Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Do you think the FX3 is a consumer camera?

I'd say it is prosumer, it straddles the range across from consumer cameras to "pro" cameras. 

Just like how the Zoom F8n is a prosumer recorder. And the Sennheiser G4 is prosumer wireless. 

The Sony a7 series of cameras, are also prosumer cameras. 

[Kino]

On 10/7/2023 at 8:51 PM, kye said:

To be honest, the whole thing of this movie getting all this hype for being shot on an FX3 seems ridiculous.

I think on paper it sounds like this is an incredible thing where a big budget movie shot on a tiny cheap camera, which is the kind of story that makes people who can only shoot on tiny cheap cameras feel better, but it's not true.

Even if you have a tiny cheap camera, you don't have $72M to spend in post...  

.....and if you had $72M in post, you could have shot it on an EOS M using Magic Lantern and it would have looked almost as good (professional colourists and VFX artists are incredible - high-end work looks great mostly because of those, not the camera that was used).

The image isn't really that much better than other things

I mean, can you tell which of these below is the FX3, or the Venice 2, or the G9ii, or the R6ii, or the GH6?  It should be obvious right - the Venice 2 is something like $50K, and the G9ii and GH6 are consumer MFT cameras, and the FX3 should be easily identifiable, right?

 

Well, I couldn't resist a blind camera challenge.

This is the Venice 2:

The other cameras aren't bad, but this looks nice and creamy!

[IronFilm]

A little bit of discussion / speculation about audio gear used for The Creator: 

 https://www.reddit.com/r/LocationSound/comments/173p4da/the_creator_is_getting_a_lot_of_discord_over_the/

 

[kye]

28 minutes ago, Kino said:

Well, I couldn't resist a blind camera challenge.

This is the Venice 2:

The other cameras aren't bad, but this looks nice and creamy!

How'd you go with the other ones?

Did the FX3 stand out as vastly superior to the others?

[PPNS]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Do you think the FX3 is a consumer camera?

i guess prosumer is more correct, but its kind of an arbitrary distinction imo. its a technically ‘good video camera’ that you could buy in most camera stores for not that much money. Ive never had a pleasant time using it, but some people made a movie with it, so my opinion is irrelevant. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, PPNS said:

i guess prosumer is more correct, but its kind of an arbitrary distinction imo. its a technically ‘good video camera’ that you could buy in most camera stores for not that much money. Ive never had a pleasant time using it, but some people made a movie with it, so my opinion is irrelevant. 

I guess it's relative, but it seems like a ridiculous amount of money to me for a camera-body only.

If you're going to use it professionally then sure, but for anything other than that, it's hugely expensive.  By the time that you're adding in lenses to use with it, assuming you're using the AF and other fancy features that it has, it's starting to get ridiculous compared to other non-professional cameras.

Now, I'm not saying that other much cheaper non-professional cameras are just as good as the FX3, because they're missing things like external 16-bit RAW and people don't shoot feature films on them, etc..  but these aren't things that are really relevant to most non-professional users.

I see all these threads about these RAW shooting, FF, 6K or 8K cameras that body-only cost the same price as a reliable second-hand car, and I just think people here have lost touch with consumers.  I paid about USD$1600 for my XC10 and about the same for my GH5, obviously these were some time ago now, but those were serious amounts of money for a camera in my eyes, despite being on the camera forums, and it was more money than almost anyone I knew would even think about spending on a whole camera setup, let alone a body-only!

[PPNS]

I dont disagree with you either here kye, i think we’re both somewhat in a camp of having the most image quality for the money. i’m not entirely sure if i technically paid off my p4k, lenses, etc with freelance work for example.

 

at the same time, 10-15 years ago something like an fx3 seemed pretty crazy to imagine probably. I think the first bmcc came just out for slightly more money (without adjusting for inflation even)? 

[kye]

15 hours ago, PPNS said:

I dont disagree with you either here kye, i think we’re both somewhat in a camp of having the most image quality for the money. i’m not entirely sure if i technically paid off my p4k, lenses, etc with freelance work for example.

at the same time, 10-15 years ago something like an fx3 seemed pretty crazy to imagine probably. I think the first bmcc came just out for slightly more money (without adjusting for inflation even)? 

The BMCC 2.5K was $3K in 2012 does equate to being about the same as the FX3 now, including inflation, so that seems a good comparison although it quickly went down to $2K within a year.  Of course, they followed it up with the P2K a year or so later, which was one third the cost(!) and apart from being slightly lower in resolution was light-years ahead in basically every other way.

To continue the comparison, the BMCC was 2.5K to oversample for 2K/1080p delivery and apparently they collaborated with Arri to deliver ARRI PL-mount kits of it(!) so that's all very "professional".  The P2K was much more lower-end in comparison (auto-focus, consumer mount, pocketable, consumer batteries, consumer media, etc), so in this comparison the P2K is the prosumer camera and the BMCC is the completely professional one.

[PPNS]

damn completely misremembered that i guess. 

[IronFilm]

On 10/10/2023 at 9:06 PM, kye said:

I guess it's relative, but it seems like a ridiculous amount of money to me for a camera-body only.

Not really, compared to the FX3 is cheaper than almost any camera on productions that I would usually work on. 

For reference, this week I've been working days on a tv series shooting on 2x Panasonic Varicam 35 (yup, the big heavy one! Not the Varicam LT).

The previous production I worked on before this one, the DP was using a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro. And funnily enough, the previous DP before that was also using a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro! (the only two times this year though that I've worked with a Blackmagic camera, no other production has) 

Then the film before those, it was shot on an ARRI 35. 

Can't recall far enough back as to what it was on the production before that, all the various productions I'm on tend to all blur together. 

But I think so far this year the only times I've worked on a production using a camera "below" the URSA Mini Pro would be a little short film I helped out on for one day that was a total sh*t show, big time amateur hour, and they were using a Panasonic GH6. And I think that's it. I am scratching my brain searching for any time with say a mirrorless or a Blackmagic Pocket, but nope. Not this year, perhaps a few rare times last year or the year beforehand. 

That's why I call the FX3 "prosumer", it straddles the worlds of both consumer and pro worlds. Largely purchased by more consumer orientated purchasers, but also is a handy camera for a B / C Cam for pros (or A Cam for aspiring pros). Although, I haven't came across the FX3 being used for even that myself, just not the circles I'm moving in. However, I did do one day (again, it was just one day, because they were ultra micro budget) on an indie feature film shot entirely on a FX3 last year. 

Oh wait, I'm just remembering, there was a student short film I worked on which was shot with a Panasonic GH5! That might have been early this year? Or perhaps it was late last year. 

On 10/10/2023 at 9:06 PM, kye said:

I see all these threads about these RAW shooting, FF, 6K or 8K cameras 

I think you're missing the point here, at least that I've been making. 

For myself, I very rarely ever work on productions using a "FF" or 6K or 8K camera. 

Also, it's a bit unusual if they're shooting raw. 

And before this year, then the most common camera type I'd shoot with wouldn't even do 4K! 

[kye]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Not really, compared to the FX3 is cheaper than almost any camera on productions that I would usually work on. 

For reference, this week I've been working days on a tv series shooting on 2x Panasonic Varicam 35 (yup, the big heavy one! Not the Varicam LT).

The previous production I worked on before this one, the DP was using a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro. And funnily enough, the previous DP before that was also using a Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro! (the only two times this year though that I've worked with a Blackmagic camera, no other production has) 

Then the film before those, it was shot on an ARRI 35. 

Can't recall far enough back as to what it was on the production before that, all the various productions I'm on tend to all blur together. 

But I think so far this year the only times I've worked on a production using a camera "below" the URSA Mini Pro would be a little short film I helped out on for one day that was a total sh*t show, big time amateur hour, and they were using a Panasonic GH6. And I think that's it. I am scratching my brain searching for any time with say a mirrorless or a Blackmagic Pocket, but nope. Not this year, perhaps a few rare times last year or the year beforehand. 

That's why I call the FX3 "prosumer", it straddles the worlds of both consumer and pro worlds. Largely purchased by more consumer orientated purchasers, but also is a handy camera for a B / C Cam for pros (or A Cam for aspiring pros). Although, I haven't came across the FX3 being used for even that myself, just not the circles I'm moving in. However, I did do one day (again, it was just one day, because they were ultra micro budget) on an indie feature film shot entirely on a FX3 last year. 

Oh wait, I'm just remembering, there was a student short film I worked on which was shot with a Panasonic GH5! That might have been early this year? Or perhaps it was late last year. 

I think you're missing the point here, at least that I've been making. 

For myself, I very rarely ever work on productions using a "FF" or 6K or 8K camera. 

Also, it's a bit unusual if they're shooting raw. 

And before this year, then the most common camera type I'd shoot with wouldn't even do 4K! 

I'd suggest that the vast majority of professional work is too low budget to have you on set doing sound, so it's a segment of the market hidden from you.  For every film set with a professional sound person, there will be 10 or 100 solo videographers shooting weddings or corporate gigs or music videos etc, and something like an FX3 would be a good fit for them.

Not a lot of folks doing video for fun and using an FX3, or at least, a tiny percentage compared to the videography industry.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, kye said:

solo videographers shooting weddings or corporate gigs or music videos etc, and something like an FX3 would be a good fit for them.

That’s who I am ‘guessing’ is the market for the FX3.

I came very close myself, but went S5ii for various reasons.

It can’t hurt the X1000’s who have bought one or will be buying one just because of the caché that it was used on this movie.

Just as the S1H had the ‘honour’ of being the first full-frame mirrorless camera to be Netflix certified.

I did not buy one for that fact, but kind of low-key proud of it all the same.

Now if only I could get my hands on some 20k+ cine lenses, a crew and 90% of 80 mil and…

Or has that moment passed?

I suspect the next movie shot on a non-pro cam will be shot on the SjCAM twin lens zero marketing Go Pro rival from that thread the other day…

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I'd suggest that the vast majority of professional work is too low budget to have you on set doing sound, so it's a segment of the market hidden from you.  For every film set with a professional sound person, there will be 10 or 100 solo videographers shooting weddings or corporate gigs or music videos etc, and something like an FX3 would be a good fit for them.

Oh for sure, but we're in a thread talking about filmmaking to do with a recently released film. Thus I'm writing from the perspective of film sets (or tv sets).

As for going on a side tangent about corporate / weddings / music videos / etc... I think you'd be surprised by just how many of them are being shot with cameras that are at a higher level than a FX3. 

7 hours ago, kye said:

Not a lot of folks doing video for fun and using an FX3, or at least, a tiny percentage compared to the videography industry.

I think you underestimate those numbers.

It's just like with sales of stills cameras, there are likely far more hobbyists who were buying say a Nikon D5 than there are professional sports photographers buying a D5. 

[kye]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Oh for sure, but we're in a thread talking about filmmaking to do with a recently released film. Thus I'm writing from the perspective of film sets (or tv sets).

As for going on a side tangent about corporate / weddings / music videos / etc... I think you'd be surprised by just how many of them are being shot with cameras that are at a higher level than a FX3. 

I think you underestimate those numbers.

It's just like with sales of stills cameras, there are likely far more hobbyists who were buying say a Nikon D5 than there are professional sports photographers buying a D5. 

I have seen BTS videos showing YouTube channels being shot with multiple ARRI Amira cameras.  

There's a principle in economics that if there are X people who are willing to buy a product / service from you at $Y, there will be X/10 people willing to spend $Y*10 on something from you.  This is something that is mostly ignored by the retail market, but occasionally someone actually implements it.
The Oxfam shop has gift cards that you give someone as a gift, but the organisation uses the money as a donation.  These have been discontinued in the US shop, but the Australian shop has them ranging from $10 up to $300 (for a pack of 7 cards), and then they have one that's $2400-$8100.  Rich people often want to show off, so that is for them basically.  

So yeah, I get that there is a segment of people who want "the best video camera money can buy" and then when they get shown an Alexa 65 fully rigged they realise they want something smaller for one user, and then get shown the FX3.  If you can afford a brand new Porsche then you can afford one of these, and Porsche sells a bunch of cars each year.

BUT, going back to my original point, which seems to have gotten lost...  Even if there are a few rich folks shooting cat videos with it, I still don't think the FX3 at over $4000 (body/batteries/media) or $5000 (with lenses) is a "consumer" camera.  I actually don't think the percentage is high enough to even be a "prosumer" camera either, considering the number of professional solo operators who would have one (or three).

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, kye said:

So yeah, I get that there is a segment of people who want "the best video camera money can buy" and then when they get shown an Alexa 65 fully rigged they realise they want something smaller for one user, and then get shown the FX3.  If you can afford a brand new Porsche then you can afford one of these, and Porsche sells a bunch of cars each year.

1) you can't buy an ARRI ALEXA 65, it is a rental only

2) people that you have in mind (i.e. rich dentists / lawyers / trust fund kids / etc) generally are not shopping at the places which have an ARRI in stock. Rather than shopping at more typical photography stores, and wanting "the best" for filming from, and thus they walk out with an FX3. As that's "the best" the store has to offer. 

 

1 hour ago, kye said:

BUT, going back to my original point, which seems to have gotten lost...  Even if there are a few rich folks shooting cat videos with it, I still don't think the FX3 at over $4000 (body/batteries/media) or $5000 (with lenses) is a "consumer" camera.  I actually don't think the percentage is high enough to even be a "prosumer" camera either, considering the number of professional solo operators who would have one (or three).

Go browse photography forums, the number of casual buyers of say a Canon 1D series (or Nikon equivalent) is higher than you'd think. I'm sure similar-ish numbers get reflected for similar priced videographer/cine cameras too. 

[kye]

36 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

1) you can't buy an ARRI ALEXA 65, it is a rental only

2) people that you have in mind (i.e. rich dentists / lawyers / trust fund kids / etc) generally are not shopping at the places which have an ARRI in stock. Rather than shopping at more typical photography stores, and wanting "the best" for filming from, and thus they walk out with an FX3. As that's "the best" the store has to offer. 

 

Go browse photography forums, the number of casual buyers of say a Canon 1D series (or Nikon equivalent) is higher than you'd think. I'm sure similar-ish numbers get reflected for similar priced videographer/cine cameras too. 

Do photography stores have the FX3 and not FX6 etc?  I can understand they don't have the hire-only models, or the super high end stuff, which is order-only even at places like B&H.

I definitely agree with you about the number of casual shooters buying Canon 1D series cameras, and 5D before that, and have mentioned it many times here on the forums, but video was always a small percentage of the sales compared to stills photography, and even then if someone has a top-level stills camera from Canon or Nikon or Fuji etc those can all take very good video without needing to get an FX3, which is far from the best choice if you also take stills.

Do you really think the high-end video-only consumer market is as large as the high-end stills/hybrid consumer market is?

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

As for going on a side tangent about corporate / weddings / music videos / etc... I think you'd be surprised by just how many of them are being shot with cameras that are at a higher level than a FX3

Yep. Just the other day I did a rare photo only event because they already had a video guy booked.

He shot the entire day on a RED with I think Canon EF 24-70 but had a play with one of my S5ii’s and was very envious of the size, weight and AF.

Interestingly (to me anyway), I could see how limiting it was, forcing him to work to the camera’s tune rather than how he otherwise might if he could work 100% faster and in a more flexible and reactive manner.

Which does make me think that the right or best tool for the job is not necessarily the most expensive one…

FX3 over his RED every single day!

Making a movie or a doc or anything that is not an event, OK, that might allow/justify something more ‘pro’, but like the guy I know who shoots weddings purely at 28mm, I personally think there is something being lost in that choice.

Using that RED highlighted that to me.

If he likes it and his clients like the result and don’t know any different, fair enough, but nah, wouldn’t be for me.

[kye]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

Interestingly (to me anyway), I could see how limiting it was, forcing him to work to the camera’s tune rather than how he otherwise might if he could work 100% faster and in a more flexible and reactive manner.

That's how I have come to think about cinema cameras vs hybrids / video cameras - that cinema cameras expect you to work around them and hybrids are designed for the camera to work around you.  

It makes sense, considering that cinema cameras are designed to be on a controlled set where things are literally worked around the image, whereas hybrids don't expect that at all.  There are some overlaps, like cinema cameras starting to have AF and IBIS and other things that help speed things up, but those are exceptions.  There are also exceptions like stills cameras that are very manual and are designed for studio settings where everything is controlled, like fashion shoots with a Hassleblad for example.

Talking about that guy and his RED, it would be interesting to hear how he is able to ensure he has enough coverage - I'd expect that he probably directs the action more than someone who is able to react faster, and he's probably got a formula for which shots he knows he needs to get.  I got a bit of a peek behind the scenes with one of the top wedding photographers here in Perth maybe about 20 years ago (AUD$15K without prints - full package was brand new car territory) and he took the formal shots with the couple and his second shooter took other setups and also more candid shots (kids playing, people laughing, etc), but he took the same compositions in the same venues week after week after week - there was a great place where he could look straight down on a large group and I saw that composition with five different wedding parties in just a single fortnightly order from his printer.  He ended up leaving Perth a few years after that and moving overseas because he was just bored because it was so formulaic. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Do photography stores have the FX3 and not FX6 etc?  I can understand they don't have the hire-only models, or the super high end stuff, which is order-only even at places like B&H.

Yup, lots of smaller non-chain stores won't be carrying a FX6 in stock but might have a FX3 on the shelf. 

5 hours ago, kye said:

I definitely agree with you about the number of casual shooters buying Canon 1D series cameras, and 5D before that, and have mentioned it many times here on the forums, but video was always a small percentage of the sales compared to stills photography

Sure, and I'm not saying there are just as many sales of the video cameras as stills cameras. But just simply suggesting there is a broadly similar ratio of sales going on here with prosumer cameras (which in the case of stills cameras, means the likes of say Nikon D7500 or Nikon D610. Which certainly had more sales to consumers than professionals), that more sales (or at least, a very large chunk of them) go to consumers vs professionals. 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Talking about that guy and his RED, it would be interesting to hear how he is able to ensure he has enough coverage - I'd expect that he probably directs the action more than someone who is able to react faster, and he's probably got a formula for which shots he knows he needs to get.

He basically doesn't direct anything at all other than some couple stuff and that after the photographer (in this instance, me) has finished after jumping in on my directed stuff as I did with his.

Otherwise, longer (much longer than I would) semi-static stuff. Really leaves big holes only using one camera for the ceremony because all the times you are moving = zero footage so it (movement) can only happen before or after any reading or vows or anything.

Absolutely impossible to produce anything full length as a result but maybe his clients want that?

I split my own video work into an extensive highlights production of typically 7-12 minutes and the (cost) option of additional full length ceremony and speeches.

He's leaving money on the table not having a second static rolling all the time camera doing this but told me the reason was, he could not operate 2 cameras without having a second person on the job.

Well maybe he can't but I can whilst also photographing the wedding. It's not that easy, but it's not rocket science either...

2 hours ago, kye said:

That's how I have come to think about cinema cameras vs hybrids / video cameras - that cinema cameras expect you to work around them and hybrids are designed for the camera to work around you.  

It makes sense, considering that cinema cameras are designed to be on a controlled set where things are literally worked around the image, whereas hybrids don't expect that at all.  There are some overlaps, like cinema cameras starting to have AF and IBIS and other things that help speed things up, but those are exceptions.

But yes and we're beginning to see more dedicated 'cinema cameras' that can offer the potential of a higher starting point with such features as IBIS and AF. Doesn't the new Sony Burrito offer this? At 20k+ or whatever it costs...

Maybe some folks can justify that or milk the cache at certain levels but it comes down to that salient point of how many people will actually notice and can you justify the cost?

I looked recently at medium format. The Hassie X2D to be precise and whilst I could build a business case, it's not the strongest financial case that ever existed and my accountant would disagree and be correct to do so.

Sometimes, it's more than just about the bald figures though...which is why I just canceled the canceled Nikon Zf order...but now instead of waiting until the 12th...ie, what would have been today, I have to wait until 17-19th.