IronFilm

Exactly, any minor slight arguments in favor of the FX3 being their main/only camera is totally irrelevant once you look into how they were actually using the FX3! (for instance, always with an Atomos recorder and two timecode boxes on it, etc etc etc) In my opinion, they should have used half a dozen or so FX6 bodies with maybe a couple or so FX3 bodies for the very niche uses of crash cam / drone camera. (although it appears they used GoPros as well??? Again, I'd lean towards choosing a Sony RX0 mk2 instead... you can get s-log with 4K 10bit 422 files out of it, with a S16 sized sensor) Or $8M to spend on the production itself during filming. Interesting, the Cam Op isn't even using the Atomos as a monitor! But has added a SmallHD as his monitor for operating with.

well, that's a lie, it's not 2x the weight difference between the stripped down FX6 and the stripped down FX3 When he gets that wrong, how much do you trust this is the truth as to the reasoning behind what he's saying now? Or maybe he's too just part of the marketing aspect of this film, "we're so special and uniquely innovative". And Tentacles as well: "An Audio Timecode was added by connecting Tentacles to the FX3 to match all the metadata." You can see an old original Gen1 Tentacle here: There is a Betso SBOX-1N timecode box there too?? With a cable from a USO on it.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/the-creator-budget-gareth-edwards-1235609000/ "...if you take the Excel document for a Hollywood blockbuster and start deleting zeros, you’re going to find you’re crippled really fast and you can’t really do anything and you’ll be complaining the entire time. But if you take the indie movie Excel document and start adding zeros, it’s the most liberating thing in the world."

This AC is a big fan of the Deity slate!

Could have been someone on the Panasonic size pushing for it, or it could have been someone shooting a Netflix production with a Varicam LT who wanted a good C Cam / crashcam to use alongside their Varicams.

I'm eagerly awaiting the Sony GX3

Exactly! Many many DoPs might never have shot with a Canon camera since the era of the Canon C300mk1. I feel like even Blackmagic gets talked about more than Canon! As they're now the default go to for low/no budget filmmaking recommendations. Not just 16mm film, but consider how many productions got shot on a Sony PMW-EX3 or Panasonic AJ-HDC27 or Sony HDW-F900 Cameras. (or many other similar such cameras) https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900r-camera https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900-camera https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/panasonic-aj-hdc27-varicam-camera https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-pmw-ex3-camera And all of us have "better" cameras at home than those! Keep in mind that Tangerine had easily at least $50K+ of sound gear being used. And probably easily double that in terms of lighting gear.

Give us a livestream! ha I want a brown retro case for my Fujifilm X-A3 too! Lost the case one night while out drinking, but phew, didn't lose the camera itself!!

I'd guess it might be more likely there often needs to be first a push from a creative team (director/DP/producer) to get Netflix to add something to the list? And nobody has been pushing for the FX30 just yet to be added?

Least anybody thought they were insane enough to shoot with 8 cameras all at once, I was relieved to read: 8 Cameras At The Ready I have heard this before, and it is a reminder that most film productions have a handful of cameras pre-rigged and ready at a moment’s notice. The philosophy I like to remember is that no one likes to wait on camera. Oren and the team made sure to have all their options open when shooting with eight different cameras in different configurations. Some configurations were a Drone, Crane, Shoulder Rig, Gimbal Rig, and even a barebones rig ready to capture anything needed at a moment’s notice. Also from the same article: ProRes Raw While the Sony FX3 is a powerful camera, its internal codec was not quite as robust as the team required. In order to get the most out of the FX3, the filmmakers use the Atomos Ninja V+ as an onboard ProRes Raw recorder. To capture the best bit depth, color and dynamic range out of the FX3, the ProRes Raw option seems to be the best option for an $80,000,000 sci-fi feature film. Yes it was: So, what was the lens used the most often on “The Creator?” The 75mm Kowa 2x anamorphic lens with a prototype of the Atlas Mercury 42mm as a backup for the small spaces where the 75mm was too tight. Think interior car scenes for the 42mm. Lenses provided by Keslow Camera

What a weird and wild "hybrid camera"!! (with a totally different meaning of the word "hybrid" than we normally use with cameras) You mean a MFT to L adapter. And sadly the mount flange depths means it won't work 😞 I was meaning the Netflix list. Edit: Yes!

Ummm... that seems too crazy cheap for a matte box setup from ARRI? I mean, you could go with just the matte box and nothing else: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1288783-REG/arri_k2_66124_0_mmb_2_mini_matte_box.html But that kinda defeats the purpose of having one? You need more. A basic setup (using smaller / cheaper 4x5 filters, not the 6x6 filters. And skinny 15mm rails, not standard studio 19mm rails) is five and a half grand: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1341045-REG/arri_kk_0015177_lmb_4x5_pro_set.html Going for 6x6 filters and 19mm rails means over seven grand: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1438561-REG/arri_kk_0020233_lmb_6x6_pro_19mm.html Strangely the FX30 is not (yet??) on that list??

And I'm sad about that! 😞 Even my first ever digital stills camera (the cheapie Nikon D50) had a top display! It's a big reason to go for a bigger body, to have the space for all that extra info to be displayed to you. To be fair... we even can be extremely judgmental about the many moronic/weird design design decisions that ARRI cameras have had! To give a couple of quick examples: the dumb locations for the TC and Audio inputs on the ALEXA Mini They'd only need to add TC support to it? There is nothing else major that it is missing? Panasonic BGH1 is on the list! (but I wonder why S1H, GH5S, and GH6 isn't on the list???) Hmmm... none of the Blackmagic Pockets are on the list either! 😕 https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-Image-Capture-Requirements-and-Best-Practices#h_01G6KEYFG76GRKVMJS382H5638 Oh wait... its recording bit rates are too low? The specs say: 4096 x 2160 at 23.98/24.00/25/29.97/47.95/50/59.94/100/120 fps [150 to 600 Mb/s] Netflix says: Data Rate Minimum 240Mbps at 24FPS When you view it as something be to used for Birding / Sports photography with big chunky telephoto lenses such the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f/4-6.3 ASPH. POWER O.IS., then the bulky G9 size kinda makes sense. I worry less about the G9's size, and worry more about the fact that the GX/GM/GF series hasn't been properly updated in donkey years (and that the G series seems to have lost its way). Having a big beefy G9mk2 is less of an issue if we're spoiled for choice with plenty of portable / compact little cute cameras for street photography / gig photography / casual shooting / tourist snaps / hiking / etc

What's the odds of him wanting to exclusively shoot such a production with BMMCC? And to ditch the URSA Mini completely. The odds would be between minimal to nil.

Is that a fair comparison though, what battery is this being included in the weight? The BP-U60 or even the BP-U90? If instead of that you use the little small BP-U30? That would be a much lighter setup! The battery options for the FX6 is a benefit of the FX6. It's easy to have a long running setup (use the BP-U90) or a lightweight setup (use the BP-U30). While the FX3 either has a puny small internal battery, or a rather awkward rig (definitely worse than a FX6!) with a V Lock battery.

Even though the average movie goer (or even the average movie reviewer) doesn't know what "a Sony FX3" is, this still helps them massively create this underdog story of we're this plucky independent-ish film going our own way, doing things in our own manner, and we're not like those big studio films that some people are getting turned off by.

It's not just about the extra buttons for speedier usage, it is also about the tonnes of extra features that makes life easier: TC Built in ND filters Multiple (independent!) outputs SDI output(s) etc etc etc etc Eh, I've been working since last week on a fairly "uncontrolled set" (man, I wish I had more control over the racket being made! Too much noise) and this camera is "rigged up" that we're using (if anything, this is a more minimalistic setup for itself currently, as it is stripped down for the ever suffering Steadicam Op): It's only 250gm difference between a FX6 and FX3 body, so the difference would often be not even close to as much as 25% between the two rigs.

It's about practical ease of use and that the cost difference between a low end cinema camera and a stills / consumer camera is very low in the grand scheme of things. Think about Monsters for instance that Gareth Edwards made beforehand, if there had been a soccer mum's handycam with "the same sensor" as the Sony EX3, do you think he'd have shot with that instead?? Of course not!! Likewise, I struggle to understand why a person would willingly choose a FX3 over say a FX6/FX9/Burano if they're shooting even a modestly funded feature film (unless it is some very niche scenario. Such as "a marketing gimmick"??)

A damn bargain indeed for sure! You can buy an entire set and still have plenty of change left over vs buying a single Cooke Anamorphic

My bad! It's not a set of Panavision lenses we're currently using, it's Cooke Anamorphics:

You're talking about Gareth Edward's 2010 film "Monsters". That was of course not shot on a Sony FX3. It was shot on a Sony though! But a Sony PMW-EX3 (with a Letus Ultimate adapter and some Nikon SLR lenses). I'd say the modern day equivalent of that is the Sony FX6 or FX9. (even the FX9 is cheaper than the EX3 was!)

I'd be more interested to learn more detailed breakdowns about any breakthrough indie film shot for sub £1M (or heck, go even lower, a quarter of that amount! Or merely a tenth??). No matter what the camera is that it was shot on, be it an OG BMPCC or an ARRI ALEXA 35. As I feel the camera itself is fairly irrelevant vs the overall approach taken to budgeting / scheduling / crewing / etc Sure, it could be made cheaper today. (as film stock now doesn't have to be purchased) But... 1) odds of success (a positive ROI) is waaay lower, because the competition now is much stiffer 2) because of the previous point, you have to make the film to an even higher standard. (which costs more!) I feel that you're massively underestimating the big cost savings from shooting on a sound stage.

Thanks for sharing! I checked it out, I hadn't heard of that before (although of course knew about his later films). Keep in mind, he made this for "a million quid". Which in today's money means over £2M

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. Camera gear is shockingly cheap to rent. I'm working on a low budget / self funded short film right now, which is using an ALEXA 35 with Panavision anamorphics. You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky, like when people want to be able to say we "shot it on an iPhone" purely for the sake of the marketing aspects for driving the film out there to be seen by the audiences. After all, would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead?