Welles vs Soderbergh: Masters of Modern Low Budget Filmmaking

Best camera for low budget filmmaking: wolfcrow.com/what-is-the-best...
List of equipment mentioned in the video:
iPhone: Amazon: amzn.to/2SH0QCT
Sony a6400: Amazon: amzn.to/2SH4dtk | B&H: bhpho.to/2MItGzC
Anamorphic adapter: Amazon: amzn.to/2SGqXd2 | B&H: bhpho.to/2K6i6xh
Cage: Amazon: amzn.to/2SKSc65 | B&H: bhpho.to/2K6YuJv
App: www.filmicpro.com/
Get 8mm and 16mm Kodak film on Amazon: amzn.to/2YjpzhK | B&H: bhpho.to/2K4s2HI
Camera guides, filmmaking and cinematography courses:
wolfcrow.ontraport.com/tl/8
What's in my camera bag:
wolfcrow.ontraport.com/tl/9
Find gear on Amazon:
www.amazon.com/shop/wolfcrow/
Find gear on B&H:
bhpho.to/2N3Na21
In this video I show you how two masters of cinema changed their usual style of filmmaking to an ultra low budget style of shooting - with different results. Watch both films on Netflix.
Don't forget to subscribe!

[@travisjones7169]

I believe the idea behind Soderbergh using the Iphone is the fact that almost everyone has one. He's probably not making these films to sell Iphones, but more likely he's making a statement that everybody already has the tools, pretty much, to make their own films. I agree with everything in the video, just wanted to add my 2 cents.

[@PhillipRPeck]

I agree. Especially in the U.S. where almost nobody pays the cost of the phone up front but rather subsidizes the cost with their monthly plan. Still, cool video

[@jari7943]

Like the camera was the expensive part of filming hahaha

[@rabirai1003]

Did u even hear what he said? He didn't just shoot with iphone. He used extra lenses, gimbles and what not. And therefore not everyone with iphone have all these extra equipments. So whats the points with having an just iphone? You can't jusy shoot with iphone alone. Thats the point.

[@jari7943]

@@rabirai1003 guys, let me tell you, when shooting a real movie the equipment is the cheapest thing.

[@PhillipRPeck]

@@rabirai1003 Yes, but also the point is that everyone (well not everyone, but lots of people) already has a smart phone. Therefore, everyone already has a camera they can shoot video with

[@tomanymynicknames]

Dont forget that Soderbergh is hardcore movie-nerd, and likes to experiment with his skills. He probably wasnt looking to best available camera with price/quality balance to make low-budget film, he just asked himself a question "Can i make a movie on an iphone, shoot it very quick and edit it on some app that looks as professional as possible?" and then went and did it (absolute madlad) blocking scenes on the fly. Unsane was filmed in 10 days, and High Flying Bird probably in similar period. IIRC with scenes on NY streets with High Flying Bird he just walkeds around with Andre Holland until they found cool location and then immediatly start shooting something.

[@alex0589]

He also said "If I see another over-the-shoulder shot, I'm going to blow my brains out" as he was about to take some time off. Great dude.

[@Leprutz]

@@alex0589 He is right though. Every movie uses over the shoulddershots. I mean come on... be inventive mr. director. I a forum about filmmaking a guy asked us the question for one scene I want to make an over the soulder shot but the background is shitty. The answeres for me were as hilarious. I said... try a different shot. Do something we don't expect.

[@BrianMcInnis87]

1:12 Guessing you meant a hundred hours.

[@FashionableFather]

I completely agree about making a movie with an iphone or any smart phone. When I first tried to start a channel; I was using my phone; it was very difficult and I didn't quite know why. Then I got my mirrorless and it was been an absolute joy and so much easier. Great video in general; thanks.

[@Leprutz]

The truth why Sodie used the iPhone is simple: you have 3 different focal lengths on that phone. On mirrorless cams you do need to invest in more lenses, so it gets timeconsuming. And secondly as you said, what you takewaway was. He wants to prove to young filmmakers that If you already have a smartphone and invest a little bit more, you can shoot you feature film already. No need to go through many other middleman to get you project produced. Of yourse there is a lack in image quality but I believe he uses it as a statement and encouragement.

[@megamattzero7348]

Biggest take away from this is: if you have the money but don't know what to buy first, buy audio equipment first because everyone has a camera phone in 2019

[@TChristopher]

You should check out Tangerine for low-budget filmmaking with iPhones. Critically acclaimed.

[@alex0589]

Back with Tangerine, it was still sort-of "proving a point" but with Soderberg it's just punk rock-fuck you-no need for a camera dept. kinda thing. i think? I think these dudes would love the sony mirrorless but just wouldnt get the publicity for it lol remember when it made the news when dslr's were used in bog movies? good times..

[@AllThingsFilm1]

I agree. I bought my BMPCC4K for $1200. I already had lenses from my GH5. (I sold my GH5 to buy the BMPCC4K). And I cannot stress enough how much power and control I have with the BMPCC4K. So, I'll happily stick with my new camera for future projects.

[@Wa7edmenalnass]

Is BMPCC4K better in the night than GH5, and do you recommend it for someone who used to film with DSLR

[@legendp2011]

+Ahmed Mohammad...........there is now the new 6k, if you have a lot of ef lenses. yes both the blackmagic pocket 4k and the blackmagic pocket 6k are better than the gh5 in lowlight

[@Wa7edmenalnass]

@@legendp2011 Thank you

[@Leprutz]

Only problem I have with the bmpcc is the rolling shutter. Besides that. Still amazing piece of gear. My friend just got him self the sony fx30 and two lenses. A 17 to 80mm and 9mm. Very happy with that. We can do so much.

[@StarCrusher.]

Excellent analysis! I especially loved Steven's style in the knick. It feels so real.

[@FashionableFather]

The knick simply reeked of style. The music, the storytelling. I'm not a fan of medical shows, but that thing was awesome.

[@Lexington101]

I use the BMPCC 4K with vintage Takumar and Chinon lens shot through an anamorphic projection lens for my main shots and an Apple iPhone XSMax with the Moon Dog Labs anamorphic adapter for my B roll. I have the iPhone on a Feiyutech G6 Plus. It's a very light and mobile B camera setup.

[@smarthalayla6061]

Shooting with a smartphone is for the challenge, That;s it.

[@bluenightsky]

I appreciate your commentary on this, but yuou were really hard on soderbergh for using a cellphone camera. What you should take into consideration is that almost everyone in modern countries already has a cellphone. Yes, he used multiple cellphones, but the fact that he did it and did it beautifully apparently, is in itself a feat of great art. Just because a medium is more difficult to work with "lower quality" results doesn't mean that using that medium in itself isn't worth utilizing for creative expression. Yes, I get that maybe the point was to showcase "lowbudget", but I for one am absolutely inspired that someone made something so beautiful with a camera I have sitting right in my pocket. For someone like me who is currently using my cellphone as the only camera I can film on right now due to limited budget, I can tell you that these films using common equipment is not only valuable and inspiring, but also a great fear of artistic expression. Just my 2c. Thanks for sharing this vid. 🙂

[@saravananekambaram3254]

thank you for this video

[@ownvideofootage]

Inspirational, yes!

[@Azuwat]

What do you think about Tangerine which was made with iphone 5?

[@NostalgiNorden]

Great film!

[@jari7943]

Yeah but looks like shit

[@Th3NrY]

I do wanna point out, I dont think Soderbergh liked the iphone. He pointed out that the main advantage is placement is way easier. He also owns A Red Epic which is what he's using to shoot the laundromat, coming out on netflix.

[@999yuiop]

Hi Wolfcrow, great video. I was wondering if there was more to getting the Hollywood film quality look with an iPhone/DSLR than just the camera and the accessories with it? Like, isn't part of it the set design, lighting, composition, color corrections, and great actors used to sell that image? I've seen films shot on iPhone and DSLR that I could immediately tell was shot cheaply, but Soderbergh was able to elevate it somehow. I also watched the film Upstream Color that was shot on a Panasonic GH2, and I couldn't tell it was shot on a camera that cheap, it looked totally professional. However, I've seen other student films shot with the Alexa or Red cameras (expensive) and you could immediately tell it's a student film. I've seen other filmmakers try to mimic the success of these films with cheap smartphone cameras and all of the accessories, but you can still tell it was shot on a phone at the end of the day. I suspect there is something more in the budget of High Flying Bird that makes up the "film look" but I'm not sure. Could you give some insight on what makes some of these cheap cameras able to produce a professional film quality look beyond the camera itself?

[@thatcherfreeman]

It might largely be the better composition, blocking, and color grade of the film that distinguishes it visually from "cheap" looking films. Also, the detailed locations and actors who aren't college students helps too.

[@wolfcrow]

It's the people. Always the people.

[@thatcherfreeman]

@@wolfcrow I think the question was more about what exactly those people do that makes the final image not look cheap.

[@wolfcrow]

They pay attention to details. Then they sweat it.

[@matahari1576]

I gotta watch O.W. Film a.s.a.p. Thanks for sharing this’ Very interesting. When it comes to Soderbergh: ...And llet us not forget costume design, costumes. Make Up, salaries, lighting, rent for locations, Post Production a..s.o. Sorry, but this Soderbergh attempt is beyond me.

[@lattermanstudio]

Soderberge was experimenting with iPhones way back from the iPhone 5S...... I think he just liked the novelty and the challenge and sure he could afford most anything..... but where’s the challenge in that??? 😀

[@mr.b6789]

Apple pays for usage of their products (if it is some sort of advertising)! That should be obvious by now.. No other brand has been shown so much so clearly in frame without bringing any actual value to the plot or any other aspect of the film. It's just marketing..

[@utkusonmezer2137]

if you shoot with an iphone you dont need a camera crew. So i guess that saves a lot of money.

[@PabloErminy]

wolfcrow... dogme95.. . cheers.

[@deloreanized]

I think you're missing the point. Everybody has a phone. Buying a camera, no matter how cheap it is, it feels like GEAR. A phone is like a microwave, a toaster or a fridge: an item we already have. Soderbergh was making a statement: he's got 2 Oscars for Traffic and Erin Brocovich, and yet he decided to make not one but 2 films using an Iphone, when most people is using to it to doomscroll on Tik Tok and uploading stupid selfies on Instagram. That's the idea. And OF COURSE it would've been better getting a DSRL camera (or whatever your preference is) but that would fail to send the message: GEAR (or the lack thereof) is not an excuse for not making your own films anymore.

[@VoteScientist]

I suppose it was a publicity stunt for the iPhone.

[@MobileFilmmaking]

I don't think you even get what he was trying to do shooting on an iPhone. You hear guys are always worried more about what to shoot with than why? This is a real director with movie credits under his belt. Sure he could have shot with Reds and Alexas but he was interested in pushing the boundaries of what could be done with a camera that Damon near everyone has.. To create something grand with something that was never intended to be used in that manner. Obviously that's something you don't seem to be able to quite comprehend. Pushing boundaries. Thank God for the people who do. The true visionaries. And to even try to compare the cost of what he spent to make High Flying Bird is just ridiculous. What's your argument as he spent less than he would have for a Red or an Alexa? I thought this was going to be an enlightened video but all it is.... Is a guy stating his bias about someone who's obviously doing something right.. Smh

[@wolfcrow]

You just defined "gimmick". Pushing boundaries for no other reason than personal gratification. Carpenter: I have this iPhone in my pocket all the time, so why don't I use it instead of my hammer? Soderbergh himself has admitted it took him tons of extra money to fix color and exposure problems, and if you've seen the film you'll see stabilization and exposure artifacts every few minutes. He could have pulled off the same film in the same or lesser budget with a cheaper camera with no change in this working style. Millions of filmmakers get only one chance, and the message you want to give them is to use a tool unsuited for the job - just because it stimulates you? Lots of channels out there that feed you pipe dreams. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a video on KZbin of someone using an iPhone as a hammer, and it probably has tons more views than this one. You should be proud. Carpenters should rejoice.

[@MobileFilmmaking]

@@wolfcrow pushing a medium is not a "gimmick" but I knew you wouldn't "get it". Your type never does.

[@albatrizzle]

I disagree with you that Soderbergh would have been better off using a mirrorless. That wasn't his point. He's trying to make a statement to young filmmakers that you can shoot a film on what you already have - a smartphone. Everyone already has a smart phone because it's useful for other things not just filmmaking. I agree with you that Soderbergh's spending extra money on the grade and sound to clean up the rough codec defeats his point - not everyone can afford that.

[@Albanez39]

"Low Budget" = $1200 for an Iphone, $5Million for the actors...

[@NUCLEARDASH]

Still very low...if you compare to the other kind of movies

[@Albanez39]

@@NUCLEARDASH It can't be called low budget when it's 1Million or more. But that's not absolute, everyone has his own opinion. Watch "Coherence". It was made with $50'000, with 8 amateur actors, all inside the director's house...and it's one of the greatest sci-fi thrillers ever made! America is a special case nonetheless. While Europe reconstructed everything, twice (after the two world wars), America was developing it's motion picture and entertainment industry. We don't have wealthy investors and studios here in Europe that are willing to fund a script or idea with millions of dollars. Most big films we produce are co-production between various countries, and the main investors for such films are the governments and national organizations for culture and art, or various EU organizations and funds. Hence, there's a big difference between different regions and countries on the concept of low budget and big budget filmmaking. Coherence could even be considered zero-budget in the US, but in Europe, zero-budget is a group of friends or film students shooting with a DSLR and homemade lights :P

[@eduardocortes-dv4lo]

Was not for money , was to be the first

[@NostalgiNorden]

Then Tangrine beat him by 2-3 years

[@alex0589]

@@NostalgiNorden not for the title but for the headline (and not dealing with camera dept. people lol)

[@Veypurr1]

I don't feel like Other Side Of The Wind was a good film. I loved watching the documentary and the film right afterwards, I learned a lot but the movie just stand alone is a bad movie.

[@jordi0m]

I get the point that Soderbergh was trying to make, and even the one you're trying to make, but I think both were a bit stupid in execution. For one, using Soderbergh is a bad example, and his choice is retarded for every reason other than "I shot it on a phone, you have a phone. Go shoot." which is also a bit disingenuous because he probably had external recorders, editors, blablabla to a budget of millions, so not really. I'm 100% sure there's fantastic movies with fantastic images shot for WAY less that have a better image and are just better examples of ultra low budget for what most people would want out of a perceived "big budget" production. The camera is such an insignificant expense in a film's budget, when the whole film is 2millions. Makes no sense. Lost in translation is one of the best films I've ever seen, and I'm not alone in this, with a budget of 4 million, and you never feel it deters from the film. That is a better example. Although, I'm sure there's better ones. A+ director, A+ cast. And with the Orson Wells one.. Fine. Yes. He's a legend and it's interesting that he did that, but I still think it's not what people picture when they say they want to make fantastic films with low budgets. They don't want their films to feel low budget, and integrating the low budget "look" into your film is precisely the opposite of what I'd be looking for when searching for it. I 100% agree with most of the big points of the video, you don't need crazy equipment to make good films, but the examples are just dumb. Also, getting second hand cameras and lenses is an incredible way to have something that feels like a "real" camera but cost you close to nothing. Makes no sense to get a 170€ phone lens shit when you could buy a Canon 550D and a 50mm for maybe 50€ more. If you already have an amazing phone because you value said amazing phone's all around features and you're willing to spend 1000€ on it.. Cool. Now, if you're gonna spend 1000€ on a phone with the excuse (make no mistake, it's an excuse) that the camera is so great.. No. Get a shittier phone and an actual camera. No contest. Maybe you get a pass if you need the extreme portability, otherwise.. Just no.

[@reply4370]

SAREESH, What is the matter with you?! Oscar winning director Steven Soderbergh shot his film on an iPhone to make a point for people like you and me; that indeed you don't need an expensive equipments anymore to make a movie. You also have criticised Robert Rodriguez before. I think you should stop being NEGATIVE and start shooting some great movies. I might be able to help you.

[@truthin24frames73]

First