Apparently much (if not all) of the recent Apple "event" was filmed'
using iPhone 15.

To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
Editing was done on Mac (shocker) and what seems to be Adobe Premiere,
possibly Davinci Resolve and Final Cut.
2 minutes.

_Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
/ code into YouTube
___________/ directly.
https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
| \
Real link. \_______not Belgium.
\
\___to YouTube

Sorry for the brief link description.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:

> To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.

The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
And you fell for it.

On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
> On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
>
> The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
> And you fell for it.

Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-05, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
>> On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
>>
>> The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
>> And you fell for it.
>
> Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.

He won't because he can't. He's got a throbbing little hate boner for
Apple and nothing's gonna stop his little nut party.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 5 Nov 2023 22:23:56 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>>> To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
>>>
>>> The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
>>> And you fell for it.
>>
>> Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
>
> He won't because he can't.

How many professionals & millions of dollars does it take to fake a video?

How many iPhone owners have that kind of a budget to make that faked video?

Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:

> On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
>> On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
>>
>> The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
>> And you fell for it.
>
> Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.

It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like
"a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".

Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>

The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
you can not completely compensate with software alone.

Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.

There is a reason why professional filmmakers and broadcasting companies
still don't use Smartphones but dedicated cameras like the EOS C70 along
with *big* lenses to catch as much light as possible. Professional
broadcasting cameras use lenses which cost more than 200.000 USD each
and provide abilities like *fast* zoom without *any* change in the focus
while zooming.

Also see this video about broadcasting equipment:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkTaMyatsTo>

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2023-11-06 03:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Alan Browne, 2023-11-05 19:22:
>
>> On 2023-11-05 13:12, Frankie wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be sure: by pros, using pro lighting, staging, camera mounts.
>>>
>>> The whole "by the iPhone" lie was outed as completely faked by Apple.
>>> And you fell for it.
>>
>> Really? Cite source. No really: Prove it.
>
> It may not be completely "fake". But when using pro camera gear like
> mounts, gimbals, additional lenses etc. the "by the iPhone" is more like
> "a lot of equipment used and an iPhone to record the result".

First off, I made the studio gear setup clear in my OP (and lighting is
by far the most important item). You're looking (above) at snipped
comments.

Lighting is more important than any other item.

Secondly, key to the event recording quality is the iPhone 15's Pro Res
format and ability to shoot (record) in Apple-Log-HDR. This gives
post-processing the most information to work with.
(And by the way, professional "film" work is done in some Log format to
preserve detail and DR regardless of camera).

> Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>

I've likely already seen that..

>
> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
> you can not completely compensate with software alone.

Key to the Apple shoot is lighting. This makes sure that the camera is
always in its "sweet spot" meaning a minimal amount of analog or digital
amplification (to avoid noise).

This couples to the shooting Pro-Res + Apple Log HDR - maximize the
information captured for post processing.

> Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
> content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
> scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
> may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
> software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.

Which is less an issue here because of the lighting used and again
ProRes+Apple Log HDR.

>
> There is a reason why professional filmmakers and broadcasting companies
> still don't use Smartphones but dedicated cameras like the EOS C70 along
> with *big* lenses to catch as much light as possible. Professional
> broadcasting cameras use lenses which cost more than 200.000 USD each
> and provide abilities like *fast* zoom without *any* change in the focus
> while zooming.

And again, in this case, the key is lighting to match the sweet spot of
the camera.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
[...]
> _Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
> / code into YouTube
> ___________/ directly.
> https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
> | \
> Real link. \_______not Belgium.
> \
> \___to YouTube
>
> Sorry for the brief link description.

Touché! :-) Love it!

On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
>
> Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
> content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
> scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
> may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
> software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.

They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Frank Slootweg wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> _Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
>> / code into YouTube
>> ___________/ directly.
>> https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
>> | \
>> Real link. \_______not Belgium.
>> \
>> \___to YouTube
>>
>> Sorry for the brief link description.
>
> Touché! :-) Love it!

Likewise ... but it *is* Belgian ...

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> > Alan Browne wrote:
> >
> >> _Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
> >> / code into YouTube
> >> ___________/ directly.
> >> https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
> >> | \
> >> Real link. \_______not Belgium.
> >> \
> >> \___to YouTube
> >>
> >> Sorry for the brief link description.
> >
> > Touché! :-) Love it!
>
> Likewise ... but it *is* Belgian ...

Yes, but I think he meant that it's not really a Belgian site, but
it 'just' uses the TLD of our southern friends.

Anyway, it was an excellent comeback, that's what counts.

candycanearter07, 2023-11-06 16:32:

> On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
>> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
>> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
>> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
>>
>> Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
>> content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
>> scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
>> may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
>> software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
>
>
> They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
> that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.

In the case of Google this is done with their "Tensor" chips:

<https://store.google.com/intl/en/ideas/articles/google-tensor-pixel-smartphone/>

"Google Tensor, the custom-built chip that's the power behind Google AI
on Pixel phones, was years in the making.

(...)

What can Google Tensor G3 do for me?

(...)

Take better photos and videos - The most visible examples of machine
learning in action on your phone can be found in your photos and videos.
With Tensor G3's cutting-edge computational photography and image
processing, your phone can now render more dynamic images, capture more
details during zoom, and process sharper, higher-quality photos and videos."

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

On 2023-11-06 10:23, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> _Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
>> / code into YouTube
>> ___________/ directly.
>> https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
>> | \
>> Real link. \_______not Belgium.
>> \
>> \___to YouTube
>>
>> Sorry for the brief link description.
>
> Touché! :-) Love it!

Glad, you know who I was thinking of ...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-06 10:32, candycanearter07 wrote:
> On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
>> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
>> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
>> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
>>
>> Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
>> content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
>> scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
>> may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
>> software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
>
>
> They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
> that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.

He made that up. Since the phone was recording in Pro Res / Apple Log
HDR it is akin to shooting RAW on a DSLR.

That is: Maximum information preservation. Not interpretation,
addition, subtraction ....

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

On 2023-11-06 10:44, Andy Burns wrote:
> Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>                                 _Link Paranoia? copy this Youtube video
>>>                                /                code into YouTube
>>>                    ___________/                 directly.
>>> https://youtu.be/V3dbG9pAi8I
>>>          |       \
>>> Real link.      \_______not Belgium.
>>>         \
>>>          \___to YouTube
>>>
>>> Sorry for the brief link description.
>>
>>    Touché! :-) Love it!
>
> Likewise ... but it *is* Belgian ...

The domain name may be a Belgian "domain" but you can be sure there are
dozens, if not hundreds, of sites worldwide that get connected to by
differing IP addresses according to rough proximity.

And the "mother" site is in the US.

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote

> Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>
>
> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
> you can not completely compensate with software alone.

Arno,

You have a Pixel so I need to ask you a question about the GCam software.
Know that I always provide a reasoned rational assessment of the facts.

First, as I have pointed out, you can't reasonably compare a Google Pixel
to any iPhone because the iPhone is a toy in terms of what apps it can run.

However... if we agree to loudly ignore that the iPhone is crippled in app
functionality, then (and only then) can anyone do a comparison to Pixels.

With your Pixel, you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?

An important example is that the google software for taking pictures is so
good that I myself have used the GCam ports on my Samsung & Moto phones.
*Google Camera Port*
<https://www.celsoazevedo.com/files/android/google-camera/>

I asked a long time ago on rec.photo.digital _why_ the GCam software takes
what is said to be _better_ pictures than the original OEM camera software.
*Why GCam (Google Camera) is better than Stock Camera App?*
<https://gcamport.com/gcamport-vs-stock-camera/>
"It was first released in 2014 and has since become a popular choice
among photographers due to its ability to enhance image quality
and provide additional features not available on stock camera apps."

Since your GCam is native, have you noticed your Pixel takes better photos
(using GCam) than a comparably sized Android with similar sized sensors?
--
The best way to use Usenet is for people to be purposefully helpful.
That way each one of us pushes the tribal knowledge to a new level.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

> And again, in this case, the key is lighting to match the sweet spot of
> the camera.

Key isn't really lighting, as key is Apple paid professional photographers.

Sure, if you spend millions of dollars on each video, and if you have a
related degree and years of experience the iPhone can output good results.

But that means your suggestion every iPhone owner should spend millions of
dollars just so that they can achieve those good results is preposterous.

On 2023-11-06 11:22, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
>
>> And again, in this case, the key is lighting to match the sweet spot of
>> the camera.
>
> Key isn't really lighting, as key is Apple paid professional photographers.
>
> Sure, if you spend millions of dollars on each video, and if you have a
> related degree and years of experience the iPhone can output good results.
>
> But that means your suggestion every iPhone owner should spend millions of
> dollars just so that they can achieve those good results is preposterous.

Could you do it on an Android phone? Maybe one at the top of the DXOMark
list?

You remember them, don't you?

On 2023-11-06 11:14, Wally J wrote:
> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote
>
>> Also see "Shot on Smartphones!" by Marques Brownlee:
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkPter7MC1I>
>>
>> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
>> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
>> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
>> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
>
> Arno,
>
> You have a Pixel so I need to ask you a question about the GCam software.
> Know that I always provide a reasoned rational assessment of the facts.
>
> First, as I have pointed out, you can't reasonably compare a Google Pixel
> to any iPhone because the iPhone is a toy in terms of what apps it can run.

What camera apps would those be?

>
> However... if we agree to loudly ignore that the iPhone is crippled in app
> functionality, then (and only then) can anyone do a comparison to Pixels.
>
> With your Pixel, you can use _any camera software_ you want to use, right?

You think you can't use 3rd party camera apps with the iPhone?

How naive!

>
> An important example is that the google software for taking pictures is so
> good that I myself have used the GCam ports on my Samsung & Moto phones.
> *Google Camera Port*
> <https://www.celsoazevedo.com/files/android/google-camera/>

<https://petapixel.com/best-iphone-camera-apps/>

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>> On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
>>> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
>>> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
>>> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
>>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
>>>
>>> Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
>>> content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
>>> scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
>>> may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
>>> software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
>>
>> They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
>> that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
>
> He made that up. Since the phone was recording in Pro Res / Apple Log
> HDR it is akin to shooting RAW on a DSLR.
>
> That is: Maximum information preservation. Not interpretation,
> addition, subtraction ....

Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend
millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...

The whole point of marketing is to say something and make you believe more.

a. It's clearly what Apple is doing (which only a fool wouldn't see).
b. Yet, the fools (Alan Browne) fell for it - hook, line & sinker.

Alan Browne's repeated suggestion that everyone spend millions of dollars
on each of their iPhone videos just to achieve good results is absurd.

Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote

>>> Sorry for the brief link description.
>>
>> Touch�! :-) Love it!
>
> Glad, you know who I was thinking of ...

Classic for these low-IQ iKooks who can't even comprehend basic grammar.

It's insulting that you try to insult someone & you can't even form a
complete grammatically correct sentence, Alan Browne.

There's a point here which is the open question that you can't even figure
out simple grammar rules - which is a fact - and yet - you "think" you can
figure out the complexities of a faked video that Apple marketing put out.

No normal person can achieve the results Apple claimed unless they too
spend millions of dollars and hire professional photographers.

Hence, you can't comprehend the video doesn't show what you "think" it
shows, just as your grammar shows that you can't comprehend simple grammar.

On 11/6/23 13:26, Wally J wrote:
> Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
>
>>> On 11/6/23 02:00, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>>> The camera and software for is still impressive for the size - but the
>>>> same applies to many smartphones. The latest Google Pixel models are
>>>> mostly the same like iPhone and sometimes even better in some
>>>> situations. But still - tiny lenses and tiny sensors are physical limits
>>>> you can not completely compensate with software alone.
>>>>
>>>> Especially in darker environments the result is mostly "guessing" the
>>>> content based on stastical models which got trained with existing
>>>> scenes. If your own picture is similar to what those models know, you
>>>> may get a convincing result - but sometimes the "AI" in the camera
>>>> software may also completely fail to create the missing pixels for you.
>>>
>>> They use AI for their cameras? I'm surprised there's no marketing about
>>> that, considering that's the big thing nowadays.
>>
>> He made that up. Since the phone was recording in Pro Res / Apple Log
>> HDR it is akin to shooting RAW on a DSLR.
>>
>> That is: Maximum information preservation. Not interpretation,
>> addition, subtraction ....
>
> Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend
> millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
> achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...

I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has
a name that I'm forgetting.

> The whole point of marketing is to say something and make you believe more.
>
> a. It's clearly what Apple is doing (which only a fool wouldn't see).
> b. Yet, the fools (Alan Browne) fell for it - hook, line & sinker.
>
> Alan Browne's repeated suggestion that everyone spend millions of dollars
> on each of their iPhone videos just to achieve good results is absurd.

--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote

>> Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend
>> millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
>> achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
>
> I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
> cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has
> a name that I'm forgetting.

My point is the adult view that marketing should be taken with a grain of
salt - especially Apple marketing - which - let's admit it - is brilliant.

What Apple marketing is doing is successfully convincing people like Alan
Browne that _they too!_ can get these professional results with the iPhone.

And yet... they can't. Not with an iPhone anyway.
Unless they too invest those millions of dollars on each & every video.
--
Apple aims for a particularly gullible customer who has to drink the Jim
Jones punch in order to believe the outrageous claims that Apple makes.

On 2023-11-06 12:22, Wally J wrote:
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>
>>> Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you spend
>>> millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
>>> achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
>>
>> I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
>> cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has
>> a name that I'm forgetting.
>
> My point is the adult view that marketing should be taken with a grain of
> salt - especially Apple marketing - which - let's admit it - is brilliant.
>
> What Apple marketing is doing is successfully convincing people like Alan
> Browne that _they too!_ can get these professional results with the iPhone.
>
> And yet... they can't. Not with an iPhone anyway.
> Unless they too invest those millions of dollars on each & every video.

You really are a weasel, aren't you, Arlen?

On 2023-11-06 15:37, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-11-06 12:22, Wally J wrote:
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote
>>
>>>> Speaking of Apple's brilliant marketing which suggests that if you
>>>> spend
>>>> millions of dollars and if you have a professional degree, you too can
>>>> achieve decent results with the iPhone (under excellent lighting)...
>>>
>>> I think that it's more to suggest you're getting "cinema quality"
>>> cameras on the iPhone. And also a bit of using your own product that has
>>> a name that I'm forgetting.
>>
>> My point is the adult view that marketing should be taken with a grain of
>> salt - especially Apple marketing - which - let's admit it - is
>> brilliant.
>>
>> What Apple marketing is doing is successfully convincing people like Alan
>> Browne that _they too!_ can get these professional results with the
>> iPhone.
>>
>> And yet... they can't. Not with an iPhone anyway.
>> Unless they too invest those millions of dollars on each & every video.
>
> You really are a weasel, aren't you, Arlen?

Whoah there!!! I know a lot of fine upstanding weasels that would take
great umbrage at that comparison. Take it back.

Wally Nuts just doesn't realize what goes into make high quality video.
And in this case, since the iPhone 15 Pro records ProRes _and_ Log;
added to all the fine lighting and post production, what can be achieved.

So, he has to go on his usual side attacks as that is really all the
pathetic little twerp has ...

--
“Markets can remain irrational longer than your can remain solvent.”
- John Maynard Keynes.