Will The Creator change how blockbusters get filmed?

[Llaasseerr]

7 hours 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. 

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. 

Yeah, I kind of felt that all the nice firmware updates for the FX3 that have come out recently were requests by the camera crew on The Creator to facilitate production. But now I'm not so sure that they had access to any pre-release custom firmware. They were probably working with the same stock cameras as the rest of us. It does seem that the additions were due to feedback from the team though, even if they came out after the fact.

[kye]

50 minutes ago, Llaasseerr said:

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

Isn't that sort of the point though - the people in the fishbowl getting spammed are the people who might actually buy it, whereas the people outside our fishbowl who aren't reading these things aren't likely to buy it at all, so aren't worth trying to market to.

I think it's a good example of well executed market segmentation.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Isn't that sort of the point though - the people in the fishbowl getting spammed are the people who might actually buy it, whereas the people outside our fishbowl who aren't reading these things aren't likely to buy it at all, so aren't worth trying to market to.

I think it's a good example of well executed market segmentation.

My thoughts exactly as in who buys or is likely to buy something like the FX3 in the first place?!

’Us’. Folks that would know about or be interested. And some of us may even believe that because we bought ‘Tool X’, we could also create something similar because if they used X and I use X, then…

 

[JulioD]

19 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. 

Likely because even a slightly heavier camera would have precluded them ever balancing the lenses they were using on the gimbal they were using FULL TIME.  Have you seen the way the camera was operated?

[ntblowz]

Btw the app for Sony camera also changed to Creator too, so I do agree it also some kind of marketing push. (Beside the FX6 is also hard to get back then, like 6 month waiting time!)

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

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.

Sure, we're seeing oversaturating as we're people who post on EOSHD but it is leaking out to a wider audience. If I tomorrow at work asked around "hey have you heard about that new blockbuster scifi film shot on a mirrorless?" then I'd probably get a few bites. 

Plus it is a "hook" that even mainstream channels might spur them to write a report on or do a video on, even if that aspect is only a glancing mention in the overall reporting. 

11 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

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

Yes, but how much worse would it have done with even less press? 

11 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

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.

"a pretty compelling story"

Isn't there is another name for that? 😉

It's marketing! 

  

8 hours ago, JulioD said:

Likely because even a slightly heavier camera would have precluded them ever balancing the lenses they were using on the gimbal they were using FULL TIME.  Have you seen the way the camera was operated?

There is rather little difference in weight between a stripped down FX6 and a stripped down FX3, plus when you're using heavier anamorphic lenses like they are, then it makes it easier to balance the gimbal if your camera is a little heavier rather than weighing nothing at all 

[Llaasseerr]

15 hours ago, kye said:

Isn't that sort of the point though - the people in the fishbowl getting spammed are the people who might actually buy it, whereas the people outside our fishbowl who aren't reading these things aren't likely to buy it at all, so aren't worth trying to market to.

I think it's a good example of well executed market segmentation.

Yes fair enough. It's definitely got saturation coverage on the sites and channels we al look at, but I haven't seen Sony pushing it in any way. And Sony had zero influence in the production of this movie on any level. There's no way a marketing tie-in has occurred that would dictate the choice of camera. Also there was an embargo on mentioning the camera until after release, and the film bombed lol.

I think the channels are just insatiably curious about what happened here and the crew are prepared to talk.

I noticed poor old Atomos doing an interview with Oren though, trying to get some publicity while they stave off bigger issue like avoiding being delisted on the ASX. Viva ProRes Raw! (Ironically an Apple codec but you wouldn't know it).

Edit: I could be misunderstanding the marketing comments. It has definitely played into the marketing of the film, but with caveats such as after the release. And ultimately that marketing would never dictate the choice of the camera.

[Llaasseerr]

12 hours ago, JulioD said:

Likely because even a slightly heavier camera would have precluded them ever balancing the lenses they were using on the gimbal they were using FULL TIME.  Have you seen the way the camera was operated?

Interesting to raise that point, although the FX6 is still pretty small and light and the Kowa anamorphics are famously compact for what they are. But yeah, maybe that was too much for the gimbal, and a few extra pounds shaved off was okay. I do feel like this is rooted in the director's personal choice as well, whatever the reasons may be.

[Llaasseerr]

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sure, we're seeing oversaturating as we're people who post on EOSHD but it is leaking out to a wider audience. If I tomorrow at work asked around "hey have you heard about that new blockbuster scifi film shot on a mirrorless?" then I'd probably get a few bites. 

Don't you work as a location sound guy though? I mean of course people are gonna talk about it in the industry. 

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Plus it is a "hook" that even mainstream channels might spur them to write a report on or do a video on, even if that aspect is only a glancing mention in the overall reporting. 

For sure. It has bled over into mainstream media to a degree.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yes, but how much worse would it have done with even less press? 

I think in the first week of release once the embargo on discussing the camera was lifted, it was definitely a topic of conversation. But by then it's too late since these kinds of films live or die on their opening weekend. So there's no way it was part of a coherent marketing strategy for the film. But I agree it wouldn't hurt.

 

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

"a pretty compelling story"

Isn't there is another name for that? 😉

It's marketing! 

I got a bit confused about whether you and kye were talking about marketing for Sony, or the film. I already mentioned that Sony had zero influence on the financing of the film and there's no way Gareth would choose the camera for marketing purposes over a different camera he would rather use, and the studio instructed the crew to not mention the camera until after release.

So no, it doesn't seem to be marketing in the traditional sense, but good press after release. 

[JulioD]

24 minutes ago, Llaasseerr said:

Interesting to raise that point, although the FX6 is still pretty small and light and the Kowa anamorphics are famously compact for what they are. But yeah, maybe that was too much for the gimbal, and a few extra pounds shaved off was okay. I do feel like this is rooted in the director's personal choice as well, whatever the reasons may be.

It’s not just weight. It’s about balance. Where can you put the center of gravity.  The lenses make it very very front heavy. You have to then push the camera way back to balance.  And then you can even start hitting the physical dimensions.  If the camera is too long to push back farther to get the center of gravity forward. 
 

I know some of the crew and it’s all about the director who was operating (not the DP) using the shoulder mounted ronin as a hand held / gimbal hybrid. 
 

[Llaasseerr]

Also a general technical comment on using the FX3/FX6 instead of an Alexa: Basically all the Sony cameras have the same dynamic range, except the Venice will clean up better in the shadows. So you could re-rate it if you underexposed and pushed it in post.

What I saw on Top Gun Maverick was shots of the Venice clipping the highlights for some sky/sun shots where an Alexa would not, because it has 2 stops more above mid grey as rated by Arri.

I did not see any clipped highlights on The Creator. The did an excellent job of controlling them, or maybe fixing them in post when need be considering how much of the image was cg in most cases. I know that on the Matrix Resurrections, the vfx vendor used AI to add highlight detail into RED footage that clipped highlights in explosions, for example.

[Llaasseerr]

1 minute ago, JulioD said:

It’s not just weight. It’s about balance. Where can you put the center of gravity.  The lenses make it very very front heavy. You have to then push the camera way back to balance.  And then you can even start hitting the physical dimensions.  If the camera is too long to push back farther to get the center of gravity forward. 
 

I know some of the crew and it’s all about the director who was operating (not the DP) using the shoulder mounted ronin as a hand held / gimbal hybrid. 
 

That totally checks out with what I suspected. Thanks for the additional context!

[IronFilm]

16 minutes ago, Llaasseerr said:

I think in the first week of release once the embargo on discussing the camera was lifted, it was definitely a topic of conversation. But by then it's too late since these kinds of films live or die on their opening weekend. So there's no way it was part of a coherent marketing strategy for the film. But I agree it wouldn't hurt.

 I agree, they should have mentioned earlier on that a Sony FX3 was used to film this. Not leave it so late. 

 

17 minutes ago, Llaasseerr said:

I got a bit confused about whether you and kye were talking about marketing for Sony, or the film. I already mentioned that Sony had zero influence on the financing of the film and there's no way Gareth would choose the camera for marketing purposes over a different camera he would rather use, and the studio instructed the crew to not mention the camera until after release.

Absolutely, I don't think it was Sony who was pushing the FX3 being used back during pre-production. They just took advantage of what landed on their lap, to do a bit of marketing. 

When I mean using the FX3 for marketing purposes, I mean to film and market "The Creator".

And I'm not saying it was a major factor in the FX3 being used, but I suspect was "a factor". 

17 minutes ago, Llaasseerr said:

So no, it doesn't seem to be marketing in the traditional sense, but good press after release. 

"good press" = marketing 

[Llaasseerr]

1 minute ago, IronFilm said:

Absolutely, I don't think it was Sony who was pushing the FX3 being used back during pre-production. They just took advantage of what landed on their lap, to do a bit of marketing. 

When I mean using the FX3 for marketing purposes, I mean to film and market "The Creator".

And I'm not saying it was a major factor in the FX3 being used, but I suspect was "a factor". 

"good press" = marketing 

 

There may be a bit of confusion because I think kye said the reason the FX3 was used instead of the FX6 was for marketing, which I disagreed with. Or that's how I interpreted his comment. 

I did also notice at a premiere that Gareth looked a little cagey about talking about the camera to some vlogger, considering the niche subject, but he did so. Rightly he wanted to focus on the film itself.

I think overall we are just seeing a phenom like when DV cameras and then DSLRs broke through and it got a lot of attention. 

I posited that the choice of camera could be solely down to Gareth's personal preference, and JulioD pretty much confirmed that - along with additional context that given the lens, the rig may well have required the FX3 to balance on the gimbal. So that explains why the FX6 might not have worked for them.

 

[IronFilm]

4 minutes ago, Llaasseerr said:

There may be a bit of confusion because I think kye said the reason the FX3 was used instead of the FX6 was for marketing, which I disagreed with. Or that's how I interpreted his comment. 

Don't think anybody is saying that is the primary reason for the FX3 being used (unlike for some movies shot on an iPhone). 

But we're just debating if it was "a factor"? 

I think yes, maybe. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, Llaasseerr said:

There may be a bit of confusion because I think kye said the reason the FX3 was used instead of the FX6 was for marketing, which I disagreed with. Or that's how I interpreted his comment. 

I was saying that, based on the lengths that product placement and cross-marketing and stealth / undercover marketing will go to these days, but points raised since then have dissuaded me from that perspective.

The world is chaotic and sometimes things happen by accident, but the online camera ecosystem sure is eating it up!

To be honest, despite me being critical of Sony for many aspects of their business and product strategies, and of the Sony fan-boys/fan-girls for being so one-sided and so loud ad nauseam (and frequently in the face of reality) the image that they're extracting from the sensors in the FX3 and FX30 is impressive, and I definitely respect the form factor for being small but also practical / reliable.
Of course, from the company that has a virtual monopoly over sensor production, they'd be crazy not to make their products get the best from them and actively block other companies from getting access to the best results (or at least making them pay a lot for that level of performance).

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 ... at work asked around "hey have you heard about that new blockbuster scifi film shot on a mirrorless?" then I'd probably get a few bites

I didn't need to even wait until my next gig on Monday! I'm here at a Halloween Party 🎃

 

And totally unprompted, Captain America himself brought up "The Creator" and that it was shot on a Sony FX3: 

[Llaasseerr]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I didn't need to even wait until my next gig on Monday! I'm here at a Halloween Party 🎃

 

And totally unprompted, Captain America himself brought up "The Creator" and that it was shot on a Sony FX3: 

 

You and cap both work in the industry right?

[TomTheDP]

7 hours ago, kye said:

I was saying that, based on the lengths that product placement and cross-marketing and stealth / undercover marketing will go to these days, but points raised since then have dissuaded me from that perspective.

The world is chaotic and sometimes things happen by accident, but the online camera ecosystem sure is eating it up!

To be honest, despite me being critical of Sony for many aspects of their business and product strategies, and of the Sony fan-boys/fan-girls for being so one-sided and so loud ad nauseam (and frequently in the face of reality) the image that they're extracting from the sensors in the FX3 and FX30 is impressive, and I definitely respect the form factor for being small but also practical / reliable.
Of course, from the company that has a virtual monopoly over sensor production, they'd be crazy not to make their products get the best from them and actively block other companies from getting access to the best results (or at least making them pay a lot for that level of performance).

I was really excited about the Sony lineup after seeing its usage on the creator. 

That said after using I am not impressed with the image. I would say Sony's low end cameras seem to have the worst color out of the box compared with Canon or Blackmagic. It doesn't carry over to the Venice line of course. It's really just a matter of balancing skin tones and accurate colors. I am sure it's not a problem for a post house to do. But for lower budget stuff where you are relying on the camera more, its annoying. 

[IronFilm]

HA!! They did five days of shooting with a Sony FX9, because it was completely impossible to shoot it with the Sony FX3. As the FX3 fails at the task. 

There are also a few shots in The Creator which was shot by the director himself on a Nikon mirrorless. (Oren Soffer, says the director used a "Nikon DSLR", but it's clearly obvious he got that wrong. And was just using "DSLR" as slang for a stills cameras. As he didn't mention exactly which one, but said "Z something", thus is must be a mirrorless camera if that is true. I'd hazard a guess it was a Nikon Z6 with external recording)

Also it further confirms the FX3 was not the DoP's primary or even secondary choice (he'd never even heard of the FX3 before!), rather the FX3 choice was already a done decision. 

Before he even joined the project, the FX3 was "set in stone" (his words! And something that made him go "really??", that he had to "get over". His words! I reckon it's very easy to read between the lines, that if he'd come in earlier on in the process, that perhaps another camera would've been chosen. Such as the Sony FX6 being an obvious choice, a barely marginally bigger/heavier camera, but massively more capable on a film set. Or even a hybrid approach, with a mix of FX6/FX3 cameras on the film set. As listen to the interview, he clearly was badly missing SDI & TC & more!).