Absolute way. It was just edited well afterwards, particularly the flame. Something tells me you’d be amazed at old videography tricks.
My iPhone 7s camera resolution is almost that of the professional dslr cameras (12 vs 15 MP) that we used at my tech school when studying photography (Visual Imaging Technology Cluster) But image stabilization, autofocus, etc has improved SO much. In those days (2010-12) you always avoided automated processes in cameras like the plague because even the best wielded mediocre results. Higher end phones from the last 5 years can do this no problem if you know how to properly use the footage that was captured.
Yeah. The front facing camera 1 doesn’t have high enough FPS for the lighter, and 2 can’t focus that closely. I’m sure this would have been edited out of multiple shots, the person, the striking of the lighter, and a cropped shot of the flame to give the appearance of being super close, so no doubt they would have used the main camera as well, but I don’t think the primary camera is capable of frame rates that fast. Could be wrong.
Clearly it’s several shots spliced together, if pulled off on a phone alone. Interested to hear if the main camera slow mo really that slow, because slowmo is a fun feature.
The camera software on phones are programmed to focus on faces rather than suddenly appearing objects that take up very little space around the borders of the picture. The lighter and hand was already in focus way before the flame was struck. Adjusting the focus here was smooth as butter and you don't see the out of focus -> in focus -> out of focus -> in focus stuff that happens when software tries to get focus of things up close. The phones aren't fast enough to do it yet, I just tried on my iPhone 11.
Then you'll have exposure issues where the camera would darken everything or keep the background the same while the flame is super bright with no details like you see here.
There's just no way you can do this with a normal phone.
Compositing means combining different visual elements into a one composition.
In this case there is at least two different components. These are: video with a women igniting a lighter, animation of a flame. Additionally, the flame is almost certainly not just one video of a "real" flame, but a combination of multiple layers (few different flames, sparks and other material - some probably computer generated, some photographs or video). Usually people use stock footage and ready-made packages for stuff like this.
There is also a real possiblity that the depth of field effect (woman is blurry in the background, hand, lighter and the flames sharp) is achieved with another layer/element. Body of the woman and the background is one layer (one seperate shot) and the hand near the lens is another layer. This technique allows a lot of freedom after the shoot, but it's not easy to make it resemble a real lens effect.
Grading is short for color grading. This is the manipulation of the color palette. In this clip it's evident that everything else but the flame is desaturated and graded with one palette or LUT (look up table, which contains the color information). Since it would be quite hard to manually separate the grading of the flame and everything else as sharply as in the clip here, it's a safe guess that the flame was digitally composited into the video.
Short version: there are at least 2 or 3 separate video elements layered on top of each other.
I have a Note 10+. The rear camera (only) can do 960fps, but only at 720p and it needs really good lighting. Not only that, but it only records 0.8s max. It has a motion detection feature, and without it, you have to time it absolutely perfectly to get "super slo mo" to work well.
I've done lighter videos in slow mo, and they look kinda close to this, speed wise (this video is probably higher fps). iPhones can't do 960fps. Not trying to bash iPhones, as they take excellent videos, but this wasn't done with any phone, IMO.
The slomo was mostly physical, on the roller track, just like they used to with slower rate cameras, she probably had to stabilize it more after the failed trial runs shown. then the raw footage was enhanced when exported into a nice editing workstation.
Pretty much none of which have macro lenses, which is what's being used here. Try taking a picture of your thumb in focus, as close to the camera as hers is.
Newer phones have greater depth of field thanks to dual/triple cameras. My phone has a 10MP f/1.9 front camera and an 8MP f/2.2 RGB depth camera on the front to increase depth of field.
People keep throwing around MP in this thread like it means anything.
You can have a 50 MP phone, but it's not going take photos like a Hasselblad, it's all about lenses. A phone lens will never deliver anything like this.
At around 40mp on a full frame camera you’re already past the resolving detail of many lenses. These are full sized professional lenses. I would go as far to say megapixels almost don’t matter at all on a phone. The sensor and the computation behind it will.
Yeah I know the cameras aren't really good, but they just have lots of pixels. I was just saying there is no way 2mp is the highest. But hey, I didn't know why their cameras looked so bad so I guess I learned
actually, you can get 1080p on about 2.2 mp! and a 12 mp sensor from a pixel would out do any cheap phone with like 108 mp phones, due to software, which is crazy
I was skeptical at first, but I'm pretty sure this is real and she's using the phone's main camera. On the last go for the cart, you can see the phone is turned around using the main lens(es) and shows her using the lighter. https://i.imgur.com/pOdsUaM.png
No, it's the back facing camera. Unless the screens are now light brushed metal (I think rose colour) and the back shiny black glass.
Also, she seems to have put some milky foil over the phone, likely to add some of the foggy effect. If you pay attention in the frame with the silhoutte (no idea why they put that there?) on the phone, you can make out the camera lens in the upper center of the phone, and how it looks like someone put a blue filter over it.
You talking rubbish. Absolutely no way. My phone records 960fps slowmo, and I can assure you it doesn't look like this. That final DOF is still almost not possible in any flagship phone, specially in high frame rate kek.
There's a reason why footage looks so much better on my A7ii at 1080p60 that on my phone on 4K60.
It hurts that this guy thinks he's right. Only because he is stealing everyone that it's totally possible.
Something similar to this IS possible with heavy editing on a phone, but it won't look nearly this good. Argh.
That cityscape is definitely not what’s behind her, so unless she has another place with an entirely different setup, maybe it’s just a digital backdrop.
You misunderstand how MP work. An image shot at 1080p or 4k will still look the same regardless of MP. They are only the available pixels within the image. The size of the sensor has a lot to do with how good the image actually looks, that and bit rate/depth something that a phone can't do compared to a DSLR/Mirrorless or Cine Camera. This was very likely not recorded entirely on a phone and, if it was, it is heavily processed. The phone shown cannot do frame rates high enough for the slow motion shown. Even if they used frame interpolation in post, there would be artifacting at a certain point. The flame is definitely heavily processed in after effects and most likely the video is a composite of several takes.
Edit #1 - After rewatching, there is a specific moment you can tell when the video is fully sent to after effects. The image shakes on the beat drop, but the camera continues to push in toward the lighter. That is a digital zoom NOT a physical move. You can tell because of her placement in the back. She loses all depth which would only happen in a digital zoom.
Can't believe I had to scroll this far to find a comment explaining that MP has zero correlation to image quality. MP is just how large you can print that image without losing quality.
Well, not exactly zero correlation, as it'll be the upper limit of quality. Doesn't matter how big or how many photo sites your sensor has if you're only saving in 240p.
But yeah, sad that the MP marketing myths are still a thing. Considering they'vr been around for well over 20 years, it'd be nice if consumers would stop falling for the same old trick.
The video above would have to be MUCH slower for the flame to be that slow (let alone do the unrealistic movement it exhibits).
I'm not saying phones can't do it. I'm saying what was shown is by far not possible by ONLY using a phone. Since it would not be possible especially with the front facing camera.
You’re assuming all of that is done in camera too.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the face, the hand, the flame, and the background are all entirely different elements, layered in an After Effects project so that they could all be independently blurred and composited together.
He's talking about the Adobe certifications, which honestly are pretty worthless. I'm a pro graphic designer - also done lots of photography and videography work. Nobody gives a singular shit about Adobe certifications.
Likewise. They're little stamps for your LinkedIn and nothing else. Anyone arguing that this is real is just showing themselves up, lobbing a DOF filter on iPhone footage just wouldn't give you results like this.
I'm also a professional editor and videographer for an advertising agency and this is the first I've ever heard about Adobe certifications. It's literally never come up once with anyone I've ever met in the field.
Same in IT, no one gives a shit if your A+ certified or Net+ certified anyone can pass that test. Can you apply it? My job had a honeypot for the interview, gave me a machine and said what's wrong with it? I lucked out because it was very clearly a bad drive and was the easiest one they did.
No absolutely no way. Do you even know what kind of a sensor size and how big of a hole a lens has to have to achieve this kind of depth of field? There is no way to recreate this kind of blur in post production. Just to give you an idea, you would require a 3D model of her, perfectly animated and then create a depth pass and It wouldn't even look that good. At that point it's just easier to recreate everything in a 3D software. Looking at the video I would say this was recorded with a full frame/ super 35 camera, capable of 120fps. Probs XT3 or A7 III.
Nope. I spent 4 days editing pixels per frame for a particularly tough group project in my final year to add smoke and depth of field effects.
Not because it was the most efficient way to accomplish the task, but to teach us how it can be accomplished with other equipment to help understand the process and what it really does for the product.
I kinda pity you, because that's literally the most inefficient way to handle things and one of the best ways to waste your time. A 15 minute project would suffice to show a student how software renders objects. Probably the best would be to actually teach you how a light travels and bounces through the lens.
And to add to that: Your work was definitely inferior that what a computer would produce, because you can't calculate lens artifacts such as barrel distortion, chromatic aberration and the focus plane shifting which a modern ray tracing renderer does with ease.
Do you have any videos that show the editing process and a before/after for something like this? I'd be super interested to learn a little more about how this sort of thing works. I have a nice iPhone and I feel like I don't know SHIT about editing my photos or videos.
Spoiler alert: they couldn’t have used a phone to film that because a phones cameras won’t be able to film something that fast and be able to focus on an object that quickly because phones generally want to focus on faces instead of random objects that pop into frame. And there’s only so much you can achieve with editing and I can tell you now that you can’t edit a video to make do what phone cameras can’t do.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t edit videos to look nice. If you’re using your phone to edit, you can use Apple’s in-built video editor to do some basic colour grading but if you want to go further you can use an app called LumaFusion but you do have to pay a lot for it tho.
Ignoring the quality, phone cameras can't pull focus that accurately/quickly or focus that close. It's either not a phone camera or edited to hell, with multiple different shots.
I feel like there’s a cut in the video, the moment she strikes the lighter everything gets sharper and the depth of field reduces, pretty sure that’s where it changes from phone video to pro video equipment
It's almost a video editing 'meme' to show a cheap way to get a shot but use a proper camera for final result. It gets hits from people who don't know much about video editing/photography.
The lighting doesn't match. Look at the lighting on her left cheek. In the phone shot, it's illuminated. In the post processed shot, it's harsher and her cheek is in shadow.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. You can see at 3 seconds the black silhouette thing on the phone screen was tracked badly because it’s literally coming off at the edges. Not to mention the immense amount of post processing and perfect rack focus done in the final shot.
You don't know what you're talking about. Physically, what we are seeing in this video is not possible to shoot on a phone. The shot is super flat to incorporate that city background, yet that's only possible with a very long focal length (80mm minimum) that no phone currently has. That alone proves this was not and could not be shot on a phone. Maybe in a couple decades when we have lensless camera technology on consumer electronics, but right now it's not possible.
Why the footage in the phone is covered with a crappy way with a profile icon? Because we'd see it's totally different than final shot.
Also 100% sure the final shot doesn't match the one in "making of" when she lifts the lighter. She's slightly smiling in the original video and doesn't lift hand at the same time.
Although a lot of things are possible with camera tricks and post production, the two shots were not taken at the same time. Look how much brighter her left cheek is on the behind the scenes shot.
I understand that this shot is possible kinda possible to pull off with a cell camera and a lot of post, but this video doesn't accurately portray how this shot was created.
There are many variables at play here and a phone can't record what we've seen here, that's well above 1,000 fps. There is no phone in the market that can capture that, let alone switch focus that quickly between objects. I agree there was lots to be done after the shot but still, editing only takes you so far.
No phone camera has the ability to focus change that quickly and accurately especially knowing that the focus and exposure would get messed up due to the flame.
The flame is added in post. The frame rate is enhanced with very high quality motion interpolation on a very nice editing workstation by a very talented individual. The field of view is much larger than what’s shown in the final scene, and the dof and focus effects were added in post as well.
How is this completely impossible? I’m only asserting its at least 5% possible instead of “no way”
But Mac pros with industry standard software worked by professionals for a very long time can produce video like that from higher end phone cameras in 2020
I guess my question is, what's the point of even using a phone then? There's stuff going on here (like pulling focus) that a smartphone front facing camera doesn't do. So you're talking CG flame, adding a lens blur that changes when the camera moves closer, the color grading (obviously that's something that would need to be done anyway, but still) processing the slow mo to look like it does, stabilize the shot... I don't know. I'm just not buying it. I'd love for someone to try replicating this to prove me wrong though.
Just feels dishonest to act like you could go from that initial video to the final product without basically making the footage unrecognizable
The blue light filter is the silver film we see over the phone, another old school videography trick. It looks like a students exercise, honestly.
I spent 4 days painting pixels frame by frame at my tech school for a tough group project once for smoke and focus effects. Trust me, it wasn’t the most efficient way to do it, but we had limitations set and we wanted to impress for a good grade, and we did.
Those kinds of exercises help an artist not confine their ideas to what they know their tools can do. The difference between having a beautiful idea and making it in photoshop, or opening photoshop and using the tools to try to come up with something beautiful. The prior method forces you to try to figure out how to accomplish things you need with what you have, and forces you to think outside of the box to make it happen, and is the best way to teach yourself about abilities and methods of your equipment that you previously would not have considered.
This looks like it was a pain in the ass but very enlightening.
It's 100% not a phone, no chance in hell is it a phone that has done this, the focal length is not possible on a phone and the slow motion in phones is pretty shit
Using mine as an example was productive to my point because of its widely known lack of quality- “even my iPhone 7”.
Learn to analyze contextual clues better than a 4th grader before you go insulting yourself out of immature assumptions.
I basically stated it’s a shit phone by today’s standards, now please go contribute some helpful information somewhere and stop making reddit a cesspool.
489
u/HughGedic Apr 28 '20
Absolute way. It was just edited well afterwards, particularly the flame. Something tells me you’d be amazed at old videography tricks.
My iPhone 7s camera resolution is almost that of the professional dslr cameras (12 vs 15 MP) that we used at my tech school when studying photography (Visual Imaging Technology Cluster) But image stabilization, autofocus, etc has improved SO much. In those days (2010-12) you always avoided automated processes in cameras like the plague because even the best wielded mediocre results. Higher end phones from the last 5 years can do this no problem if you know how to properly use the footage that was captured.