iPhone * Dehancer

[SRV1981]

Why are all enthusiast/hobbyists not just using iPhones?

 

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Why are all enthusiast/hobbyists not just using iPhones?

 

 

Lots of them are, but as you brought it up, here are my impressions on the above:

• It's still far too sharp to be convincing - I noticed this in the first few seconds of the video - TBH my first impression was "is this the before or after footage?"..  of course, once you see the before footage then it's obvious, but it didn't immediately look like film either
• The motion is still choppy with very short shutter speeds - this would require an VND which isn't so easy to attach to your phone

I think that people have some sort of hangup about resolution these days and as such don't blur things enough.  For example, here are three closeups from the above video.

The original footage from the iPhone:

Their processed version:

A couple of examples from Catch Me If You Can, which was their reference film:

As you can see, their processed version is far better, but they didn't go far enough.

I've developed my own power grade to "de-awesome" the footage from my iPhone 12 Mini and detailed that process here, but here's a few example frames:

I'm not trying to emulate film, I'm just trying to make it match my GX85.  Here are a couple of GX85 shots SOOC/ungraded for comparison:

I haven't got the footage handy for the above shots, but here are a few before/afters on the iPhone from my latest project from South Korea.

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

iPhone SOOC:

iPhone Graded:

I'm happy with the results - they're somewhere in between the native iPhone look (which I've named "MAXIMUM AWESOME BRO BANGER FOR THE 'GRAM") and a vintage cinema look.  My goal was to make the camera neutral and disappear so that you don't think about it - neither great nor terrible.

Going back to Dehancer / Filmbox / Filmconvert / etc..  these are great plugins actually and I would recommend them to people if they want the look.  I didn't go with them because I wanted to build the skills myself, so essentially I'm doing it the hard way lol.

The only thing I'd really recommend is for people to actually look at real film in detail, rather than just playing with the knobs until it looks kind of what they think that film might have looked like the last time they looked which wasn't recently...  I keep banging on about it because it's obvious people have forgotten what it really looks like, or never knew in the first place.

And while they're actually looking at real examples of film, they should look at real examples of digital from Hollywood too - even those are far less sharp than people think.  The "cinematic" videos on YT are all so much sharper than anything being screened in cinemas that it's practically a joke, except the YT people aren't in on it.

[SRV1981]

Appreciate the response and agree! Well said!  
 

it’s amazing what people are able to get on an iPhone and since most of what’s being played back is ok YT and not large screens, it made me think - why spend thousands on equipment when you can get 90% of that look on a phone?  
 

Someone on this forum years ago made the argument that this would happen with phones catching up to dslrs and now mirrorless. 
 

I think we’re at the precipice of that where sensor size isn’t as important as processor except for light (iso/lowlight). 
 

Maybe by iPhone 16-18 many cameras will be I delete and sales tank?  Why doesn’t apple get into the camera business? 
 

I was looking at Ricoh/x100v for travel as a nifty photo setup but wondering if the iPhone 14 pro and dehancer etc can replace them since you can get 48mp. 

[deezid]

The answer is motioncam.

[Emanuel]

@kye Great addition! : ) Now try to find the same elsewhere! Priceless community we have here. @Andrew Reidthis place of yours should have its recognition as of public interest body.

EAG :- )

[kye]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Appreciate the response and agree! Well said!  

it’s amazing what people are able to get on an iPhone and since most of what’s being played back is ok YT and not large screens, it made me think - why spend thousands on equipment when you can get 90% of that look on a phone?  

Someone on this forum years ago made the argument that this would happen with phones catching up to dslrs and now mirrorless. 

I think we’re at the precipice of that where sensor size isn’t as important as processor except for light (iso/lowlight). 

Maybe by iPhone 16-18 many cameras will be I delete and sales tank?  Why doesn’t apple get into the camera business? 

I was looking at Ricoh/x100v for travel as a nifty photo setup but wondering if the iPhone 14 pro and dehancer etc can replace them since you can get 48mp. 

I was quite excited when Apple introduced prores support, thinking that it would mean that images would be more organic and less digital-looking, but wow was I wrong - they were more processed than ever.  I think the truth is hiding partly behind that processing, where the RAW image from them would struggle in comparison.

I shot clips at night on my iPhone as well as other cameras, and I noticed that the wide angle camera on my iPhone was seriously bad after sunset - even for my own home video standards.  I did a low-light test and worked out that the iPhone 12 mini normal camera had about the same amount of noise as the GX85 at F2.8, but the iPhone wide camera was equivalent to the GX85 at F8!  and that was AFTER the iPhone processing, which would be way heavier than the GX85 which had NR set to -5.
Apple says that the wide camera is F2.4, so basically the GX85 has about a 3-stop noise advantage.  There are lots of situations where F8 isn't enough exposure.  

I'm not sure where we're at in terms of low light performance, but this article says that this Canon camera at ISO 4 million can detect single photons, so there is a definite limit to how large each photosite can be.  Of course, more MP = less light in each one.

In terms of my travels, I still prefer the GX85 to the iPhone when I can - being a dedicated camera it has lots of advantages over a smartphone.

[Benjamin Hilton]

That's kind of the thing. Phones can look great, but overall are really tough to film anything serious with. For stuff like Kye is doing and with the right post processing, they can look great. But for more serious narrative or doc work, they are really the wrong tool for the job. Weird HDR, internal storage limitations, overheating, warpy stabilization, hard to manual focus, lens limitations, ND filter hangups, the list goes on and on. If it's all you have, use it. But I would never recommend buying a phone as a camera specifically. You can basically sink that $600-800 into any basic DSLR setup and not only get a better image, but also save yourself a world of headache with actual usability. 

[Benjamin Hilton]

Kind of like Gerber dropping commercials "proving" they can build a house with a multi tool. You probably can, but if you are going to all the trouble of building, for goodness sake go out and buy yourself a real drill and tape measure. You'll thank yourself a thousand times over. 

[PannySVHS]

Andrew posted on his twitter that Iphone 6s was really something colorwise and after that it became that color went downhills. You can check his og post yourself.

Loved the look of "Tangerine". That was shot on an even older iphone model 4, i think.

Motioncam app looks nice. Storage and other aspects are "a bit" of a hassle though.

[Benjamin Hilton]

Yeah totally. I would venture to guess though that they put in more effort trying to shoot on an iphone for Tangerine than they would have put in with literally any camera. Plus they couldn't have replicated the look with literally any other camera and a decent colorist. It was basically about the unique idea, which is fine, just not a good reason to shoot other projects on a phone, unless you are getting paid by Apple or something to do it

[SRV1981]

 

[kye]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

 

Interesting comparison.

For anyone not aware, it's worth noting that since the iPhone 12, they quietly upgraded to doing auto-HDR and the h265 files are also 10-bit, as well with the prores files being 10-bit of course.  It is interesting how little they promoted this - I have an iPhone 12 mini and didn't even know about it for the first year of owning it!

This is what really unlocked the iPhone for me - I have used iPhones since the 8 for video but prior to the HDR / 10-bit update it really wasn't a competitor to anything other than cheap camcorders, as it lacked the DR to record without over-contrast or clipped highlights and bit-depth to really be able to manipulate it sufficiently in post to remove the Apple colour science and curve.

[Benjamin Hilton]

Honesty stuff like this makes me wish Apple would take their phone processing and put it into a super 35 sensor one of these days...Can you imagine if we had modern smart phone processing in a quality Sony chip?

[PannySVHS]

My two cents. (five cents for the jar box for phrase dropping:) I don´t see anything impressive image wise. OG post from 0.57 to 1.02 looks gruesome, other shots still just fine compared to well shot 8bit 709 HD on Lumix and other old hybrid cameras. Above example shows very nice locations and light and sufficient framing and shot design, though not far off from being generic imho. So, well done by the creator. Nothing less but nothing more neither.

This is the so called film look without a costly plugin. It was shot on an almost 7 years old pocket camera, a Lumix LX15 in Rec709. To my eyes this is very beautiful and a nice achievement for out of your pocket cinema verité:

 

 

[Evgeniy85]

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

My two cents. (five cents for the jar box for phrase dropping:) I don´t see anything impressive image wise. OG post from 0.57 to 1.02 looks gruesome, other shots still just fine compared to well shot 8bit 709 HD on Lumix and other old hybrid cameras. Above example shows very nice locations and light and sufficient framing and shot design, though not far off from being generic imho. So, well done by the creator. Nothing less but nothing more neither.

This is the so called film look without a costly plugin. It was shot on an almost 7 years old pocket camera, a Lumix LX15 in Rec709. To my eyes this is very beautiful and a nice achievement for out of your pocket cinema verité:

 

 

There's a bit of post-processing involved in this video too but I do agree it does look great and miles better of other examples posted in this thread.
There's a difference between a DP and a person who likes tech and pretty images. 

[PannySVHS]

@Evgeniy85 I got a LX15 myself but was a bit underwhelmed by its output compared to a G6, G7 or GX85. After revising the example from above I might give it a try again. I had posted it here before. I was amazed back then when I found it and I still am. The material just looks like some of the best footage I have seen from a GX85 or G7. Sensor estate in 4K on this cam is 2/3 inch only, so quarter the area of MFT. Same relation like MFT to FF. But since MFT is faring pretty good in that regard this camera should compare well to mft 8bit cams as well. It does pretty good going by the example above.

Here is another one by the same artist, Rec709 8bit 420 glory, 2/3 inch prowess :)