i'm with you on that one, it was extremely smart! we wouldn't be talking about the film if it wasn't shot on an iphone. but thats exactly my point: we wouldn't be talking about this film if it wasn't shot on an iphone!
now, we don't seem to agree on the look, so any further discussion is a little pointless regarding this topic. in my opinion there are other ways of getting this look, just like hundreds of other films did before. sure, one could argue that they wanted to try something new, but it just doesn't work for me. this look doesn't add anything gritty, but crappy. and thats not the good kind of crappy, but the crappy kind of crappy.
filmmakers combine the financial and the creative side of the film and both sides are just as important. but when watching a movie, i'm exclusively interested in the creative. and in my personal opinion the creative suffered from a marketing stunt in favor for the financial side.
subscription models are the future, whether we like it or not. i don't think Apple is making any money with FCP, probably because they simply don't have to. not directly anyways. but thats obviously not a business model a company like Adobe or AVID can keep up with.
$20 a month for PP is really not much for the one piece of software every editor needs. especially when you compare it to Media Composer at $70 a month. You can get the entire CC for less than that. I also hate the feeling not really"owning" it, but because of it we will see more frequent updates than in the buying-age-of-software.
although a few features are slowly dragging me to FCP, Premiere Pro is still my go to NLE. that being said, i feel like its getting a lot of attention here lately. i believe this is the third arcticle about Premiere Pro containing pretty much the same info as the other two. deja vu.
is there a sponsoring reason for that? or do you just love PP so much? no offense intended here, just interested.
its funny how people always need to argue about the connection of good films and the necessary budget. obviously one does not need hollywood cash to create a remarkable film. we all know that.
however its pretty clear that the cinematography is definitely the weakest link in Tangerine. The acting looks great, the editor knew what he was doing, the sound seems to be good, the grading fits as well and even the cinematographer did the best he can. But the iPhone pulls this film back and throws it off balance. just like the most beautiful film can get degraded if the sound is awful.
And the one thing that drives me really mad about this, is the fact that they didn't use an iPhone for financial reasons. They used it simply as a marketing stunt to create "that film which was shot on an iPhone". They could have used a GH4 + a couple of lenses and would have gotten a MUCH better looking film for almost no additional money.
so thats definitely something that id like to criticise about Tangerine. Im not saying it wont be a good show. But its not as good as it could've been, simply because of a marketing stunt. And I don't like that.
sorry to hear, my friend. learn from it and patent your ideas the next time. its costs quite a bit to do so, but if you truly believe your idea is great and orignal, you should go for it.
and businesswise: now would be a great time to put your stability arm on sale! at 50 bucks id get one :)
Like every firmware update of the gh4 for the majority of users. As a matter of fact the only exciting feature is the one they re holding back.