It still looks strictly worse than an equivalently priced $1000 camera+lens when directed, lit, operated, and edited by professionals.
Also note that, according to its datasheet, the iPhone cannot capture video on its tiny 48MP sensor at that resolution at all - just 4k.
Equivalent is maybe Sigma 24-70 which is constant f/2.8 at an extra 1200 USD.
So all up ~3x more expensive than iPhone.
If the answer is yes, then the feat is still an important one.
I know that some lights would still be required, but I honesty don't know the answer if they needed additional lights to compensate or if they could have gotten away with less.
I can recommend watching the Better Call Saul DVD documentary, they regularly have the lead lighting guy answering questions in there. The tl;dr was to me that yes, you definetely need additional lighting, even if your camera has a massive, light sensitive sensor.
I don't think anyone expects an iPhone to compete with a top of the line Arri 65 or other IMAX enabled cameras when it comes to low light performance (the sensor on these is huge after all), but the intro shot with Apple Park shows that it's possible.
Maybe don't try to reenact a shooting of Barry Lyndon on an iPhone, but for nearly everything else it seems to work just fine.
So yes extremely fast even with today's technologies.
> After "tinker[ing] with different combinations of lenses and film stock," the production obtained three super-fast 50mm lenses (Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/0.7) developed by Zeiss for use by NASA in the Apollo Moon landings, which Kubrick had discovered. These super-fast lenses "with their huge aperture (the film actually features the lowest f-stop in film history) and fixed focal length" were problematic to mount, and were extensively modified into three versions by Cinema Products Corp. for Kubrick to gain a wider angle of view, with input from optics expert Richard Vetter of Todd-AO. The rear element of the lens had to be 2.5 mm away from the film plane, requiring special modification to the rotating camera shutter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Lyndon
> The lens was designed and made specifically for the NASA Apollo lunar program to capture the far side of the Moon in 1966.
> In total there were only 10 lenses made. One was kept by Carl Zeiss, six were sold to NASA, and three were sold to Kubrick.
But to me the important question is if it has any impact on the number of lights. If you still need all the same lights to use the iPhone that you would for a camera that is several thousand dollars. it is still really cool.
People forget how much more sensitive silicon is to light than film.
Edit: got currious, it was ISO 100 pushed 1 stop during development[1]. So, since an iPhone's ƒ/1.78 main lens is ≈2.5 stops slower than ƒ0.7, using ISO ≈1200 should give you the same exposure (if shot at 24fps). Certainly doable.
[1] https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-fa...
Important considerations include where the light is coming from, how diffuse it is, and its color.
Lights (or flashes for photography) get used even outdoors. Amateur outdoor headshots usually give the subject racoon eyes since the eyes are sunken in versus the eyebrows. Pros will get light on the face to get rid of that.
But it's not so much to compensate, just to ensure that your shot is lit the way you want, without the weird hard shadows and background-brighter-than-foreground problems that occur in your average space that hasn't been specifically lit for film/TV.
You couldn't do that with an iPhone.
It's similar to how they show MacBook Pro users making movies, doing AI work, processing huge datasets, etc. The message is that I don't need to do all those things. But if I did, the computer would be good enough to do them.
In the context of the iPhone's camera, I'm not going to shoot an ad on one, but it's clearly going to be good enough to take pictures of my vacation.
Is that clear? Even ignoring the form factor, I expect you would be quite disappointed casually shooting your vacation on a camera typically used on these types of shoots.
That may be true, but cinema cameras are often less camera in many ways. For example, they often lack autofocus (at best, poor autofocus). It assumed you will have a dedicated focus puller on set. Probably not something you want to bring with you on vacation.
One of the most common hacked together items is a steady cam rig. The simplest version is made from a couple iron pipes and an appropriate screw for your camera mount.
Define quality. What I take away from the documentation is that you can replace iPhone's in workflows that would have traditionally used a heavy and expensive film grade camera. The gimbals, rigs and software used the video are actually quite normal for professional video shoots and you'd see them in use with more expensive cameras as well.
Consumer --> Prosumer --> Pro
Aka tacit endorsement of the incumbent 'way things be.'
Apple has massively reduced the barrier to entry.