IronFilm

Would the Panasonic Lumix S 24-105mm f/4 make sense for you, or too slow? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1455076-REG/panasonic_s_r24105_lumix_s_24_105mm_f_4.html Or would maybe a prime lens work for your telephoto coverage? Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 for the 1st camera Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 for the 2nd camera Sigma 135mm f1.8 for the third camera. Or a 105mm lens if you feel the jump to 135mm is too big (and you just crop in from 105mm in post if need be??): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912/N/4196380428?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_a_focus-type_5738%3Aautofocus%2Cfct_fixed-focal-lengths_2207%3A105mm|135mm%2Cfct_lens-format-coverage_3332%3Afull-frame-lenses%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Aleica-l-mount%2Cfct_zooms-primes_5903%3Aprime-lenses That Sigma 105mm f/2.8 would be very lightweight, and cheap. (only 715gm and sub $700)

My naturally contrarian attitude? ha Pushes myself and others to consider hard the alternatives, as a way to calculate if their original preference is right vs the alternatives.

Cheapest place to save money in a film! When writing the script. Second cheapest: during extensive rehearsals. Yes, the opportunity to easily replace entire backgrounds, or add in whole new objects, all at a massively lower cost will be a big time change for indies.

What's your ratio of video to photo work? A convertor doesn't exist? https://www.amazon.com/Pixel-TF-334-Flash-Adapter-Converting/dp/B01LQ24CTA ?? Same! 🙂 I still own both of my GH1 bodies, although haven't used them in years

Still don't quite understand why you'd get a single Sony?? You do mainly video or stills? (rarely both at once?) What do you do then on a video shoot, Sony FX3 plus a Nikon body? On a stills shoot you'd never touch the Sony FX3 body? (unless in an emergency and you need to grab a backup due to one body failing. I guess that's why you wouldn't want to own only two bodies)

Agreed. They just had a bit different box capturing the photos and turning it into bits. The impression I got is that the way they filmed The Creator wasn't that massively different to how "traditional filmmaking" is done (which covers a very broad scope of productions! Yes, they were at one extreme of it, but they were still well within "traditional filmmaking". For instance, I worked on a micro budget short film shot on an ARRI ALEXA Mini, that the DoP wanted to shoot only at golden hour. So we would split our days to cover both. Was this unusual? Yes, but we still more or less were doing "traditional filmmaking". That's what The Creator also did, they did "traditional filmmaking" but with one or two twists of their own. It wasn't radically different though to the normal way we always do things) So if your argument is that we're going to see the split of production vs post budgets shift towards a ratio that's even more heavier towards post? Not sure if I agree with that. But I reckon as AI and other advances makes post ever more powerful, then we'll certainly see even "more" done in post vs on location on the day itself. (even if the ratio of the budget splits don't drastically shift from what is normal now) I could talk for hours about using AI and cameras in farming... lots of potential there! One of my recent uni compsci assignments I was writing about exactly this, using cameras + AI (to filter and interpret the vast amounts of data coming in from the dozens/hundreds of camera feeds) to improve farming efficiencies. You have good taste Sir in your YT watching, or rather the same as mine! haha I watched this video last night. Waiting eagerly for Part 2! Wanted to watch more videos done by "The Movie Rabbit Hole", but surprisingly that's the only video on his channel! He's got over twenty thousand subscribers just on the basis of that one video?? wow

Good point! It makes the question a little flawed perhaps. As while the total budget was vaguely within the low to maybe almost average-ish range for blockbuster film, the actual production budget itself (i.e. excluding post-production) was squarely within indie budget filmmaking land. Exactly! That's very much so what I've been saying all along. On this point though, we'll disagree. Especially if we go with the hybrid approach I suggest above, where the bulk is shot with ALEXA Minis, with BMD Pocket 6K Pros supplementing it. What change is really needed here at all? Upgrading a gimbal op to a steadicam op, and getting perhaps maybe one or two more ACs, and maybe another grip. Maybe. These are rounding errors in their overall budget. If they were shooting super ultra lightweight stripped down, with just Sony mirrorless cameras, relying up Sony's AF without any 1st ACs pulling focus, using the internal 4K 10bit and not external recorders, and not using any video transmitters etc either on their rigs, not using hefty anamorphic lenses, etc etc etc... then I think I agree with you! There would be a far too big a contrast between the way they shot vs ALEXA Minis. But that wasn't the way they did it, if you look at images of how for instance their FX3 shoulder rig was set up, then it isn't much of a leap to how a more minimal ALEXA Mini set up would be. It's not a gigantic leap of galaxy sized proportions, but rather a baby step up.

😆 😅 🤣😆😂 To be fair, I think people who have a hefty amount of exposure to cameras (maybe has done a one year diploma in filmmaking, or has worked as a background actor, or their brother is a photographer/videographer) can vaguely tell the difference between the top and bottom of each category. Canon T4i with a kit lenses vs Nikon D6 with a f2.8 zoom Or, a fairly barebones Pocket 4K rig vs a fully rigged up ALEXA I think for most people when they say "camera" they mean the entire rig. My IFB receiver I slap onto the camera rig is to them part of "the camera".

Yup, there are a lot of projects in both video and photography where if you have the references and/or body of work then they will assume you're capable of doing the job. Without needing any extra specifics beyond that. And while this true for both, I'd say this is more often true for photography than filmmaking. btw, this true for being a Sound Mixer too. Nobody gives a sh*t what's in my mixing bag, they just care about if you can do the job (easy! No problem for me) and if I'm a likable fellow to be around (ha, working on that... I'm a bit of an introvert) fun video! (and boy... he's really gotten older! I remember when he was just a kid, has been a while since I watched his videos) Was quite easy for me to immediately spot which lens was the "cheap" one. (I've got the same lens myself!) But it certainly highlights how much more difficult it is for "normal people" (and note... they're not even "normal people"! They're people in the film industry as well, just not in the Camera Dept. So they're still likely far more attuned to spotting differences in an image than truly average "normal people")

1) 😆 😅 🤣😆😂 2) why only a single Sony? Especially as you're open to using the FX30, and the FX30 is so cheap. Go for a FX3 and FX30 with each having a zoom lens covering what you wanted. For instance if I wanted insane range coverage I'd go with: Sony FX30 with a Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 G OSS Lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1502821-REG/sony_e_70_350mm_f_4_5_6_3_g.html Sony FX3 with a Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369442-REG/sony_sel24105g_fe_24_105mm_f_4_g.html But I guess you want less extreme reach, and more speed. If so, then: Sony FX30 with a Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD Lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1658158-REG/tamron_a058_35_150mm_f_f_2_2_8_di_iii.html FX3 with a Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 Di III VXD (or Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8, if you want extra wide, and don't mind having the gap of 35mm vs 50mm FF FoV when it comes to your FX3 vs FX30) https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1723545-REG/tamron_a062_20_40mm_f_2_8_di_iii.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1338516-REG/sony_sel1635gm_fe_16_35mm_f_2_8_gm.html

I agree, I say as I'm shaking my fist on my front porch, these spoiled young'uns don't know how good they've got it these days! Remember, the P4K shared its sensor with the Panasonic GH5S, which was itself a low light beast for its time (which seriously guys, wasn't that long ago!) Even the original Pocket was regarded as being "pretty good at low light" (for its time, and for a cinema camera). I shot part of a vampire feature film (we never completed it 😞 Was a very low budget thing, ran out of steam) with my OG Pocket + my SLR Magic 25mm f0.95 + a friend's borrowed Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 Fantastic setup for super low light situations! We'd shoot outdoors at night, with simply the full moon and some small handheld LED panels. I remember reading about a feature film shot a while ago with a RED Scarlet primarily, but all the night scenes were shot with an OG BMPCC instead because it did better low light than the RED!

Ha! I don't think anybody owns individually 3x Sony BURANOs But if you're part of a wide production, say just shooting a few days on a doco or coming in as an extra camera on reality tv series or doing a pick up day on a feature film, then yes, what camera you are using is very important. As you're just one small cog in a bigger machine. (maybe that's one of the big differences vs a lot of photography, there is no "machine". Or if there is, the photographer is a much bigger cog in the machine, or even more likely the driver of it) I'd say there is are two very different classes of DoP: Those who own a camera vs those who don't and just rent in the cameras for a project as is necessary. (although, anybody owning an ARRI ALEXA Mini kinda fits into that second category. Just the difference is whenever they want they can access "a free rental" of their Mini from the rental house where it is being stored. As they probably won't have it being stored at home, or at least that's been the case with people who I know who own one) And those in that first category are very much so are broken up into different tiers depending on what sort of camera they have. Side note: there are people in the second category who own a camera, but still sit in the "second category" because that's how they portray themselves and do most of their work as. Their RED Raven or Sony a7S or whatever that they own is merely just their play thing, and something to do occasional passion projects with. So even though they own "the same" camera as someone in category one, they're still in a very different position, as their personal camera isn't one they daily work with. It's almost more like their hobby camera.

I'm just pointing out it was a rather unique mix of reasons, such as the director being a major push for it, that the FX3 was chosen. It's certainly not going to be a common decision choice moving forward at all, as still 99% of the time people will prefer other higher end cameras instead. Due to the many downsides of the FX3, and the relatively small costs aspect vs others being rather irrelevant. Or to answer the subject title of this thread itself: "Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?" No.

Exactly, it wasn't a DoP lead decision to use a FX3

wow, they're filming FOUR HOURS of content per 10hr day (ref: 22 minute in) That's fast paced. Another note: 80 locations in Thailand 31-ish minutes in he highlights how he's very comfortable with ARRI and that's his preference, and he points out how even an ARRI ALEXA Mini package can shrink or grow in size. So it wouldn't be hard to shrink down the ALEXA Mini shooting package to match a similar shooting style as The Creator has. Shoot the vast bulk on an ARRI, and mix in a little bit from some other cameras. You could do say: 2x shoulder rigs for the ARRI Mini (easy to jump onto a tripod, or easyrig as well). 1x ARRI Mini full time setup for the steadicam 1x Blackmagic Pocket 6K Pro PL stripped down on a gimbal. 3x Blackmagic Pocket 6K Pro PL for crash cams etc 1x Blackmagic Pocket 6K Pro PL on a scissor crane (the poor man's technocrane, also, the vastly more portable "technocrane"!): Oren Soffer mentioned they used this (well, not this particular model! They probably used a much more expensive one). As it is massively more portable than a technocrane, which they couldn't even get into some locations they were shooting on.

tl:dw: "S5mk2 is slightly better, unless you want a system to grow into (or to work with others) then the FX30 wins slightly"

I think it does matter, but only at the very high end (which only exists in major cities, when shooting major campaigns for major brands). When they might expect certain medium format cameras. But I think Oh, and also matters if getting hired as a sports photographer for major sporting events. Then there is an expectation you'll have say a Nikon D6 or Sony A9mk3 (or at the very least an older generation high speed sports camera, nothing less than say a Nikon D3S or Nikon D500, just to give a couple of examples). Also, I guess at the low end too, but only when you're coming in as a second shooter say for weddings (or other event coverage), and the primary shooter really wants you to have the same brand (and probably similar-ish generation) as theirs. As they'll be doing all the edits for delivery to the bride, and they don't want to learn how to deal with yet another type of camera files. As they've got their speedy workflow dialed in perfectly for their particular camera model. If they're a Canon shooter, they want another Canon fanboy. No Nikons! (and likewise for Nikon shooters, they want another Nikon user) Indeed. There is a massive world of difference between a mirrorless camera owner vs Sony FX6 owner vs ALEXA Mini owner. Unless.. they're a DoP who is at the level where they don't even own a camera, this all gets handled by the rental house and their ACs.

HA!! They did five days of shooting with a Sony FX9, because it was completely impossible to shoot it with the Sony FX3. As the FX3 fails at the task. There are also a few shots in The Creator which was shot by the director himself on a Nikon mirrorless. (Oren Soffer, says the director used a "Nikon DSLR", but it's clearly obvious he got that wrong. And was just using "DSLR" as slang for a stills cameras. As he didn't mention exactly which one, but said "Z something", thus is must be a mirrorless camera if that is true. I'd hazard a guess it was a Nikon Z6 with external recording) Also it further confirms the FX3 was not the DoP's primary or even secondary choice (he'd never even heard of the FX3 before!), rather the FX3 choice was already a done decision. Before he even joined the project, the FX3 was "set in stone" (his words! And something that made him go "really??", that he had to "get over". His words! I reckon it's very easy to read between the lines, that if he'd come in earlier on in the process, that perhaps another camera would've been chosen. Such as the Sony FX6 being an obvious choice, a barely marginally bigger/heavier camera, but massively more capable on a film set. Or even a hybrid approach, with a mix of FX6/FX3 cameras on the film set. As listen to the interview, he clearly was badly missing SDI & TC & more!).

With the massive amount of free or low cost info online, not necessary to spend that much, or anything at all. Instead spend a more minimal amount on gear, put the rest in the bank, so then you have the financial flexibility that you can take on those more creative projects to push yourself and learn more. Indeed, nobody is putting up untouched images side by side, zoomed in, to compare against each other. That's not how the final product is presented to the consumer. Not necessarily so. I dunno what specific voltages they're using, but let's normalize it and presume you're talking about 0 or 1 If you get 0.6, what do you do? You say it was 1 But what if it was actually a 0? Error correction by definition won't be perfect. There are not enough atoms in the universe for that. All you can do is reduce down the odds so that it is low enough to be acceptable for your use cases. (two of my third year math papers were on error corrections! Well, that and other applications of graph theory and combinatorial mathematics, such as compression codecs. I took these: https://courseoutline.auckland.ac.nz/dco/course/MATHS/326 & https://courseoutline.auckland.ac.nz/dco/course/MATHS/328 That's basically what I did in my degree, Physics with an emphasis on electronics especially optoelectronics, plus also Mathematics which was a mix of more the Computer Science side of mathematics + Numerical Computing) Again I say, I feel "noise reduction" is bad terminology here. Be more precise, unlike Joel who was being sloppy. Are you meaning black shading calibration? That's not the same as noise reduction. Maybe the calibrations they do at the factory are in the analog domain, but what the user does in the field would definitely be in the digital domain. Deserved to be fired? Nah. Not necessarily. Depends on how well insulated and thus independent each pathway is from each other. Getting one error per hundred quadrillion? Nobody cares. One error in ten? Then yeah, go be fired, and then burn in the fires of hell. Everyone does that. Yup, buy older REDs for yourself. It makes as much sense as buying a Sony F35. Or a set of golf clubs. Or a Time Trail bike to race your local triathlon with. (oh hi me)

If you want even higher, there are lots of options with browser extensions if you want to go say 3x or 4x speed. For example: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/youtube-playback-speed-co/hdannnflhlmdablckfkjpleikpphncik/

I just watch everything on youtube at 2x speed 😉

Nobody else than BMD makes cameras which do braw internally. While ProRes is universal on just about everything at a certain level of production. Not just ARRI, even RED and Sony do it now. I'd say it's more because at anything above low budget level productions, then they'd rather not use external recorders in most cases.

I take the brutal business perspective from this: 99.99% of clients won't be able to tell the differences in which a RED MX (or Dragon) image is "better". (even assuming this is true... and not a placebo effect) But just about any modern low / mid range cinema camera will: 1) have better low light. (which means you can squeeze out an extra 30 minutes at the end of the day when you're sprinting against the dying sun. And you'll be able to use a lighting package which is half the size, which means lower costs and a faster moving production) 2) will be more reliable 3) more features So why get an old RED?? Also, 99% of clients won't want specifically an older RED. But what if you just want "a cinema camera" to impress them? (as appearances matter! You want them to feel special) For them, the bulk of those clients will be equally "impressed" with a Panasonic EVA1 / Sony PMW-F5 / URSA Mini / etc (or even a fully rigged out mirrorless!). And I'd take those in a heartbeat over an old RED. The demographic which owning "a RED" appeals to them are low/no budget music video directors and indie features. And there is no money in those, are those really clients you want to be targeting? My guess is that "noise reduction" isn't quite the exact term that should be used. In digital systems we tend to think of everything flying around as either zeros or ones. But that isn't quite true! (in a very abstract sense it is true, which is why we think about it like this, as it makes the world a lot easier to understand and to work with) In reality, it's different voltage levels which are being sent around, with one voltage level being "one" and the other being "zero". But what if you get a voltage that isn't either of those two voltage levels? (due to for instance crisscrossing paths resulting in some randomly rare interferences between them) Then you'll round it up/down to the nearest correct voltage level, and assume that is the signal that was meant to be sent. This might be what he's meaning by saying "noise reduction". It's very much the wrong terminology (unless you're thinking in a very abstract sense? Such as the final image. But we're not, we're discussing signal flow here), I'd call this error correction or signal conditioning. You have to remember that Joel has zero formal background in engineering/physics. He's got a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Film and Painting. (however, this is very much the area of physics I did at uni. One of my mates who was my lab partner way back in first year even, that we then went through uni together, actually has now been working for Apple for the past decade as one of their camera engineers) Never was. There are a lot of corrections / processing which it is better to do in camera. (for instance at the fundamental level, you're always going to be taking an analog input and transforming it into a digital output. Once you've done that, is it truly truly "raw"? haha)

FX6 is only large format (unless you drop down to HD). Unlike the FX9 which can switch between either LF or S35 mode. Anyway, I'm guessing OP isn't too bothered by sensor size, and prefer to focus more on capabilities/features and the image itself. Which is a similar attitude to what I'd have too when deciding upon my next camera. (although, I'd have a preference for S35! But if the perfect camera I want is only LF, then I'll just have to live with it. Such as the Sony FX6, or the next Blackmagic 6K cine camera, if they bring out a "Pro" version with both L Mount and internal NDs!) I agree, I bet a new C200/C300/C500 is just around the corner with an RF mount. And I'm betting out of those three, they'll probably have it be the C300 they update first to an RF Mount. Nope, not at all necessarily true.