Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

Sony FX3, Atlas Mercury and P+S Technik Evolution Lenses (source: IMDB)

Those lens are 'only' 10k each. Probably makes a difference 😉

[IronFilm]

On 9/24/2023 at 12:27 AM, IronFilm said:

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? 

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

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Those lens are 'only' 10k each. Probably makes a difference 😉

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

[IronFilm]

18 hours ago, ntblowz said:

I dunno why you so hung up on it need to be cinema camera.. at least the sensor is the same right lol 😆 

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"??)

[ntblowz]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

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"??)

Well it will be a $80millon marketing gimmick in the making.

But I m sure manufacturer won't be too happy too cause who is going to buy their expensive camera when $3000 one does the job 😆

[Django]

Yeah when the first rumours of this project being shot on an FX3 came out that was my initial reaction, that this was more of a marketing promo angle. But after reading that article it seems like the directors ethos for this was to see how far down he could go "leaning on a new wave of affordable, lightweight filmmaking technology — Edwards stripped everything down to its essentials to inject more spontaneity and creative freedom into a process that felt needlessly rigid."

Doesn't seem like it was so much a budget choice but more likely compact lightweight oriented. and while the FX6/FX9 aren't huge, once they get rigged up with V-mount, follow-focus, monitor, cine lens, matte box, wireless transmitters etc.. they aren't really super handheld anymore. I mean here is the FX3 fully rigged up and its not exactly compact at that point:

[Davide DB]

30 minutes ago, Django said:

I mean here is the FX3 fully rigged up and its not exactly compact at that point:

Yes.

From some BTS photos it seems they even went lighter than that

https://www.provideocoalition.com/did-the-creator-use-the-sony-fx3-as-an-a-camera/

 

[IronFilm]

On 9/25/2023 at 3:24 PM, kye said:

I think I understand where @IronFilm is coming from - the advantage of a larger body is that you get dedicated buttons and other things that are useful on set.  Think about it, if there was no use for something then they wouldn't add it to the camera, regardless of how large they were allowed to make it.

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 

On 9/25/2023 at 3:24 PM, kye said:

On a controlled set you'd imagine that they'd have a proper cinema lens with remote follow-focus etc attached, matte box, v-mount power, monitor, and the whole thing would be rigged appropriately.  

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):

 

 

On 9/25/2023 at 3:24 PM, kye said:

By the time you add all that then the difference between an FX3 and FX6 is maybe only an extra 25% to the size of the whole rig.

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.

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Well it will be a $80millon marketing gimmick in the making.

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. 

[ntblowz]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

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.

You are quoting without battery, with the big battery it weighs a lot.

[ntblowz]

Let look at their minimum setup

I see fx3 with atomos ninja v and npf battery, this setup will be around 1.25kg 

 

Vs 

Fx6 with battery will be 1.34kg already, add the same ninja v setup will be 1.9kg

So that is 50% more weight already.

[kye]

16 hours ago, Django said:

Yeah when the first rumours of this project being shot on an FX3 came out that was my initial reaction, that this was more of a marketing promo angle. But after reading that article it seems like the directors ethos for this was to see how far down he could go "leaning on a new wave of affordable, lightweight filmmaking technology — Edwards stripped everything down to its essentials to inject more spontaneity and creative freedom into a process that felt needlessly rigid."

Doesn't seem like it was so much a budget choice but more likely compact lightweight oriented. and while the FX6/FX9 aren't huge, once they get rigged up with V-mount, follow-focus, monitor, cine lens, matte box, wireless transmitters etc.. they aren't really super handheld anymore. I mean here is the FX3 fully rigged up and its not exactly compact at that point:

I'm reminded of the comments from @John Brawley talking about how he used a super-minimal setup based on the BMMCC when shooting The Resident.

Obviously these are all completely controlled sets with lighting etc all dialled in, so external shots out in the world would need a bit more rig perhaps.

John spoke about how the size of the rig allowed him to get much closer to the actors like you see with him holding it out in front literally between the actors, which would have been a different equation had it been bigger / heavier.

 

[fuzzynormal]

It's a "no excuses" filmmaking world now.  Obviously the new tools basically mean that creative folks can make studio level cinema.  

For instance, there are super-talented colleagues in my town that have made feature films on their own with pretty much zero crew.  Their latest is a wild and lovely silly movie, but it's better than most things out there and looks just as good.  

Literally made on 1% of a studio budget.

https://www.heavenofhorror.com/reviews/the-island-of-lost-girls-2022-fantasia/

[kye]

23 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

It's a "no excuses" filmmaking world now.  Obviously the new tools basically mean that creative folks can make studio level cinema.  

For instance, there are super-talented colleagues in my town that have made feature films on their own with pretty much zero crew.  Their latest is a wild and lovely silly movie, but it's better than most things out there and looks just as good.  

Literally made on 1% of a studio budget.

https://www.heavenofhorror.com/reviews/the-island-of-lost-girls-2022-fantasia/

It has been for over a decade.  No-one who tries and fails to make a film did so because of equipment limitations, unless they're trying to shoot a film about deep diving in acid or some other extreme environment.

Film-making is hard, but saying you couldn't make the film you wanted because of the camera is the same as saying you can't make it because you couldn't find the right shoes!

[kye]

26 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

It's a "no excuses" filmmaking world now.  Obviously the new tools basically mean that creative folks can make studio level cinema.  

For instance, there are super-talented colleagues in my town that have made feature films on their own with pretty much zero crew.  Their latest is a wild and lovely silly movie, but it's better than most things out there and looks just as good.  

Literally made on 1% of a studio budget.

https://www.heavenofhorror.com/reviews/the-island-of-lost-girls-2022-fantasia/

Once again, I'm reminded of Noam Kroll and how, with the right attitude, you can get out there and make things happen.

[IronFilm]

18 hours ago, ntblowz said:

You are quoting without battery, with the big battery it weighs a lot.

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. 

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, kye said:

I'm reminded of the comments from @John Brawley talking about how he used a super-minimal setup based on the BMMCC when shooting The Resident.

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. 

[kye]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

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. 

Obviously.  No-one was saying that though.

[A_Urquhart]

Some good info here

 

 

[ntblowz]

FX9 was used for shooting in those led wall for sync, on location is pure FX3 ( up to 8 of them)

 

https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-frame-the-creator-co-dp-oren-soffer/