over other platforms, especially since it has a very small aperture and limited exposure control options (especially compared to a small video camera) which means that the lighting must be more difficult - and would probably require lights to be placed in holes and rigs that Mr. Soderbergh describe as not being necessary for the camera.

    In an ironic twist, the ad that shows up on the page as I write this for "Panasonic. The Video Camera for Professionals. Film making. Evolved".

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The main advantage isn't the Camera, but the fact that you have a device that you use for a bunch of other stuff with a Camera good enough for quality video work if needed.

      Often with technology the generic consumer device gets to a point where getting a specialized device just isn't worth it, because the difference is much more minute. While the convenience of a general purpose is quite handy.

      I am sure this could had been done nearly as well with some sort of Android phone too. There is no Magic Apple feature, but it may be the fact it was the phone he had.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      What makes the iPhone Superior to... a GoPro or small video camera?

      Snapchat filters. During the really intense scenes, the psycho-stalker has a puppy nose and floppy ears to cut the tension.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by chispito · · Score: 1

      The main advantage isn't the Camera, but the fact that you have a device that you use for a bunch of other stuff with a Camera good enough for quality video work if needed.

      Often with technology the generic consumer device gets to a point where getting a specialized device just isn't worth it, because the difference is much more minute. While the convenience of a general purpose is quite handy.

      I am sure this could had been done nearly as well with some sort of Android phone too. There is no Magic Apple feature, but it may be the fact it was the phone he had.

      I can't think of any advantages other than the nice built-in monitor or perhaps the different mood it creates on set. I suspect it's an artistic statement, or even a gesture to encourage budding filmmakers to get shooting with what they have. You could very easily produce a better looking film with the same time and money constraints using cheap still cameras instead. An iPhone has a phenomenal camera for the size, but nothing beats a bigger sensor and bigger sensors aren't expensive.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    4. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      a Camera good enough for quality video work if needed

      Ah, bullshit. I'll bet he had several kilos of other tech with him to go with the iPhone.

      By the time you're carrying all that crap the choice of sensor is fairly interchangeable. Adding a gopro or a different mobile phone is fuck all difference.

    5. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by chispito · · Score: 1

      > I am sure this could had been done nearly as well with some sort of Android phone too.

      LOL, no. Android has basically zero credibility here. Shitty phones, shitty cameras that take even shittier videos, and absolutely NO software that could even come close to what has been available for years on iPhone.

      There's nothing that suggests he did any processing or editing on the phone. For the matter, what you really want is a raw or nearly raw format. No added contrast, sharpness, color correction, or digital stabilization (well, maybe moderate color correction if the output isn't raw). All that can be done much better and more easily in post.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    6. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by dprimary · · Score: 1

      Workflow, timecode, latency

    7. Re:What makes the iPhone Superior to... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "a GoPro or small video camera?"

      You can't get Trump tweets on a GoPro.

  2. Shot on iPhone by Greger47 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What?!

    Entierly shot on an iPhone and there is no VV syndrome? I don't believe it!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    - greger

    1. Re:Shot on iPhone by Greger47 · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll just have to wait for the YouTube Director's Cut.

      - greger

  3. Extra support? by Headw1nd · · Score: 2

    i wonder if Apple is offering some special technical support to get people to do these kinds of things. If they're not, they really should.

    1. Re:Extra support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, they do lots of stuff for filmmakers. They do courses at Apple stores and have a big online creative section and showcase.

  4. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    He used some French software to tidy up the framerate too.

  5. "Shot on an iPhone" by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The phrase, "shot on an iPhone" is enough to keep me away from it on the big screen. If hand-held filming styles, e.g. "found footage" movies, make you feel a little queezy after a while, just imagine what watching 90 - 180 minutes of hand-held iPhone footage feels like.

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:"Shot on an iPhone" by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is nothing preventing them from mounting the iphone on a tripod or a gyro-stabilized drone.

    2. Re:"Shot on an iPhone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hear you dude, but at least watch the trailer before you judge.

    3. Re:"Shot on an iPhone" by djbckr · · Score: 1

      It was shot conventionally using rigs for stabilization. If there is "found-footage" in it, it doesn't appear in the trailer.

    4. Re:"Shot on an iPhone" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I watched it. It looks shit. It looks like he's deliberately gone for a first-year film student vibe. Some really lazy shot choices in there, and technically it looks horrible. No depth of field and the shutter speed and frame rate look off.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:"Shot on an iPhone" by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      So really you can shoot a film on any camera or smartphone under the same conditions, i.e. rigs, stabilisers, etc. ($30,000+), and a professional crew to operate it all. So it's possible to swap out the iPhone and put in an LG, Samsung, or a Red 8K video camera ($80,000+). And what did they do for the sound recording? In many ways, sound is more critical to getting the story across than the video image. I wonder if they used the iPhone's built in mic?

      For the average person who'd like to make home movies, though, this isn't representative of the typical results that can be expected if you buy an iPhone. An entry-level DSLR on a tripod with a shoe-mounted stereo shotgun mic will get better results for around the same price and will be easier to get higher quality results from. The only advantage that filming with a smartphone has is that you've always got it available for those unexpected moments (but not rigs, stabilisers, crew, etc.).

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    6. Re:"Shot on an iPhone" by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      My iPhone 6 has optical image stabilisation and it makes a huge difference compared with footage I made using my earlier devices (cameras or phones). I'm sure the later phones are even better but my footage looks very smooth and stable and nothing like your typical found footage stuff. Where I would worry more is in how the phone handles lighting conditions.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
  6. Re:Amazing by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Because nobody would give a shit if it was done on an LG or Samsung phone, and you would not be able to get hipsters in to the theater using that as the hook.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  7. Re:I don't see a way by carlhaagen · · Score: 1

    Why not? I don't understand why you assume that smartphone filming absolutely must be the painful epileptic portrait-oriented garbage every moron with a phone shits out on instagram and youtube. It's entirely possible to mount a phone on a gimbal or dolly to get even steadier and smoother movement/capture.

  8. Re:I don't see a way by Cederic · · Score: 2

    Well, they can mount the phone on gimbals and use other stabilising devices.

    They can post-process to standardise colour tones.

    They can add after market lenses to provide telephoto or other perspectives.

    They have the advantage of having an accomplished film director involved.

    So I don't know if it's any good, but I'm willing to believe it's better than your average Youtube upload.

  9. I hope ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Soderbergh remembers to hold his iPhone horizontally. And the actor all hold their guns vertically.

    This will go a long way to not making this move look like shit.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. How is the movie by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    All of the posts on here are about the technical aspects of shooting with a phone. (Mount it like you would a normal camera and other than lower resolution it should work about the same). But a good movie doesn't need great camera effects (just enough to not make you feel nauseous from the shaking). If the movie is truly good, you don't even need the dialog. Less focus on "production" values and more on storytelling seems refreshing.

    1. Re:How is the movie by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      (Mount it like you would a normal camera and other than lower resolution it should work about the same)

      Sure, it'll work about the same. As long as you want it to look like it was shot on a phone.

      There's a certain language of cinematography we've come to understand from the cinema-going experience. Shutter speeds, frame rates, depth of field, colouring, the shapes of lenses, all of those things contribute to it.

      From the trailer it actually looks like he's tried to make it look like a film-student level production. Maybe that's what he wanted, and maybe it is a good film, but I think it would distract me.

      If the movie is truly good, you don't even need the dialog.

      That depends entirely on what the aim of the movie is. What do you need? The movie is everything together. The Artist was great, without spoken dialogue, because that's what it was made to me. Many truly great movies wouldn't work without dialogue.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:How is the movie by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I want the move to tell me a fascinating story that would be hard to convey as pure text. But I concede that others may want something different from the experience.

  11. Re:I don't see a way by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

    at that point though, other than the gimmick factor, why bother using an iPhone?

  12. It looks shit, unsurprisingly by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    If he's trying to make it look like a no-budget amateur movie, he's succeeded. Not only is the actual technical quality cheap and nasty (depth of field, lens distortion, shutter speed), it's also been coloured in an ugly way and he's chosen what seem to be stereotypically amateur angles and shots.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:It looks shit, unsurprisingly by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No no no no. You don't understand. Having every scene shot in the same form factor with the same focal length with the same off exposure is not "amateur" it's "artistic".

      He says he can't go back to traditional movie making. Well after trying to create tension on a single focal length it makes me wonder if he was ever able to.

  13. Shoot me now. by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

    ... was shot over just two weeks - way shorter than the months a movie usually takes.

    The shooting ratio with film is typically 6:1, with video it's 20:1. YMMV.
    This isn't because they spend less time doing a scene, it's because they keep the camera's rolling even during the stuff they "know" they're going to cut out later.
    I.e. they shoot more video because video is cheaper.

    There's setup (getting everyone in the right place, facing the right way, with the right props and the right lighting), retakes, and alternates (when you shoot video multiple ways because you don't know which one you like yet.)
    Those things make a bigger difference to the length of production than the kind of camera used.
    And all of it pales in comparison to things like "writing a good script", and "selecting and permitting the locations".

    Much Ado About Nothing (the 2012 film) was shot in about the same amount of time - because it was a single location, and the actors didn't need to rehearse much, not because they used digital cameras.

  14. Re:I don't see a way by larryjoe · · Score: 1

    Well, they can mount the phone on gimbals and use other stabilising devices.

    True, but then the setup is no longer as portable or cheap, which negates the advantage of using a phone camera. Unless the whole point is simply to use the phone for publicity and marketing.

  15. Re:Amazing by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I wasn't dissing Apple. Being that the phone is considered good enough for a production movie, is actually rather amazing. They were good 6 years ago, but good for TV, not for the movies.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  16. Re:Amazing by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

    There's a French goatse??

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

    Do they use an Iphone also?

    --
    The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
  17. Same nonsense as with "Eyes Wide Shut" by ffkom · · Score: 1

    "New technolgy" becomes broadly available ("Videotape" in the case of "Eyes Wide Shut", smartphone with so-so camera in the case of "Unsane"), and somebody feels compelled to make an artsy movie with it - that looks like shit.

    Boooooring!

  18. Re:Amazing by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "This kind of thing is only really possible on an iPhone."

    You find shooting 'Unsane' on an iPhone is amazing?

    It's Insane!

  19. Shot on an iPhone and that shows... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Wide angle all along, washed ambient colors, the trailer shows that images are not as pleasing as with a bigger camera.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  20. "Only two weeks", but why? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    "shot over just two weeks - way shorter than the months a movie usually takes" ... why shooting on an iPhone would reduce dramatically the time it takes to release a movie? Most pro video cameras are digital anyway. Doesn't really make sense.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:"Only two weeks", but why? by garote · · Score: 1

      From the look of the footage, Soderbergh has also ditched the expensive and cumbersome lighting kit for almost every scene. That also in turn cuts way down on the need for studio space. You can even run-and-gun your outdoor scenes without shutting everything down beforehand.

      Also it helps that Soderbergh is a VERY experienced director and has probably broken out the entire movie into complete storyboards so he can farm most of the shooting out to assistants and they can go all at once, and he knows how to work with actors to get a properly threated performance even if they're shooting 8 different scenes from all over the movie back-to-back because they all take place in the same location, and he can quickly judge whether he's got what he wants so they don't need reshoots.

      Just guessing here.

  21. I know, right? by garote · · Score: 1

    Personally, I find all those films before the 60's to be completely unwatchable crap. What moron thought it would be possible to tell a good story, or create tension, without COLOR?

    Cheap and nasty.

    1. Re:I know, right? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      We associate black-and-white with "old." We don't associate it with "cheap and amateurish," which is what this looks like.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:I know, right? by garote · · Score: 1

      I know; for one thing there isn't a single CGI effect visible. Talk about cheap. Michael Bay, now there's a guy who makes expensive, quality films.

      I mean, clearly this is just a stunt. It doesn't, for example, folow cinéma vérité custom by presenting the imagery as though it was shot by, or of, an ordinary person using their ordinary equipment. Which is totally unlike, say, Stephen Spielberg filming Schindler's List in "old" black and white specifically to invoke a documentary feel, except adding splashes of color for symbolic purposes, and subsequently winning an academy award for best director for his "cheap and nasty" decision...

      I mean, what the fuck do actual lauded directors know about film? Us basement trolls have all the goods, and it's our techno aesthetic that makes or breaks any movie...

    3. Re:I know, right? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      filming Schindler's List in "old" black and white specifically to invoke a documentary feel, except adding splashes of color for symbolic purposes, and subsequently winning an academy award for best director for his "cheap and nasty" decision...

      Make up your mind. Is black-and-white "old" or is it "cheap and nasty"?

      You're completely missing the point.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.