Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?

[Andrew Reid]

Ah yes the democratic filmmaking movement of an $80m budget! The FX3 on this film is interesting but no revolution.

His main innovation (Edwards) is in CGI, he was doing it for a long time in TV at the BBC and knows how to get decent results with less people, less money. I will be interested to see how the FX3 image holds up on an IMAX screen as well. I can't seem to find anywhere confirmation of whether they shot 16bit raw to the Atomos or the internal codec? As the form factor of the FX3 as they rigged it up with wireless FF, big battery, external recorder, cine lens, matte box is a moot point. Smallest body they could find, but for no real utility.

In terms of the image, a number of alternatives to the FX3 exist too.

The S1H has better colour science and better resolution. The Sony a1 has better resolution and is better for run & gun bare bones indie filmmaking due to the built in EVF and the 8K 520Mb/s internal codec. The GFX 100 II would have got closer to the aesthetics of 65mm for IMAX and the Nikon Z9 would have looked great with internal RAW and again more resolution to play with than the 12 megapixel 4K on the FX3.

Was the movie shot anamorphic? How did they cope with the FX3's lack of anamorphic / open gate mode prior to the April 2023 firmware update?

[kye]

40 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Ah yes the democratic filmmaking movement of an $80m budget! The FX3 on this film is interesting but no revolution.

His main innovation (Edwards) is in CGI, he was doing it for a long time in TV at the BBC and knows how to get decent results with less people, less money. I will be interested to see how the FX3 image holds up on an IMAX screen as well. I can't seem to find anywhere confirmation of whether they shot 16bit raw to the Atomos or the internal codec? As the form factor of the FX3 as they rigged it up with wireless FF, big battery, external recorder, cine lens, matte box is a moot point. Smallest body they could find, but for no real utility.

In terms of the image, a number of alternatives to the FX3 exist too.

The S1H has better colour science and better resolution. The Sony a1 has better resolution and is better for run & gun bare bones indie filmmaking due to the built in EVF and the 8K 520Mb/s internal codec. The GFX 100 II would have got closer to the aesthetics of 65mm for IMAX and the Nikon Z9 would have looked great with internal RAW and again more resolution to play with than the 12 megapixel 4K on the FX3.

Was the movie shot anamorphic? How did they cope with the FX3's lack of anamorphic / open gate mode prior to the April 2023 firmware update?

I'm curious to hear how it holds up on an IMAX screen too - keep us informed.

The link that @ntblowz shared has lots of info:

• "the filmmakers use the Atomos Ninja V+ as an onboard ProRes Raw recorder"
• "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"

TBH, the choice of the FX3 could have been as simple (and uninformed) as simply being that they are aware of ARRI, RED, and Sony (through the Venice) and looked at their cine lineups to find the smallest cinema camera, but never evaluated Panasonic or Fuji because they were simply unaware of them.  
Sometimes a lot of these industry heavyweights can be just as dogmatic about their favourite brand and just as naive / hoodwinked by rumours / misunderstandings / marketing as the worst camera fanboys/fangirls online.

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I'm curious to hear how it holds up on an IMAX screen too - keep us informed.

The link that @ntblowz shared has lots of info:

• "the filmmakers use the Atomos Ninja V+ as an onboard ProRes Raw recorder"

16bit RAW -> ProRes RAW then? That is probably one of the main reasons it holds up so well with decent colour science as the RAW will pretty much bypass Sony's colour science in-camera.

2 hours ago, kye said:

• "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"

Do you know if the FX3 supported open gate or 4:3 anamorphic mode (AFAIK they added anamorphic mode, desqueeze only later)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2260102234/sony-adds-dci-4k-24-and-anamorphic-support-to-fx3-and-fx30

2 hours ago, kye said:

TBH, the choice of the FX3 could have been as simple (and uninformed) as simply being that they are aware of ARRI, RED, and Sony (through the Venice) and looked at their cine lineups to find the smallest cinema camera, but never evaluated Panasonic or Fuji because they were simply unaware of them.

Yeah maybe, although Canon has plenty of traction in rental, broadcast and in videography they're not up there with Sony, ARRI and RED at the top end of filmmaking. C700 was a big failure.

 

[MrSMW]

I’ve just ordered 68 units.

And a pig.

[Davide DB]

I just saw the film in a good theater. Not Imax but latest technology. 

I believe that, before continuing to puzzle over the whys and wherefores, one should see it 🙂

Long story short:

There is so much CGI that having Atlas Mercury and P+S Technik lenses AND a good DOP, the film could have been shot with a GH2 🙂

No Spoiler

The plot is not bad and the movie is not bad. IMHO if you like sci-fi, it deserves to be seen if only for not being yet another Marvel crap or third-hand Star Wars junk.

The script occasionally swerves but I can live with that.

There are scenes without CGI, of course but the cinematography is nothing much.

IMHO the real beauty are the CGI scenes and the worlds imagined by the designers. Some of the landscapes are really striking. The futuristic Nepalese Buddhist temples are outstanding. I haven't seen such fascinating landscapes since the second Blade Runner. They reminded me of some of the gems among the DUST channel shorts. By comparison, the sets of the various Star Wars spinoff series are South American soap operas.

Bottom line: perhaps we underestimate the quality that the cameras we keep in the drawer (in the right hands) can express.

[Davide DB]

18 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

IMHO the real beauty are the CGI scenes and the worlds imagined by the designers. Some of the landscapes are really striking. The futuristic Nepalese Buddhist temples are outstanding. I haven't seen such fascinating landscapes since the second Blade Runner. They reminded me of some of the gems among the DUST channel shorts. By comparison, the sets of the various Star Wars spinoff series are South American soap operas.

 

https://uproxx.com/movies/gareth-edwards-the-creator-visual-effects/

 

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, Davide DB said:

There are scenes without CGI, of course but the cinematography is nothing much. IMHO the real beauty are the CGI scenes and the worlds imagined by the designers.

I'm interested to see it too, will probably go this week in Berlin.

The camera did have the advantage of clean ISO 12,800 which allowed them to use more natural light on location and keep everything looking quite real, without huge lighting rigs needing to follow them around like a ball on chain.

How did the lenses hold up? Everything from shampoo commercials to music videos seem to be shot on anamorphic these days, and seemingly by people who don't know what they're doing, because a smudgy anamorphic often doesn't suit the advertising content they're making, it should look much cleaner. I'm beginning to feel the look is being devalued by overuse (and wrong use) so hopefully in The Creator they're going for the Blade Runner look and not just using them for fashion purposes!

[kye]

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

16bit RAW -> ProRes RAW then? That is probably one of the main reasons it holds up so well with decent colour science as the RAW will pretty much bypass Sony's colour science in-camera.

Do you know if the FX3 supported open gate or 4:3 anamorphic mode (AFAIK they added anamorphic mode, desqueeze only later)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2260102234/sony-adds-dci-4k-24-and-anamorphic-support-to-fx3-and-fx30

Yeah maybe, although Canon has plenty of traction in rental, broadcast and in videography they're not up there with Sony, ARRI and RED at the top end of filmmaking. C700 was a big failure.

Yeah, if you can bypass whatever the camera is doing and get the RAW straight off the sensor then it should be a good image.  Sony know how to make sensors, and the FX3 shouldn't overheat....

From the Atomos page on the FX3: https://www.atomos.com/compatible-cameras/sony-fx3

Quote

Output for Recording RAW 16-bit Linear RAW 

<snip>

4.2k Metadata Uncropped 4264 x 2408  Prores RAW

I never hear people in the pro forums talking about Canon, only ARRI / RED / Venice.

6 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I’ve just ordered 68 units.

And a pig.

Gotta shoot fast and get that IMAX image!

3 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Bottom line: perhaps we underestimate the quality that the cameras we keep in the drawer (in the right hands) can express.

Absolutely.  It's one of the reasons I am so frustrated, especially as now they've "unlocked" this quality via bolting on an external recorder instead of just giving us better internal codecs.  I mean, for goodness sake, just give us an internal downscale to 2.8K Prores HQ with a LOG curve and no other processing!

Even the tiny smartphone sensors look great in RAW.  Scale that up to MFT or S35 and imagine the quality we'd be getting from every camera!

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Everything from shampoo commercials to music videos seem to be shot on anamorphic these days, and seemingly by people who don't know what they're doing, because a smudgy anamorphic often doesn't suit the advertising content they're making, it should look much cleaner. I'm beginning to feel the look is being devalued by overuse (and wrong use) so hopefully in The Creator they're going for the Blade Runner look and not just using them for fashion purposes!

My favourite WanderingDP video explains everything...

 

[Emanuel]

7 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I’ve just ordered 68 units.

And a pig.

That one deserves a movie title... (EAG :- )

[kye]

8 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Bottom line: perhaps we underestimate the quality that the cameras we keep in the drawer (in the right hands) can express.

Ah, I just realised I mis-read your comment in my above reply as "the quality that the manufacturers keep in the drawer (through limiting their potential with too heavy-handed image processing and compression)".

You are right, of course, especially considering that the main reason people keep them in a drawer is because of their limited technical specifications, when realistically people have just gotten used to the latest technologies.  Most cameras we keep on shelves or in drawers are better than 16mm film, and that was what was used to shoot all but the highest budget TV shows and was used on a number of serious feature films too, like Black Swan (2010), Clerks (1994), El Mariachi (1992), The Hurt Locker (2008), Moonrise Kingdom (2012), The Wrestler (2008), etc etc..

I think the biggest problem is that people don't know how to colour grade, or don't know what is possible.  I mean, anyone with a Blackmagic camera that shoots RAW has enough image quality to make a feature.

Hell, if the movie Tangerine could be a success when shot on the iPhone 5S, then no-one has any excuses for not being able to write a movie that is within the creative limitations of their equipment.  Even a shitty webcam could be used to shoot a found-footage horror movie set in the days of analog camcorders!

[Davide DB]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

How did the lenses hold up?

I'm not a pro. On screen it is very pleasing. Many scenes shot at night or otherwise with a dark effect. Flares very very controlled compared to other films where the flash effect is almost sought.

Unfortunately, the weakest part is really the story. Trite concepts, dialogue that is at times impractical and some holes in the script. But visually it is really a joy to watch.

P.S.

At the end credits I discover that the soundtrack is by Zimmer. I didn't even realize there was an original soundtrack. The main theme is Debussy's Claire de lune and here and there are pop rock tunes by different artists.

For me, a gray-haired kid, remarkable is a scene with Apocalypse Now-style airborne assault troops with Radiohead's "everything is in the right place."

[sanveer]

They probably got like 30 cameras with lenses and accessories from Sony for the publicity. Maybe a few millions too, and studio help from Sony (CGI included?).

 

[kye]

1 hour ago, sanveer said:

They probably got like 30 cameras with lenses and accessories from Sony for the publicity. Maybe a few millions too, and studio help from Sony (CGI included?).

If true, that would definitely explain it.  It sounds quite plausible too.

[Davide DB]

This film is a 20th Century Studios > Disney production so Sony competitor. CGI is by ILM, Industrial Light & Magic, same owner.

[IronFilm]

On 10/1/2023 at 1:26 PM, ntblowz said:

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/

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.

  

22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can't seem to find anywhere confirmation of whether they shot 16bit raw to the Atomos or the internal codec?

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.

 

  

22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Was the movie shot anamorphic?

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

[Andrew Reid]

Something just doesn't stack up about the anamorphic

The FX3 has no anamorphic aspect ratios compatible with the use of 2x cinema anamorphic lenses.

It is only DCI and 16:9.

From https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/02/24/sony-fx3-announced/

"No anamorphic"

Just like the FX9, FX6, and a7S III, the FX3 isn’t capable of recording in any anamorphic modes. That is reserved for the VENICE.

"Below is what the camera is capable of outputting over HDMI:"

Raw 16-Bit
4.2K (4264 x 2408) up to 59.94p

4:2:2 10-Bit
UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p
Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 23.976p/50p/59.94p
Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 50i/59.94i

4:2:0 8-Bit
UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p
Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 23.976p/50p/59.94p
Full HD (1920 x 1080) at 50i/59.94i

Did something change and I missed it? Firmware update? Maybe Sony gave them one early?

[Davide DB]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

Did something change and I missed it? Firmware update? Maybe Sony gave them one early?

 

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/sony-fx3-and-fx30-get-anamorphic-de-squeeze-dci-4k-at-24fps-more/

 

[IronFilm]

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah maybe, although Canon has plenty of traction in rental, broadcast and in videography they're not up there with Sony, ARRI and RED at the top end of filmmaking. C700 was a big failure.

Exactly!

Many many DoPs might never have shot with a Canon camera since the era of the Canon C300mk1. 

10 hours ago, kye said:

I never hear people in the pro forums talking about Canon, only ARRI / RED / Venice.

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. 

 

4 hours ago, kye said:

Ah, I just realised I mis-read your comment in my above reply as "the quality that the manufacturers keep in the drawer (through limiting their potential with too heavy-handed image processing and compression)".

You are right, of course, especially considering that the main reason people keep them in a drawer is because of their limited technical specifications, when realistically people have just gotten used to the latest technologies.  Most cameras we keep on shelves or in drawers are better than 16mm film, and that was what was used to shoot all but the highest budget TV shows and was used on a number of serious feature films too, like Black Swan (2010), Clerks (1994), El Mariachi (1992), The Hurt Locker (2008), Moonrise Kingdom (2012), The Wrestler (2008), etc etc..

I think the biggest problem is that people don't know how to colour grade, or don't know what is possible.  I mean, anyone with a Blackmagic camera that shoots RAW has enough image quality to make a feature.

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!

4 hours ago, kye said:

Hell, if the movie Tangerine could be a success when sh

ot on the iPhone 5S, then no-one has any excuses for not being able to write a movie that is within the creative limitations of their equipment.  Even a shitty webcam could be used to shoot a found-footage horror movie set in the days of analog camcorders!

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. 

[Andrew Reid]

52 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

 

https://petapixel.com/2023/04/12/sony-fx3-and-fx30-get-anamorphic-de-squeeze-dci-4k-at-24fps-more/

 

This came out in April 2023 so after The Creator had finished shooting.

Also you can already do the desqueeze on the Atomos.

There is no 4:3 or 3:2 mode on the FX3, and using a 2x anamorphic on DCI 17:9 or 16:9 doesn't give you the correct aspect ratio for IMAX.

So did they crop the sides off, I wonder.

The other thing which doesn't stack up is that the FX3 shoots 23.976p, and not true 24p until that April firmware update. Another thing which makes it unsuited to IMAX or cinema.

So maybe they had 'special' units from Sony which did all this and more, way before any firmware update.

I bet Timecode was a struggle as well.

[MrSMW]

11 hours ago, Emanuel said:

That one deserves a movie title... (EAG :- )

I've just made a YouTube video 'Why I Am Switching' and it's because I am swapping the pig for a cow.

So I can make a moovie.