JulioD

You proved it. You said you loved Titanic because it was shot HFR. It wasn’t. That’s makes all your arguments invalid really. 24FPS isn’t going anywhere.

Sorry, my above post was meant to be responding to this one.

Now there is a dud camera. Sure the sensor is nice, but it’s horrible horrible to use and that’s why it failed.

The director himself went back on HFR. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/13/peter-jackson-48fps-tone-down-hobbit-desolation-smaug-hd “Peter Jackson says he has toned down the higher frame rate version of Hobbit sequel The Desolation of Smaug following complaints from audiences and critics about the sharp look of its predecessor.” When the director does an about face and has to talk about a technology component to a piece of entertain,meant, yeah that’s a disaster. That’s because HFR was UNIVERSALLY disliked. https://www.vulture.com/2012/12/critics-on-the-hobbits-high-frame-rate.html# And whole articles have been written about the HFR reaction. You may think HFR is the “future” but you’re in a small minority that like HFR for drama. Good for you.

Maybe you should lead with that instead of making troll-baiting posts with a title of “24p is outdated”. You can’t even tell when watching the difference between 24P and HFR. It’s an objectively wrong statement. End of story.

OK You just screwed your own argument. Titanic was photographed at good old 24 FPS. You can’t even tell. Maybe just turn the fluid motion feature on your TV on and be happy. Avatar is a 3D cartoon. Perfect for hyper realism. Great use of HFR for that specific story telling example. Hobbit was a disaster. So much that they CHANGED the approach back for subsequent films. You’re alone in this opinion.

Couldn’t edit in time. I am not convinced this will succeed by the way. They’ll be lucky to sell more than 100 of them. But it is unique. And niche. And that niche pays.

It’s built for rental. It has a video split. No s8 camera that I know of has ever had one. c mount interchangeable lenses. Not many had that either. That means commercials. And music videos. Commercials and music videos are the life blood of camera rental companies. Thats exactly where this camera lives. And the types of clients that can pay for it.

It’s my view that 24 FPS is the goldilocks temporal resolution for listening to a story. Realism?? Give me a break. What’s realistic about a Death Star? Human beings are story tellers. Religion is stories. Sitting around a fire telling stories, making sense of the world is what we do that makes us human. Representation. Not realism.

Nah it looks like crap. What’s dated is that this keeps coming up as being an issue that needs to change, that only dinosaurs shoot 24 and we’re all out of touch blah blah. This argument is decades old now and guess what? The audience knows. So far it hasn’t worked in a cinema. Many have tried. Many have spent a lot of money. AUDIENCES don’t want it for DRAMA. You may delude yourself that your YouTube channel is empirical evidence of HFR take up but let me know when I can go watch a MOVIE of your YouTube channel in a CINEMA and I’ll let you know if it’s filmic. If HFR really really truely was better the audience would know. We have had HFR for DECADES with gaming, a whole generation that SHOULD prefer it but they freakin don’t. Theres nothing at all stopping you making a killing with your HFR on YouTube right now. Make a movie for YouTube and let us know how it goes.

...

I’m not sure what you mean? Ive come to the conclusion that more resolution in this case makes the camera more transparent. You don’t see the tech you just have a more subtle beautiful result. I’ve had make up artists freak out and it actually has the opposite effect. It looks beautiful in close ups. I’ve shot Oscar winning older ladies with it, and it actually helps rather than hinders. If a sensor is a grid of photosites, having more density means you see and feel the grid less. Super sampling is real. Everytime someone make this kind of comment I have to ask, have you actually used it and shot with it? Because mostly they haven’t. Maybe you have? It’s not just about it being 12k. That’s like…a side effect. The sensor has some serious color magic. I wish it did ProRes and I have had to buy an OLPF. like any camera it has its downsides. Bit it’s hard to beat for image beauty and color separation

Yeah unless you really need ProRes, the 12K is better supported. I had a G2 for a long time but they left so much stuff off. Can't even do dual card.

I shoot the 12K a lot and the funny thing is that you can shoot 1 hour of 12K for about 1TB. Think about that. That's the same as shooting an hour of Arri RAW at 4.6K. BRAW is an amazing codec in that regard, and the damn files playback on very old machines no problem.

We’re going around in circles. It’s not just the weight difference, which is by the way 40% heavier. It’s how it balances (if it even would) on the freakin custom ronin rig they wanted to use with the specific lenses they chose. I dunno why you want to keep pretending they aren’t real and valid reasons to not use your precious FX6 or Alexa mini. Maybe if you’re a DP with Garth one day you can convince him to make a different choice.

I've said it before. The camera was chosen because it was part of the directors on-set process. You're all trying to say how you would have done it with an Alexa. But you didn't. It couldn't have been done. Not with the lenses they chose, the way they wanted to light, and the METHODOLOGY they wanted to shoot with using a hybrid gimbal handheld rig. No way are you hand holding an Alexa mini LF on a gimbal for 30 mins. Maybe with a rig sure I hear you say, but then it's DIFFERENT because the camera is a different height, it's not going into the same positions you can go with a hand held should rig. I'm surprised that creatives like you all don't understand this simple idea... The Director chose a certain way to work. This was the only tool that could work the way the director wanted. You keep saying a different camera could be used when it was not really as feasible. "The FX3 was chosen as an extension of the methodology director Gareth Edwards was interested in fostering on the film. In an effort to embrace an immersive, authentic filmmaking approach, and inspired by Gareth's approach in making his first feature film Monsters, we sought out a very small and lightweight camera that still provided a robust image for post-production and visual effects purposes, and that could be paired with a Ronin RS2 gimbal to be operated for extended takes and with massive flexibility and freedom to move around a location and react spontaneously to what the actors were doing, or to something happening just outside of frame Gareth would catch out of the corner of his eye. One of the unique things about this film is that Gareth operated the camera himself in order to be able to react in real time to spontaneous occurrences on set and would often shoot 30-minute extended takes with the actors, going over actions a few times and discovering different angles and approaches to playing and covering a scene in the moment with them, like a kind of dance."

That not your choice my guy. they wanted to shoot with 135 format anamophic lenses. It’s like saying Dark Knight could have shot S35 and didn’t need all that imax.

No. Full frame Anamorphic on a unique inverted hand held prosumer gimbal? Not going to happen. None of those cameras do it. The full frame 6K wasn’t dropped till just now. Alexa mini LF can be made small, but they aren’t THAT small and you still have to power them with some giant umbilical cord and it would never balance with full frame Anamorphics on that gimbal. Stop saying that it’s the same when it is no where near the same.

So very painfully true!!!

The problem is that the question is wrong. It’s not a blockbuster. The cost of production was more indie. I’ve seen numbers like 7 million. The rest of the headline budget cost was in post. This is a very specific scenario with a particular methodology of a particular director. The real question is, could they have gotten the same results using a more conventional approach. I think the answer is no.

Err..well maybe it was the director with the original DP? And Oren signed up for it as a condition of employment. I’m not sure why you have such a problem with the choice, you keep saying it should have been something else. There are so many reasons why they made the choice. You might not agree with why but THEY made the choice and you don’t know all the thinking that went into that choice

The director Garth Davis is well known for operating on his own films. The decision was likely made by you know...the director. And his long time collaborator Greig Fraser ACS ASC who knows a bit about making nice pictures. Greig had to leave to do Dune and so Oren inherited the choices already made. Likely he would have known them before committing to replace Greig.

And I think they’re fine with that because they seem to be selling tens of thousands of cameras so they don’t really need to care about wider adoption.

Totally agree. Avoid at all costs.

Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just talking about the way BMD see it. They are known for how good their color science is, and now workflow, especially on their own cameras. I mean most of the best looking images shot on other cameras are still going through Resolve for final color. They made a great codec that works on even the oldest computers. BRAW 12K plays back faster than 4K ProRes even on Mac. Don’t kid yourself that 4K or 2K delivery means you only need 4K acquisition. Because right now you can shoot 12K BRAW for a SIMILAR file size as ProRes 4K. So why bother with a legacy codec. If you are BMD why would you bother supporting a legacy codec anymore. It’s not just KINDA supported. The only KINDA supported is FCP. In everything else BRAW works, especially the big boys like AVID. And until recently the ONLY way to shoot ProRes RAW internally is on a Nikon. I’m not sure that problem has been solved yet either. You’re currently FORCED to use an external recorder to record PRR. And from what I understand, PRR won’t easily support the higher resolutions like 12K because the file size is then massive. It can’t scale up. And before you say I don’t need 12K, again, with BRAW it can be a similar file size to 4K ProRes BUT you get the super sampling advantages. I’m not saying that’s what everyone actually wants, but think about it from BM’s perspective. They made an awesome raw(ish) codec that plays back on any computer often faster than 4K ProRes, in most editorial and finishing systems that can handle and scale to higher resolutions with no real file size cost. It could be implemented by other manufacturers if they wished, but they’d be happy just using it for their own eco system anyway. I think the main reason that people aren’t using BRAW more on other cameras is that they don’t like the recorders that Blackmagic make, not because they don’t want BRAW.