Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?

[kye]

15 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

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...

Yeah, I agree that it's a strange approach.  As someone who is a solo shooter of uncontrolled situations, in the rare moments I get a simultaneous second angle on something it's an incredible difference in the edit - even if in my case it's a second mobile phone!

It sounds to me like they're more focused around the equipment / process rather than the film, with an attitude of "I work in this way therefore I can only capture a certain amount and therefore you get what you get in the edit" rather than saying "I want an edit that is a certain way and so I'll adapt how I shoot to that and then what equipment I have to those processes".  Seems strange to me, but you know, whatever...  They might also be a RED zealot, and not willing to compromise on that basis.

I have a recurring thought pattern about my cost-no-object setup being a Komodo to get that image, then I immediately remember several of it's limitations, and then remember why I ruled it out.  This little cycle takes about 3 seconds, and has happened dozens of times - you'd think I'd just remember!

22 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

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...

Yep....  it's the dream of staggering drunk people everywhere - a stabilised burrito! 

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, kye said:

It sounds to me like they're more focused around the equipment / process rather than the film, with an attitude of "I work in this way therefore I can only capture a certain amount and therefore you get what you get in the edit" rather than saying "I want an edit that is a certain way and so I'll adapt how I shoot to that and then what equipment I have to those processes".

In a nutshell. I'd like say I respect that because I am someone who shoots what I want in the way I want with little to no client input in regard to that or the end result, but...

I do so from a certain 'safety/insurance' POV in that I will ensure as much as possible, there is at least 1 other angle for elements such as ceremonies plus back up audio etc in order that yes the artistry is important, but not at the expense of maintaining a certain level of what should be as standard, due diligence.

No back up angle for something such as a ceremony is not just the opposite of being a necessity, it does as you say limit the edit massively. People move, sometimes randomly, or don't stand where they were supposed to, or sit when they should be standing, or stand when they should be sitting. People hold up phones or wave parasols on hot days. The sun moves, the light changes... It's anything from 10-45 minutes of non-rehearsed random stuff from non-professionals with zero second chances.

Yes you could bring even more bodies and add even more kit, but at what point do you draw the line?

Simple for me, - cover 2 bases:

1: The basics/essentials.

2: Then the creative stuff.

Use both, one or the other as needed in the edit.

He did tell me early on that the RED was principally for his commercial stuff and weddings were a secondary thing for him and he was beginning to recognise that he perhaps didn't have the best tool for the job.

And no lighting. Luckily, I did and lit the speeches for us both 😉

[TomTheDP]

I totally get shooting with a modern lighter setup compared to a full cinema rig. However FX6 vs FX3 is pretty silly. The slightly heavier FX6 is not significant enough to matter. Yet you get things like SDI which are pretty damn important. I bet the AC's hated the FX3's lol. 

What they really saved on is lighting when shooting at 12,800 iso. You can get away with much smaller lighting setups and utilize practicals a lot more. 

I'd not question their decisions to much as they successful made it happen. I did see pictures of 6 cameras A,B,C,D,E,F. I suppose 6 FX6's would be a good deal more to carry around vs the FX3. However I would still think you'd use the FX6 as the A and B cam, and the rest use the smaller setup.

For daytime stuff you'd save a lot of weight and time using the internal ND's over a matte box. It looks like most of the movie was shot at night though. 

[zlfan]

I guess that Sony sponsored the Creator movie, and requested to use Sony cameras. DP decided to use FX3 to have fun. And it is the best marketing strategy for FX line cameras. 

[IronFilm]

On 10/12/2023 at 12:37 AM, IronFilm said:

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. 

Ha! I jinxed myself, a couple of days later I found myself working on a short film being shot with a P4K:

Was a micro sized crew, myself plus two others (although, quite a lot of actors!). Was quite a chill day today, very enjoyable.

 

[IronFilm]

On 10/14/2023 at 12:19 PM, TomTheDP said:

I totally get shooting with a modern lighter setup compared to a full cinema rig. However FX6 vs FX3 is pretty silly. The slightly heavier FX6 is not significant enough to matter.

 That's what I'm saying! The FX3 and FX6 are shockingly similar in terms of weight. This whole debate is a bit silly.

On 10/14/2023 at 12:19 PM, TomTheDP said:

Yet you get things like SDI which are pretty damn important. I bet the AC's hated the FX3's lol. 

Indeed. "Hate" is a strong word but I bet that's exactly how some ACs feel about the FX3. People in this thread underestimate how crippling the design of these more consumer orientated cameras are.

 

On 10/14/2023 at 12:19 PM, TomTheDP said:

What they really saved on is lighting when shooting at 12,800 iso. You can get away with much smaller lighting setups and utilize practicals a lot more. 

Agreed. Especially as they mostly shot at night time.

On 10/14/2023 at 12:19 PM, TomTheDP said:

However I would still think you'd use the FX6 as the A and B cam, and the rest use the smaller setup.

Exactly what I was suggesting, FX6 for the main cameras and the FX3 in a few supplementary roles such as drone camera.

 

On 10/14/2023 at 12:19 PM, TomTheDP said:

For daytime stuff you'd save a lot of weight and time using the internal ND's over a matte box. 

Exactly, the amount of time and weight savings with the FX6 is huge 

[JulioD]

Things worth knowing.

1.  The Director operated most of the time.

2.  They mostly operated with a kind of hybrid Ronin hand held on the shoulder.  Imagine the ronin inverted and with a shoulder pad and handles.

3.  The film only cost 8 million to shoot and the rest of the 80 million was post.

Once you know that, and the lenses used, it makes more sense that they made these choices.

 

[mercer]

This is a fun story to think about... "I have that camera and a real Hollywood film was shot with it..."

Unfortunately, that's where the fun ends for their story. If they were allowed to have a 3 person crew, then they could have dropped their budget even more... or if they used Blender or Unreal instead of ILM to do their post...

At the end of the day, their budget was lopsided and the movie bombed, so saving thousands of dollars in camera costs wouldn't have made a difference.

That said... for someone else, that isn't glued to that silly system of making films, they could be inspired by this camera choice. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, mercer said:

This is a fun story to think about... "I have that camera and a real Hollywood film was shot with it..."

Unfortunately, that's where the fun ends for their story. If they were allowed to have a 3 person crew, then they could have dropped their budget even more... or if they used Blender or Unreal instead of ILM to do their post...

At the end of the day, their budget was lopsided and the movie bombed, so saving thousands of dollars in camera costs wouldn't have made a difference.

That said... for someone else, that isn't glued to that silly system of making films, they could be inspired by this camera choice. 

I do wonder if they'd slowed down a little, added a bit more grip / VFX manpower support , say produced it for $12M instead, if they could have then slashed down post production costs to say $40M. 

As I think the general concept of how they went about making this was a worthwhile idea to trial out, to make it with smaller nimble crews that go out and seek the most amazing locations. And then put that money saved into postproduction VFX instead. (but perhaps spending $80M on VFX was a step too far??)

 

On 10/15/2023 at 11:25 PM, IronFilm said:

Was a micro sized crew, myself plus two others (although, quite a lot of actors!). Was quite a chill day today, very enjoyable.

Have a video out now about the audio recorder that I used on this shoot (as what recorder is being used is of course far more important than what camera body is being used! Let's discuss this instead, the fantastic Zaxcom Maxx, perfect for little mini shoots where you want a very lightweight configuration.... just like The Creator??):

 

[MrSMW]

Yeah, I have and use one of those:

[ntblowz]

 

The Creator rig breakdown

I wonder why they use Urth VND and not Nisi true color.

[MrSMW]

Well, going to have to skip the movie…unless I can find it on in Dublin next weekend as the only cinemas in my region of Northern France showing it in original language, are doing so next week for one night only, while I am away.

It’s ‘Flowers’ tonight instead. All 3.5 hours of it 🤔

[IronFilm]

Atomos has released an interview with ‘The Creator’’s DP, Oren Soffer:

 

[MrSMW]

On 10/19/2023 at 1:51 AM, ntblowz said:

I wonder why they use Urth VND and not Nisi true color

Helped keep the budget down by around $50.

More money for donuts.

[TomTheDP]

17 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Helped keep the budget down by around $50.

More money for donuts.

lmao, why the hell did they not use the FX6. It's such a way better ND option than a vari ND. It's not even a pound difference 1.4lbs vs 2lbs. 

I don't think the Creator will become hollywood standard as its just way too smart of a way to approach making a movie. Hollywood is too dumb to make that a standard. The high end film industry knows how to waste money like no one else. 

[Llaasseerr]

6 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

lmao, why the hell did they not use the FX6. It's such a way better ND option than a vari ND. It's not even a pound difference 1.4lbs vs 2lbs. 

I don't think the Creator will become hollywood standard as its just way too smart of a way to approach making a movie. Hollywood is too dumb to make that a standard. The high end film industry knows how to waste money like no one else. 

Yeah, the FX6 has true 24p, proper timecode input, SDI monitoring, the nice internal NDs, is still very lightweight and small, etc. I wonder if it came down to the fact the cameras were so hard to get hold of at the time, or maybe Gareth just didn't like operating them or maybe he didn't like the menu system.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Llaasseerr said:

Yeah, the FX6 has true 24p, proper timecode input, SDI monitoring, the nice internal NDs, is still very lightweight and small, etc. I wonder if it came down to the fact the cameras were so hard to get hold of at the time, or maybe Gareth just didn't like operating them or maybe he didn't like the menu system.

It was marketing.

If it was shot on FX6 there would be zero press, but look at the social media frenzy that this film is enjoying - including this thread.  There are normally multiple feature films released per day, but how much press are you reading on photography / videography websites about any of the others?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187122/movie-releases-in-north-america-since-2001/

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

lmao, why the hell did they not use the FX6. It's such a way better ND option than a vari ND. It's not even a pound difference 1.4lbs vs 2lbs. 

That's what I have been saying all along!

I reckon "marketing reasons" was a big factor. 

Just like why people sometimes choose to "shoot on an iPhone" for a project, to promote it like this. 

Would any of us be talking about this film for 6+ pages if he'd  used a FX6?? (or FX9)

2 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

Yeah, the FX6 has true 24p, proper timecode input, SDI monitoring, the nice internal NDs, is still very lightweight and small, etc. I wonder if it came down to the fact the cameras were so hard to get hold of at the time

Good point. The FX6 was incredibly new then. And although the FX6 was announced a few months earlier than the FX3, the demand for the FX6 was white hot. It took a very long time until you could easily source a FX6, especially a large number of them like Gareth needed. Yet the Sony FX3 from basically day one you could walk into any camera retail store and grab a couple off the shelf. 

Many of us do underestimate just how very long pre-production takes on these big productions, they'd have long before been running tests on their cameras before they started shooting. So they needed the cameras ready and available to buy way back then. 

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Yet the Sony FX3 from basically day one you could walk into any camera retail store and grab a couple off the shelf. 

This is what happened and they asked for the Nisi ND’s because they’d seen a video on YouTube, but the guy in the store (shoots weddings on Saturday’s) reckoned the Urth’s were just as good and anyway, in Adobe Premiere, you can easily remove the color cast.

Pretty sure that’s how they rolled on this.

It was also the camera store guys tip re. saving money and spending that on donuts.

[Llaasseerr]

7 hours ago, kye said:

It was marketing.

If it was shot on FX6 there would be zero press, but look at the social media frenzy that this film is enjoying - including this thread.  There are normally multiple feature films released per day, but how much press are you reading on photography / videography websites about any of the others?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/187122/movie-releases-in-north-america-since-2001/

I personally disagree that it was marketing, because we are in a fishbowl where we "affordable cine camera enthusiasts" are seeing saturation coverage on it. But outside of that world, hardly anyone knows that - and that would actually be Gareth's and Oren's point, that hopefully no-one would know any better. Other films don't attract press for the camera they shot on because they're shot on an Alexa or maybe a Venice, and that's not news.

There is also the fact that the film did really badly, so at best it can be seen as a failed experiment.

I think Gareth is just a guy that came up using affordable cameras and After Effects and he wanted to get back to that to some degree after getting somewhat reamed by the Disney machine on Rogue One.

It also seems like a pretty compelling story that he went on holiday to all those locations and took the FX3 with him, and he probably just really liked using the camera. Then he had a bunch of camera techs who were able to solve all the problems for him of making it usable in production for a feature of that scale.