Totally agree with your assessment here. Saw the film yesterday on IMAX as well. Looked great , but yes - looking for it - you can absolutely see the difference in low low light compared to an Arri with minimal lighting. Also agree - this not a bad thing at ALL. And in properly lit scenes , you lose that altogether. Exciting times to be a filmmaker. I hope we are all supporting this film to send a message to Hollywood that stand alone ORIGINAL films matter!
@@AshvonChamier Prices have to drop. I balk at the $9 price point. I saw The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad at a theater and it cost only $.25. As for movies, there seems to be too much emphasis on grain/detail over story. For instance, Dirty Harry is a great movie, obviously made using film. The grain was there, it was apparent, but the story is what brings you in. The movie Grand Prix released around 1968 was all film with big cameras attached to actual racing cars. Grain, yes, story good, visuals zooming around the various race courses, especially at Monoco, fantastic. On another level, the efforts by digital movie makers using the FX-3 should encourage your young high school kids, or younger, start making videos using the under $1,000 cameras like the ZV-E10 by Sony. I hope this is a revolution in movie makers now that we have film out of the way (expensive).
I just watched The Creator on Imax, and i have an FX3. I am pretty sure they actually put some kind of "film grain" filter on the top on the footage to "break" the sharpness.
I agree that they definitely put grain on. The end result of grain on an already somewhat soft image though creates more softness than we usually see in cinema movies... when they are in focus. You can definitely spot soft focus shots on many theatrical releases here and there. That would be a different conversation but just wanted to point itout. The more I have had time to think about it and analyze, I really am thinking a lot the softness I feel like is present in many shots is s result of relying so heavily on less lighting and the power of the low light ability of the camera. Even when a low light cam can see well in low light, because there is not as much lighting design for separation of the subject from the background, images will just be flatter with less contrast which leads to a softer feel. The color information is also just not as present for the camera to take in. Just a physical fact.
I think its worth mentioning that the film was set-up to be part shot with an Alexa, but they dropped it pretty quick. The film was also shot with vintage anamorphic lenses. It was an aesthetic and process choice for the film. On one hand I love the work of the Red on Ridley Scott's Prometheus, but at the same time, I love Gareth's approach to visual storytelling. I think once aesthetic has been chosen, all other considerations are less. Gareth did this before on a EX3 for Monsters - and he used the internal codec as well. Also, this film was made for $80-90million. Typically this kind of film is about $200 million. I think its a phenomenal achievement and a beautiful film. Films are stories, not content. The camera choice works truly works.
I think the softness is actually more because of the lens choice. The Atlas Mercury lenses are pretty soft and have a lot of anamorphic characteristics, and correct me if I’m wrong but the P&S Technic lenses don’t even cover full frame so they’re not even using the full resolution of the sensor. A lot of that also comes down to the look too, meant to look like an old grainy Vietnam film instead of a clean modern blockbuster. I could tell a difference in drone shots though I think because they couldn’t use an external recorder to shoot raw, and there are some BTS photos of the FX3 on an octocopter.
Interesting! Like I mention in this video, I stopped myself from delving to into the BTS info until after having seen the movie because I didn't want to spoil the story. So now I will be looking into things like lenses used, lighting techniques, external recorders, etc. Thanks for the info!
@@AshvonChamierOren was on the podcast Art of The Frame and dived deep into basically everything they used and why. Majority of the time it was the FX3 with the Ninja V and 70mm Kowa lens. The end stuff where they used the volume they went with the FX9 because they couldn’t sync(I forgot what it’s actually called) the FX3 with the volume. Edit: Also they did a film out like Greig Fraser did for The Batman and Dune
The softness is because they use it on a 16:9 sensor. Usually 2x anamorphic lenses are used on a open gate 4:3 format, which directly gives the 2.4:1 aspect ratio. When you use it with a 16:9 sensor you have to cut a big part of the frame on the sides or else it will be ridiculously wide.
I just finished watching the movie and I did notice noise and softness in the images. I thought it was the cinema but this video confirmed my assumptions.
I think the amount of items on screen definitely tells you a lot about how the used the camera. I feel it’s hat opp. Has a lot more close up, but that is because as you say, they can’t light everything. All the time
Watched it on normal theater, looked great. But also we cannot deny the amount of cgi used in the world building. It's almost contradicting in a way to see low budget camera but high budget vfx
Right, lol. It is not fully comparable to our situation if using that camera. But, very interesting and cool to see how far it can be pushed like this.
I saw it on IMAX Laser and thought the movie looked awesome! I know Gareth has mentioned he wanted it look like Sci-Fi movies from the 80’s. It definitely looked like film grain was added because, as someone who shoots with the FX3 daily, I can tell you that film grain look is not there normally. Personally I find the camera almost too clean and I wonder if some of the softness was added to give it a more vintage look. Of course without being on set ourselves there is no way to know.
I think one of the main lenses used was an old Japanese anamorphic lens from the 1970s. That probably contributed to the softness of the overall look of the movie.
I totally understand where you’re coming from here. I may not be able to put it into words like you can but there’s just that level of detail or whatever that other *thing is that a larger cinema body will have over the FX3 (certainly if you’re pixel peeping or if you have the trained eye). But I’m very interested in going to see this movie. It’s a big achievement they were able to pull this off on the Fx3.
Right, it's subtle and only really present when hunting for it. It really does look great though and is cinematically inspiring. A great movie story as well. I was very happy to have seen it on the big screen.
Such good points re the style or way in which FX3 was used. I just saw the movie today and did see a digital feel to the shots. Also, there was a lot of added grain that didn’t look real. My guess is that in post, the team was trying to make VFX and FX3 footage live well together, but they went a bit far w the artificial grain. But I get why the FX3 was used, because to light the same night scenes with a max 3200 ISO, they’d need 4 times the amount of light! So all those night scenes would turn into major production setups w a huge crew etc. Either way, the movie still came across strongly and I’m glad I saw it. TBH I did miss the immersive feel of a cinema camera’s footage. But it was inspiring to see this!
Just watched the movie on the biggest imax screen in UK. When the story is great your brain doesn't care anymore about resolution or anything else... I watched oppenheimer as well and there's a difference in resolution. They could have used sharper lenses if they wanted to but its not all about the quality.. The majority of the peoples that watched the movie don't have a clue what's behind the scenes, all it matters for them is only the protagonist for us is all the rest except the protagonist.
In this instance the FX30 might have been a better option - yes you do give up ISO 12,500 (but honestly ISO 2,500 should be plenty with even a minimal lighting kit...) - but the downsampled 6K sensor gives a bit better/cleaner look to. the final 4K image. It might have looked just a bit better with the IMAX blow-up. I am surprised that with IMAX in mind they didn't opt for a 6K/8K original with a different camera - it's lot to ask for 4K to go to IMAX...
Ya know, I have not looked at much on the FX30 so this is an interesting point. I will check out the camera to see if I concur. I think they were using external recorders for ProRes RAW according to some other people in these comments. Does the FX30 offer this via external recorder. It definitely is a much better safety net if you go with 6K or 8K as your original format. However, there are many academy award winning cinematic masterpieces shot with the ARRI ALEXA when it was still only offering 3.2K as it's resolution. This is where the quality of the sensor, the way it handles light and color, prove that resolution is not the only dictator to what can look good blown up on the big screen. Doesn't make sense on paper, but tis the reality.
The FX30 def can record RAW to an external monitor - and it has basically the same dynamic range as the FX3 and FX6 in tests... I def agree that - as the original Arri at 3.2K made clear- resolution is NOT the most important metric in image quality. However blowing up to IMAX size is the one time that extra resolution probably does become a real plus. @@AshvonChamier
Incredible movie The only thing I noticed was that it did look a little soft little softer than movies I usually see in IMAX not no good or a bad thing just an observation although a softer looking movie is probably better for a CG heavy movie like this That's why the CGI was able to blend so well cuz you don't need to see each sharp pixel on a spaceship the way we see the world is kind of soft so this makes sense
You know there are some shots in there comped with CG, where I felt like the CG was sharper than the rest of the shot. Felt like it had more texture. Some of the robots in the fields when next to humans.
@@AshvonChamier but I think the word you were looking for in your review might have been soft It was a very soft movie which for me was actually kind of a breath of fresh air I've been getting tired of bad CGI movies like transformers lately where it's so sharp that I can see the bad CGI being bad
Saw it in a very good non Imax cinema - the difference is quite obvious. However, none of my non camera geek friends noticed anything. To me tho, it's not down to pixel peeping. The whole rendering especially in low light scenes is off in conparison to say an Alexa. However, it still is fine for most and a lot better than bad 35mm copies of real film back in the days.
Because the FX3 can see better in low light than the Alexa, I don't know if we can compare shot for shot because you couldn't use so little light when filming with the Alexa. This really did make for shots we are not used to seeing on the big screen as far as lighting goes because it was so minimal. BUT, I agree completely that the Alexa does simply produce a better image when given more light in side by side test with the FX3. It just does... lol
I agree it looked fantastic. It is possible to see a difference between cameras and formats and still agree that it looks amazing and inspiring. Tried to explain that in the video.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 89 | คู่เอก "ยอดไอคิว vs คิริลล์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z3vYkHJ_5Ig/mqdefault.jpg)
Totally agree with your assessment here. Saw the film yesterday on IMAX as well. Looked great , but yes - looking for it - you can absolutely see the difference in low low light compared to an Arri with minimal lighting. Also agree - this not a bad thing at ALL. And in properly lit scenes , you lose that altogether. Exciting times to be a filmmaker. I hope we are all supporting this film to send a message to Hollywood that stand alone ORIGINAL films matter!
Thanks for the feedback. Agreed as well, good movie to support for a theatrical releases vs straight to streaming.
@@AshvonChamier Prices have to drop. I balk at the $9 price point. I saw The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad at a theater and it cost only $.25.
As for movies, there seems to be too much emphasis on grain/detail over story. For instance, Dirty Harry is a great movie, obviously made using film. The grain was there, it was apparent, but the story is what brings you in. The movie Grand Prix released around 1968 was all film with big cameras attached to actual racing cars. Grain, yes, story good, visuals zooming around the various race courses, especially at Monoco, fantastic.
On another level, the efforts by digital movie makers using the FX-3 should encourage your young high school kids, or younger, start making videos using the under $1,000 cameras like the ZV-E10 by Sony. I hope this is a revolution in movie makers now that we have film out of the way (expensive).
I just watched The Creator on Imax, and i have an FX3. I am pretty sure they actually put some kind of "film grain" filter on the top on the footage to "break" the sharpness.
I agree that they definitely put grain on. The end result of grain on an already somewhat soft image though creates more softness than we usually see in cinema movies... when they are in focus. You can definitely spot soft focus shots on many theatrical releases here and there. That would be a different conversation but just wanted to point itout.
The more I have had time to think about it and analyze, I really am thinking a lot the softness I feel like is present in many shots is s result of relying so heavily on less lighting and the power of the low light ability of the camera. Even when a low light cam can see well in low light, because there is not as much lighting design for separation of the subject from the background, images will just be flatter with less contrast which leads to a softer feel. The color information is also just not as present for the camera to take in. Just a physical fact.
I think its worth mentioning that the film was set-up to be part shot with an Alexa, but they dropped it pretty quick. The film was also shot with vintage anamorphic lenses. It was an aesthetic and process choice for the film. On one hand I love the work of the Red on Ridley Scott's Prometheus, but at the same time, I love Gareth's approach to visual storytelling. I think once aesthetic has been chosen, all other considerations are less. Gareth did this before on a EX3 for Monsters - and he used the internal codec as well. Also, this film was made for $80-90million. Typically this kind of film is about $200 million. I think its a phenomenal achievement and a beautiful film. Films are stories, not content. The camera choice works truly works.
I agree with ya but also think Promethus would be in the visual storytelling camp of films as well. It was gorgeous.
@@AshvonChamier definitely! It’s an aesthetic choice!
RED and ARRI are going to be putting out their own FX3 models. The era of expensive cameras is over.
Is this a prediction or something you’ve heard is in the works?
Source?
Ever heard of the profit motive?@@danielduanetvtech
I think the softness is actually more because of the lens choice. The Atlas Mercury lenses are pretty soft and have a lot of anamorphic characteristics, and correct me if I’m wrong but the P&S Technic lenses don’t even cover full frame so they’re not even using the full resolution of the sensor. A lot of that also comes down to the look too, meant to look like an old grainy Vietnam film instead of a clean modern blockbuster.
I could tell a difference in drone shots though I think because they couldn’t use an external recorder to shoot raw, and there are some BTS photos of the FX3 on an octocopter.
Interesting! Like I mention in this video, I stopped myself from delving to into the BTS info until after having seen the movie because I didn't want to spoil the story. So now I will be looking into things like lenses used, lighting techniques, external recorders, etc. Thanks for the info!
@@AshvonChamierOren was on the podcast Art of The Frame and dived deep into basically everything they used and why. Majority of the time it was the FX3 with the Ninja V and 70mm Kowa lens. The end stuff where they used the volume they went with the FX9 because they couldn’t sync(I forgot what it’s actually called) the FX3 with the volume.
Edit: Also they did a film out like Greig Fraser did for The Batman and Dune
@@Jacobyfilms Thanks for the info!
The softness is because they use it on a 16:9 sensor. Usually 2x anamorphic lenses are used on a open gate 4:3 format, which directly gives the 2.4:1 aspect ratio. When you use it with a 16:9 sensor you have to cut a big part of the frame on the sides or else it will be ridiculously wide.
I just finished watching the movie and I did notice noise and softness in the images. I thought it was the cinema but this video confirmed my assumptions.
I think the amount of items on screen definitely tells you a lot about how the used the camera. I feel it’s hat opp. Has a lot more close up, but that is because as you say, they can’t light everything. All the time
Watched it on normal theater, looked great. But also we cannot deny the amount of cgi used in the world building. It's almost contradicting in a way to see low budget camera but high budget vfx
Right, lol. It is not fully comparable to our situation if using that camera. But, very interesting and cool to see how far it can be pushed like this.
I saw it on IMAX Laser and thought the movie looked awesome! I know Gareth has mentioned he wanted it look like Sci-Fi movies from the 80’s. It definitely looked like film grain was added because, as someone who shoots with the FX3 daily, I can tell you that film grain look is not there normally. Personally I find the camera almost too clean and I wonder if some of the softness was added to give it a more vintage look. Of course without being on set ourselves there is no way to know.
Got ya. Interesting .Thanks for the contribution to the conversation.
I think one of the main lenses used was an old Japanese anamorphic lens from the 1970s. That probably contributed to the softness of the overall look of the movie.
Also would love to know what codec they recorded in.
They recorded in ProRes Raw
I totally understand where you’re coming from here. I may not be able to put it into words like you can but there’s just that level of detail or whatever that other *thing is that a larger cinema body will have over the FX3 (certainly if you’re pixel peeping or if you have the trained eye). But I’m very interested in going to see this movie. It’s a big achievement they were able to pull this off on the Fx3.
Right, it's subtle and only really present when hunting for it. It really does look great though and is cinematically inspiring. A great movie story as well. I was very happy to have seen it on the big screen.
I haven't seen the movie but I would agree with you because I am using both a Canon c200 and a Sony a7s3. I can clearly see the quality difference...
Such good points re the style or way in which FX3 was used. I just saw the movie today and did see a digital feel to the shots. Also, there was a lot of added grain that didn’t look real. My guess is that in post, the team was trying to make VFX and FX3 footage live well together, but they went a bit far w the artificial grain. But I get why the FX3 was used, because to light the same night scenes with a max 3200 ISO, they’d need 4 times the amount of light! So all those night scenes would turn into major production setups w a huge crew etc. Either way, the movie still came across strongly and I’m glad I saw it. TBH I did miss the immersive feel of a cinema camera’s footage. But it was inspiring to see this!
😂
Just watched the movie on the biggest imax screen in UK.
When the story is great your brain doesn't care anymore about resolution or anything else... I watched oppenheimer as well and there's a difference in resolution. They could have used sharper lenses if they wanted to but its not all about the quality.. The majority of the peoples that watched the movie don't have a clue what's behind the scenes, all it matters for them is only the protagonist for us is all the rest except the protagonist.
In this instance the FX30 might have been a better option - yes you do give up ISO 12,500 (but honestly ISO 2,500 should be plenty with even a minimal lighting kit...) - but the downsampled 6K sensor gives a bit better/cleaner look to. the final 4K image. It might have looked just a bit better with the IMAX blow-up. I am surprised that with IMAX in mind they didn't opt for a 6K/8K original with a different camera - it's lot to ask for 4K to go to IMAX...
Ya know, I have not looked at much on the FX30 so this is an interesting point. I will check out the camera to see if I concur. I think they were using external recorders for ProRes RAW according to some other people in these comments. Does the FX30 offer this via external recorder.
It definitely is a much better safety net if you go with 6K or 8K as your original format. However, there are many academy award winning cinematic masterpieces shot with the ARRI ALEXA when it was still only offering 3.2K as it's resolution. This is where the quality of the sensor, the way it handles light and color, prove that resolution is not the only dictator to what can look good blown up on the big screen. Doesn't make sense on paper, but tis the reality.
The FX30 def can record RAW to an external monitor - and it has basically the same dynamic range as the FX3 and FX6 in tests... I def agree that - as the original Arri at 3.2K made clear- resolution is NOT the most important metric in image quality. However blowing up to IMAX size is the one time that extra resolution probably does become a real plus. @@AshvonChamier
Incredible movie The only thing I noticed was that it did look a little soft little softer than movies I usually see in IMAX not no good or a bad thing just an observation although a softer looking movie is probably better for a CG heavy movie like this That's why the CGI was able to blend so well cuz you don't need to see each sharp pixel on a spaceship the way we see the world is kind of soft so this makes sense
You know there are some shots in there comped with CG, where I felt like the CG was sharper than the rest of the shot. Felt like it had more texture. Some of the robots in the fields when next to humans.
@@AshvonChamier That's because they forgot to use an FX3 to film the CG ! Lol
@@AshvonChamier but I think the word you were looking for in your review might have been soft It was a very soft movie which for me was actually kind of a breath of fresh air I've been getting tired of bad CGI movies like transformers lately where it's so sharp that I can see the bad CGI being bad
Saw it in a very good non Imax cinema - the difference is quite obvious. However, none of my non camera geek friends noticed anything. To me tho, it's not down to pixel peeping. The whole rendering especially in low light scenes is off in conparison to say an Alexa. However, it still is fine for most and a lot better than bad 35mm copies of real film back in the days.
Because the FX3 can see better in low light than the Alexa, I don't know if we can compare shot for shot because you couldn't use so little light when filming with the Alexa. This really did make for shots we are not used to seeing on the big screen as far as lighting goes because it was so minimal. BUT, I agree completely that the Alexa does simply produce a better image when given more light in side by side test with the FX3. It just does... lol
Where are you going to look to see bts of the movie
Just TH-cam and general Google searches for a start and see where it leads me.
if you act on making a dracula or vampire movie, it will be very good.
Absolutely terrible take in my opinion. The movie looked incredible. Very filmic.
I agree it looked fantastic. It is possible to see a difference between cameras and formats and still agree that it looks amazing and inspiring. Tried to explain that in the video.