You're missing the point. It doesn't matter why they used it or what other cameras they could have used. They did use it. They shot an 80mil dollar fx heavy sci-fi film on a 4000 camera. And that's amazing.
Honestly, they could have used the 5DMKII or a6300 or anything really. The reason that movie looks the way it does is because it had a budget of 80 million dollars, 80 million lets you do a whole lot more than what "bucket" you use for data.
ok let's not get ahead of ourselves here 🤣5D mark III should never be used for an IMAX film, or the a6300. garbage dynamic range, noise performance, and has no actual cinema camera features. no true 24fps, no DCI 4K, no full frame... @@idrinktapwater6174
Doc DP here that shoots for NPR / PBS. I had the opportunity to meet Oren about 6 years ago too, awesome guy. They definitely didn't choose the camera for marketing purposes. Oren said in an interview they used it because they were able to have about 8 of them - all set up for different rigs / scenarios. That way they were able to bounce from one to the other seamlessly. Not to mention pivot very quickly when one camera movement maybe didn't feel quite right. It's a tool that gets the job done the way the director wanted to work (fast). It let them have more time for takes and get quality moments. Not to get buzz for their movie. Believe me that's the last thing that was on their minds when choosing a camera. I'm also pretty sure the director shot the proof of concept film on a nikon Z series camera, he operated a lot of this movie and probably wanted a similar form factor.
They said it was the form factor that lead them to choose the camera. They mentioned in the interview that they used Nikon Z series camera to shoot the pitch and it worked well so they wanted to use the same form factor in the actual shoot. The best full frame cinema camera in that form factor is the FX3. Question answered.
ACTAULLY IT WAS STILL THE FX3 THAT WAS USED FOR THE PITCH, SHOT IN AN ASIAN VILLAGE WITH AN ANARMORPHIC LENS( WHICH WAS WAY SMALLER THAN NORMAL IMAGE SIZES)
That camera saved them a 100 million dollars because of the size and low light capabilities because since to performed in low light they didn't need all the big lights and used a lot smaller lights which meant smaller crews. The small form factor of the camera and low light capabilities helped them get to all these remote destinations a 100 times easier with half the crew because it was a lot less lights and camera hardware. A light workflow was the key to there decision!
If you are a filmmaker, a true one, then this talk about camera specs and gears don't mean much to you. A true filmmaker can make a great movie with a camera that costs only a few hundred dollars. Gears don't make you a filmmaker, a good storytelling, an eye for composition, and a sense of timing will make you a true filmmaker.
I think that’s rather reductive. The camera, size of sensor, image quality, frame rate is really important given the type of story you’re trying to tell and the platform or the amount of distance and reach you want for your film. Sure you can film with your iPhone 15 pro but try throwing that on the best digital projector and you don’t have enough pixels or resolution to have a clear picture for a 50 inch projector screen(actually tried this with a 2k dollar projector). Throw in night shoots with a Red Komodo S35 sensor or any non Sony sensors and then there’s more opportunity cost huddles about the amount of lighting equipment or crew needed for certain scenes. Don’t get the shot you want then you can’t really tell your story the way it was written can you? I can go on and on but the idea is that you want a camera that gives you the best chance at telling your story the way you want it to be told and one that provides the most transfer ability through platforms (phone, computer, television, projector). If your camera sensor don’t take in that much light as said the opportunity cost on set and in post will match or increase
"Filmmaker", what does that even mean? Shooting youtube content? This is a video about cinematography, the cinematographers job in most projects is to have technical knowledge, a creative vision and the skill to make that vision come true in THE LEAST TIME POSSIBLE. But sure, you can shoot your non-profit hobby projects however you want, and take any time you want, without any expectations from your client to make it look up to par with modern standards. "True filmmaker" style
@jackanorybiggins not all Netflix approved Cinema cameras are full frame. Many are super 35 sensor cameras. But the other camera aspects you mentioned are real factors for a camera.
I talked to a guy from Sony (he did a workshop about their cinealte line up), who was in talks with the DoP from "the creator" pretty recently. (October) He talked about the reasons why they shot with the FX3. Yes, they wanted the 12.800 Base ISO and the Small Camera Body from the FX3, but one of the big reasons why they choose this setup was that they wanted to travel with a small crew and as little gear as possible to make their emissions as low as possible. I don't think this comes up often in the discussion about the production of the creator. They cared about the enviroment and this is also part of the story of the movie. Thats why they had a small core team (sometimes just 5 ppl) and worked with local people on their 80 locations. Most of the lighting was also natural or just a few lamps with some practical LED lamps placed on set. They straight up bought 8 FX3 for this setup, which was significantly cheaper than renting any other camera for the 5 months they were shooting. Beforehand they did 4 months of testing the FX3 with different rigs and lenses. On Shoot day they had various different FX3 rigs and swappen between them, because they did a lot of takes for each scene so they could be more efficent overall. Most of the time only one camera was rolling though. (maybe 1x FX3 + drone) They shot around 4h of footage per day resulting only in 2 min. of final footage that got into the movie. I guess the money they saved was used in the postproduction, because they had a budget of 80 billion USD. I think it payed of, although in some interviews some of the reasons don't get as much attention than the camera itself.
it's an interesting hypothesis you're laying out, that it was orchestrated to wow audiences with the marketing... but honestly there's probably only several dozen thousand people around the world who would know what an FX3 is compared to other contemporary cinema cameras and be impressed enough by that to buy a ticket to go see The Creator.. i don't think they would have weighted that in the production pipeline when kitting out the camera department. Maybe yeah at the end of the production process the DP and others realized they could impress all these camera nerds with some details of the production and thus we hear their anecdotes in the interviews, but really doubt it went into the original planning for what cameras to use
Gareth wanted to go handheld, that extra 3 pounds doesn't sound like much but when you're filming for 12+ hours a day, it definitely makes a difference. The komodo is great but not full frame, which was an objective look that they wanted. The fx3 being so lightweight + full frame + sony cinema camera color science makes the fx3 the obvious choice for the production that Gareth was looking to achieve. Maybe it was a marketing tactic but honestly I think everyone screaming about the creator on fx3 is inflating the situation way more than Greig Fraser or Oren Soffer ever did.
I think the full frame over S35 would be more of a factor. Color science, from what they said, didn't seem to matter. I would think they knew telling everyone the film was shot on a $4000 camera might be a big deal based on what Soffer said. Either way, all good and interesting stuff to consider.
It's the low light performance of the FX3 that you never discussed in your video. Right now, it's the best low light performer, even when you compare it to the likes of ARRI & RED's. Color science really don't apply when you shoot in log as color grading will give you the "look" that you want. So, FF + Low Light Performance + Light Weight, & Budget; these are factors that made them go with the FX3 instead of a different camera setups.
I briefly discussed lowlight because the filmmakers never really talked about it. I would have thought it was the main reason they used the FX3, but they discussed other features more. I know you gave reasons why they used the FX3, but in the video I have to cover what the actual filmmakers said. The cinematographer of the film literally said they picked the FX3 for the color science.
I agree with @Allthebeef, 3lbs over 14+ hours is a huge difference. Also, Gareth and Oren have talked extensively about the FX3’s low light capabilities in interviews, and how they are able to light entire scenes with basically a couple helios tubes on booms, which made moving fast at Gareth’s pace possible.
You hit on a huge pet-peeve of mine: trailers that are way too long and give away most of the story. Trailers used be a minute and a half, two, tops. Just enough to get you intrigued. Now they can be almost three and two and a half is standard. If I want to see a movie, i click off the trailer about halfway through, so I still want to see it after watching the trailer.
Bottom line - ANY modern cinema camera - from the Sony FX30 to the high end Alexa/Venice/Red are more than capable of capturing the necessary dynamic range/color depth to allow for Major Motion picture quality images. BUT - they all need the proper lighting/lenses/color grading to actually create a great image. The sensors are no longer the limiting factor.
Even if they have done it for marketing reason. The point is, dont spend too much money on camera. Spend on lighting, composition, colorist and sound. - BOOM BOOM SHAKALAKA
Yes and no. That's why I brought up Oppenheimer. They shot IMAX film which is really expensive along with great lighting, composition, etc. That movie grossed almost a billion dollars. The Creator, financially will be a flop. So you can spend a lot on a camera and be successful or shoot on the FX3 and have a flop. There's a lot of variables to consider, but ultimately it's up to the filmmaker to understand those variables and make the right decision.
@@JeremyWalton SO you think that the movie flopped because of the camera they shot on? what?? the movie made over 100million dollars for a brand new original IP. lol Like bro what are you talking about right now
@@JeremyWalton You probably didnt understand my point I guess. Newcomers even students included focus on what camera to buy for their short film, while the deciing factor of quality is depending on other factors like I mentioned, And I think oppenheimer would do better irrelevant of what camera it was shot on, the name nolan is such a marketing tool by itself. I dont think The creator is even known in many of the countries as a movie. So if you bring up the topic of how much a movie grossed, Im gonna talk about how much you spent on marketing.
The fx3,bmpcc,red Komodo,z-cam or any other modern prosumer “cinema” camera are all fully capable cameras. If you have one and don’t need things like sdi or gen-lock or timecode input and output a new camera WON’T help your cinematography. Save your money and work on your craft with what you have. If you see great images coming from a new camera let me tell you a secret. Your images WON’T look that great from that camera if you’re images aren’t looking that great with what you currently have. I’ve seen short films shot on the Red Dragon sensor that look like absolute garbage with a lot of noise and bad composition and lighting and highlights starting to clip with it being way to overexposed and I’ve seen films shot on a bmpcc or a Sony A7sii that look like any other movie shot on an Arri or Red camera.
sometimes artists choose to set certain parameters to a project simply out of artistic principle. I've chosen cameras and setups to shoot features on entirely just to have that experience and have those decisions influence the outcome in some way. I will admit, my films are cheap as chips and I can afford to take that risk. Seems a bit more out of place on a massive hollywood production but hey, it seemed to work. First time for everything !
Full frame and small, I film around the world, crossing borders is certain countries, filming ins certain countries can be danger, creator shows that we can have a small compact camara on the go without drawing attention, it’s on my list
Yeah my mom was so hooked on that marketing ploy… she sat next to me and was like „they really shot that on a fx3? Couldn’t they‘ve any other camera?“ 😂
Appreciate why you made this video and some of your sentiments. However now the dust has settled it is clearer around the reasons why the FX3. The main reasons they shot on the FX3 was form factor and the 12,800 iso capabilities. The Fx9 has a different sensor and doesn't shoot clean high ISO the Fx3 and the FX6 have also got better rolling shutter performance than the FX9 surprisingly. the Shotdeck interview demystified a lot. It would seem that the FX3 wasn't an intentional marketing stunt and you can be fairly sure of that because the only people who really care about it are filmmakers like ourselves
Finally!!!!! A camera YT'er with a mind of his own! Subbed! You are a rare breed my friend. There is too much group-think on all these reviews on the movie and on cameras in general. Also don't trust what studios say about what is or is not profitable. all movies with wide release make their money back eventually. All of them.
i think the low-light performance was huge reason. as someone who has been shooting on a sony a7sii since 2015. Lowlight performance means you can use lighter smaller lights, and move them around more quickly. theoretically an fx6 could have been used as on option aswell (same sensor as an fx3)
An FX9 or pretty much anything bigger then the FX3 would not had worked on the gimbal setup combined with the lenses. The gimbal itself has a max payload. It saves them needing a steadicam and jib for a majority of the action sequences
It's a great camera Boss!! I have the FX3 and FX30 and mannnnnnn!!! I will let the camera do the talking! But there's a reason why they didn't use a canon camera for the Creator.
The TH-cam world collectively went berserk when it CAME OUT that the camera they used was within reach of OUR budgets. The production team has stated many times it was because they could have 9 completely different rigs for quick-grab proper tool for proper shot-type, and the small form factor along with the 12,800 ISO made for not only smaller rigs to carry around but they could go with a slimmed down lighting and grip package as they traveled all around Southeast Asia to do a scene here, a scene there. The rest of the world either wanted to see it, or didn't. Shooting Oppenheimer on IMAX had nothing to do with box office returns, any more than shooting with an FX3 - Nolan made a huge movie with a ton of buzz, about an important figure in our history, with an all-star cast - and it was (checks notes) Christopher Nolan. More people wanted to see THAT than a hardcore sci-fi war movie - regardless of camera used.
from my perspective, every few years a camera is created to give average filmmakers inspiration. I remember in 2012 an block buster movie came out called ACT Of VALOR which was made on a canon 5d m2 and in 2015 the film mad max road fury, on a certain scene the use a black mage cinema 2.5k with an tokina 11-16 they used also a few original black magic pocket that was only 1080 pm at the time on a marvel Avengers: Age of Ultron and now we have the Sony e30 which did another ground breaking statement again in 2023 with the movie The Creator its a great time to be a filmmaker. this all proves you dont need to spend thousands from your retirement to buy a camera to produced quality work
...you’re underselling 12800 for existing(minimal) light, color science fix & vfx heavy in post. GE shoot similar to “Monsters”... plus according to Orin they shot like 4 hours run and gun to get one “magic” shot.
I don't think I'm underselling. I think the filmmakers were underselling. They hardly mentioned lowlight performance. Like I said in the video, it was a reason, not "the reason". They talked more about the other features and Soffer said the look of the film wasn't because of the Sony camera. Using the FX3 and what the filmmakers were saying didn't mesh well. That's all.
you would get so many more creative and no-nonsense "PRACTICAL" ideas for getting shots and getting movies filmed (like the ambulance scene or run and gun on a non-closed beach) for much smaller budgets if you had more directors (who are usually their own DPs) from the low and micro budget indie world hired for studio movies - In the 8 features I have made, you find out when you have a 250k or 100k budget or less on some of those that you have to be creative and have to have problem solving capabilities in order to pull off the shots and your vision for the movie rather than just throwing unlimited money at it and having a whole team take a full day or more to get the same 5 second ambulance flipping over shot....I wouldnt even know what to do with a studio budget lol...Id still make the movies the same way as far as my approach to them...we'd just have more $ for actors, props, locations, make up etc....when you put those people in the directors chairs is when we will start to get more great cinema again!
Even if it was marketing, I think the point was that you can use whatever can get the job done. The end result, editing, camera movement, post production can get the desired result. Creativity is the front seat. Story is a big factor also.
Totally confused.. in the heading it says 'don't by the FX3' but the video doesn't address why we shouldn't? a confusing watch wondering when the main statement will be addressed... inserts it seemed to be someone's partial take on the movie? I think?
I went for an fx3 in 2024 about 1 month ago, it's good because I think of the fan. So you could say I am a fan of it. Not because it was used in the creator.
Great video but, I think , its not comparison of director with Reds and smaller cameras etc. Its difference with IMAX. Its release on IMAX screen, thats big. Or am I missing something?
There's a lot of IMAX films. The difference is how they word things. For example "shot on IMAX" vs "filmed for IMAX". Oppenheimer used IMAX cameras. Top Gun Maverick used certified cameras like the Venice so they get a "filmed for IMAX". This is marketing. Will it matter to most people? Probably not, but as a filmmaker doing TH-cam videos on filmmaking, there's a big difference between Oppenheimer shooting with IMAX cameras and the FX3.
The main point of focus has to be the SENSOR. If for 4000$ you get a sensor that's good enough for FotoKem colorists to deliver the 80 million dollar look, then that means the sensor IS Hollywood quality. It's a bargain. So, buy the FX3
The difference was they bought 10 fx3 with different lens and setups and instead of waiting in between shots to rig up the camera, he was able to switch up the camera quickly for the next shots.
I'm really surprised about all the chat for the fx3 filming this movie. A lot of time something similar was made... for example one of the season finale of dr. House was shot on a canon 5d mk 2...8bit no log ecc. It was to film in a more agile way in small spaces as far as I know...i suppose that this was made for some logistic choice as well....or maybe just for marketing as they record raw trough an atomos recorder 😅😅😅 so they could used a lot of cameras as well as the fx3!
I agree with all of that, but just to think the humble and relatively affordable ZV-E1 is basically an upgraded FX3 with the AI chip from the A7R V, that's just incredible. That just goes to show that these days, it's not about gear as even a vlogging camera from Sony will give you identical results to large cinema cameras, the limiting factor is your skills. You don't even need big expensive lights anymore as the second native ISO of 12,800 means you can use cheap low powered lights to achieve the same results, what an incredible time to be alive.
“You don’t need 300 million” It wasn’t the camera, and even the script was dumb. Washington doesn’t need to be paid at the same rate as say, his dad, or Leonardo. AI prob wrote the script. $80 mil makes sense, as long as you have their most important part: Industrial Light & Magic. It’s the most legendary post houses ever
My uncle was one of the gaffers on this film. It was mostly FX9 as well as Arri 65 which was on set and used for hero shots. FX3 was used for handheld or moving running shots. Not sure why the lying but the truth will come out.
I didn't see the movie. Yet. But incredible movies have been made with far less so that's not really a thing. It did feel like a giant Sony commercial for a while. My best friend does movies for Sony. Always thought that was odd. That is power. I never asked him but I assume it was all shot on Sony. I'm a Canon fanboy. Just like the image better. It looks like an Atomos logo on the FX3 camera rig. I have 3 of them. Also a fan of Atomos.
Finally the truth is revealed… It’s a marketing ploy. Absolutely. With an $80 million budget they could’ve used any camera they wanted. So much bullshit. I still think the movie could’ve looked better using the Komodo X. I’ve used the Komodo and it has a very film like quality. Now I’d like to know what did they do with the FX3 Footage… Lots and lots of color grading and other such effects.
It felt like it was a marketing campaign for the fx3 to get sales which worked. Because any pro would know it could have easily been shot on a bmpcc or even better a red Komodo for the same weight and rigging capabilities and if they went with the Komodo an already very well established post production workflow with red raw files. It’s not like there is a limited number of quality cameras at a small size now. 99% of the “look” is down to locations,wardrobe,blocking,lighting,set dressing,colorist. A LOT of cameras some costing less than the fx3 captures more than enough information to get those same shots if all you are switching out is the camera and the everything else is the same. When I heard the interview and he mentioned the color science which has hardly anything to do with the camera quality and more about how they fine tune the internal “luts” for lack of a better word of how it captures the data from manufacture to manufacture of what it considers red and blue and green and what they feel are attractive skin tones they may adjust things but overall all that can be adjusted in post and will be adjusted heavily in post so Jim mentioning the color science then mentioning what is actually important like the colorists work in post & the locations and wardrobe and lighting then I was confused.
@@slurp3194 hard to pick out. Their testing is just color charts focus charts,bokeh charts with different lenses. It’s difficult to point out any modern prosumer “cinema” camera in tests now. They all capture enough data to hardly make a difference. They aren’t comparing an iPhone to an Alexa they are comparing the fx3 with 15 stops of dynamic range to cameras like the Komodo with 16+ stops of dynamic range to the Alexa LF with 14+ stops of dynamic range. They are comparing bmpcc with 13+ stops of dynamic range to both of those cameras. Raw is raw in a lot of these cases. You can push braw pretty far without it breaking the same with r3d and arriraw. Literally no reason apart from maybe lowlight which doesn’t make a huge deal on narrative work because can always darken things later in the coloring process but no real reason they would need to go with the fx3 over the red Komodo. The fx3 has less dynamic range, no internal raw, a new ProRes raw format that hasn’t been pushed through workflows as much as red’s raw has been so red raw is more familiar. The Komodo could easily cut between a red dragon if they needed gen-lock. But the Komodo also has the ability to add on expander modules that adds sdi & timecode or genlock without adding much weight and the lack of gen-lock & sdi were a few things the cinematographer wished the fx3 had. So they could have shot the whole thing on the Komodo without needing to use the fx9 instead of the fx3 for 5 days. On a technical level the Komodo would have been a better choice. They could have even used the same gimbal and switched to a smaller monitor because they wouldn’t need external raw capabilities.
They already said that they chose the FX3 because of the colour science with that kind of body. The Red Komodo is not in the form factor they were looking for (it wasn't the weight, it was the form factor), and the bmpcc did not have a full frame version back then. They shot the test footage on a Nikon Z series camera and they just wanted to keep that form factor since they liked it so much. The FX3 is the most reliable cinema camera in that form factor, and the price allowed them to have quite a few of them lying around on different rigs, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Would not have really been possible with the price of a full frame RED system even if the form factor matched what they were looking for.
Agree with your hypothesis re a marketing campaign. But it was also likely a whole bunch of reasons, many of which you also touched upon. That said, this far I can't see any obvious hype from Sony re how suitable etc an FX3 might be - implications being you should probably seriously think about buying one if you want to work more professionally - which logically is 'nuts'. Because any serious assessment will easily conclude that a good film has a lot more to do with the quality of story, production team, props, costume, locations, post FX etc etc and only a small part attributable to a camera choice. Then again perhaps a more informal (covert) attempt by Sony - it wouldn't look too good if seen to be overt sponsorship - esp if it didn't work out too well!?
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SlLbkeNH9to/mqdefault.jpg)
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter why they used it or what other cameras they could have used. They did use it. They shot an 80mil dollar fx heavy sci-fi film on a 4000 camera. And that's amazing.
Honestly, they could have used the 5DMKII or a6300 or anything really. The reason that movie looks the way it does is because it had a budget of 80 million dollars, 80 million lets you do a whole lot more than what "bucket" you use for data.
ok let's not get ahead of ourselves here 🤣5D mark III should never be used for an IMAX film, or the a6300. garbage dynamic range, noise performance, and has no actual cinema camera features. no true 24fps, no DCI 4K, no full frame... @@idrinktapwater6174
Sony probably paid them to shoot the movie on the FX3
@@idrinktapwater6174 You say that like $80 million is a lot for a sci fi movie. It's really not.
@@idrinktapwater6174 "5DMKII or a6300" no brother, that's a ridiculous comparison
Doc DP here that shoots for NPR / PBS. I had the opportunity to meet Oren about 6 years ago too, awesome guy. They definitely didn't choose the camera for marketing purposes. Oren said in an interview they used it because they were able to have about 8 of them - all set up for different rigs / scenarios. That way they were able to bounce from one to the other seamlessly. Not to mention pivot very quickly when one camera movement maybe didn't feel quite right. It's a tool that gets the job done the way the director wanted to work (fast). It let them have more time for takes and get quality moments. Not to get buzz for their movie. Believe me that's the last thing that was on their minds when choosing a camera. I'm also pretty sure the director shot the proof of concept film on a nikon Z series camera, he operated a lot of this movie and probably wanted a similar form factor.
This video actually made me buy Sony fx3.
They said it was the form factor that lead them to choose the camera. They mentioned in the interview that they used Nikon Z series camera to shoot the pitch and it worked well so they wanted to use the same form factor in the actual shoot. The best full frame cinema camera in that form factor is the FX3. Question answered.
ACTAULLY IT WAS STILL THE FX3 THAT WAS USED FOR THE PITCH, SHOT IN AN ASIAN VILLAGE WITH AN ANARMORPHIC LENS( WHICH WAS WAY SMALLER THAN NORMAL IMAGE SIZES)
That camera saved them a 100 million dollars because of the size and low light capabilities because since to performed in low light they didn't need all the big lights and used a lot smaller lights which meant smaller crews. The small form factor of the camera and low light capabilities helped them get to all these remote destinations a 100 times easier with half the crew because it was a lot less lights and camera hardware. A light workflow was the key to there decision!
Would have been even more awesome if they hadn't saved money by letting the Director shoot his own script and employed a screenwriter.
If you are a filmmaker, a true one, then this talk about camera specs and gears don't mean much to you. A true filmmaker can make a great movie with a camera that costs only a few hundred dollars. Gears don't make you a filmmaker, a good storytelling, an eye for composition, and a sense of timing will make you a true filmmaker.
I think that’s rather reductive. The camera, size of sensor, image quality, frame rate is really important given the type of story you’re trying to tell and the platform or the amount of distance and reach you want for your film. Sure you can film with your iPhone 15 pro but try throwing that on the best digital projector and you don’t have enough pixels or resolution to have a clear picture for a 50 inch projector screen(actually tried this with a 2k dollar projector). Throw in night shoots with a Red Komodo S35 sensor or any non Sony sensors and then there’s more opportunity cost huddles about the amount of lighting equipment or crew needed for certain scenes. Don’t get the shot you want then you can’t really tell your story the way it was written can you? I can go on and on but the idea is that you want a camera that gives you the best chance at telling your story the way you want it to be told and one that provides the most transfer ability through platforms (phone, computer, television, projector). If your camera sensor don’t take in that much light as said the opportunity cost on set and in post will match or increase
"Filmmaker", what does that even mean? Shooting youtube content? This is a video about cinematography, the cinematographers job in most projects is to have technical knowledge, a creative vision and the skill to make that vision come true in THE LEAST TIME POSSIBLE. But sure, you can shoot your non-profit hobby projects however you want, and take any time you want, without any expectations from your client to make it look up to par with modern standards. "True filmmaker" style
Gear still matters more than people want to believe. There is a reason Arri is used over mirrorless cameras
@jackanorybiggins not all Netflix approved Cinema cameras are full frame. Many are super 35 sensor cameras. But the other camera aspects you mentioned are real factors for a camera.
if u are a filmmaker camera specs are really important, lol, thats like saying amounts of lights doesnt matter or money doesnt matter
As a matter of fact I used both the fx3 and the fx30 this year on various projects. Brilliant cameras.
I talked to a guy from Sony (he did a workshop about their cinealte line up), who was in talks with the DoP from "the creator" pretty recently. (October) He talked about the reasons why they shot with the FX3.
Yes, they wanted the 12.800 Base ISO and the Small Camera Body from the FX3, but one of the big reasons why they choose this setup was that they wanted to travel with a small crew and as little gear as possible to make their emissions as low as possible. I don't think this comes up often in the discussion about the production of the creator. They cared about the enviroment and this is also part of the story of the movie. Thats why they had a small core team (sometimes just 5 ppl) and worked with local people on their 80 locations. Most of the lighting was also natural or just a few lamps with some practical LED lamps placed on set.
They straight up bought 8 FX3 for this setup, which was significantly cheaper than renting any other camera for the 5 months they were shooting. Beforehand they did 4 months of testing the FX3 with different rigs and lenses.
On Shoot day they had various different FX3 rigs and swappen between them, because they did a lot of takes for each scene so they could be more efficent overall. Most of the time only one camera was rolling though. (maybe 1x FX3 + drone) They shot around 4h of footage per day resulting only in 2 min. of final footage that got into the movie.
I guess the money they saved was used in the postproduction, because they had a budget of 80 billion USD. I think it payed of, although in some interviews some of the reasons don't get as much attention than the camera itself.
it's an interesting hypothesis you're laying out, that it was orchestrated to wow audiences with the marketing... but honestly there's probably only several dozen thousand people around the world who would know what an FX3 is compared to other contemporary cinema cameras and be impressed enough by that to buy a ticket to go see The Creator.. i don't think they would have weighted that in the production pipeline when kitting out the camera department. Maybe yeah at the end of the production process the DP and others realized they could impress all these camera nerds with some details of the production and thus we hear their anecdotes in the interviews, but really doubt it went into the original planning for what cameras to use
Gareth wanted to go handheld, that extra 3 pounds doesn't sound like much but when you're filming for 12+ hours a day, it definitely makes a difference. The komodo is great but not full frame, which was an objective look that they wanted. The fx3 being so lightweight + full frame + sony cinema camera color science makes the fx3 the obvious choice for the production that Gareth was looking to achieve. Maybe it was a marketing tactic but honestly I think everyone screaming about the creator on fx3 is inflating the situation way more than Greig Fraser or Oren Soffer ever did.
I think the full frame over S35 would be more of a factor. Color science, from what they said, didn't seem to matter. I would think they knew telling everyone the film was shot on a $4000 camera might be a big deal based on what Soffer said. Either way, all good and interesting stuff to consider.
It's the low light performance of the FX3 that you never discussed in your video. Right now, it's the best low light performer, even when you compare it to the likes of ARRI & RED's. Color science really don't apply when you shoot in log as color grading will give you the "look" that you want. So, FF + Low Light Performance + Light Weight, & Budget; these are factors that made them go with the FX3 instead of a different camera setups.
I briefly discussed lowlight because the filmmakers never really talked about it. I would have thought it was the main reason they used the FX3, but they discussed other features more. I know you gave reasons why they used the FX3, but in the video I have to cover what the actual filmmakers said. The cinematographer of the film literally said they picked the FX3 for the color science.
I agree with @Allthebeef, 3lbs over 14+ hours is a huge difference. Also, Gareth and Oren have talked extensively about the FX3’s low light capabilities in interviews, and how they are able to light entire scenes with basically a couple helios tubes on booms, which made moving fast at Gareth’s pace possible.
@@JeremyWalton watch the extras for the breakdown. They talk about low light, natural light a huge amount.
You hit on a huge pet-peeve of mine: trailers that are way too long and give away most of the story. Trailers used be a minute and a half, two, tops. Just enough to get you intrigued. Now they can be almost three and two and a half is standard. If I want to see a movie, i click off the trailer about halfway through, so I still want to see it after watching the trailer.
Bottom line - ANY modern cinema camera - from the Sony FX30 to the high end Alexa/Venice/Red are more than capable of capturing the necessary dynamic range/color depth to allow for Major Motion picture quality images. BUT - they all need the proper lighting/lenses/color grading to actually create a great image. The sensors are no longer the limiting factor.
Even if they have done it for marketing reason. The point is, dont spend too much money on camera. Spend on lighting, composition, colorist and sound.
-
BOOM BOOM SHAKALAKA
Yes and no. That's why I brought up Oppenheimer. They shot IMAX film which is really expensive along with great lighting, composition, etc. That movie grossed almost a billion dollars. The Creator, financially will be a flop. So you can spend a lot on a camera and be successful or shoot on the FX3 and have a flop. There's a lot of variables to consider, but ultimately it's up to the filmmaker to understand those variables and make the right decision.
@@JeremyWalton SO you think that the movie flopped because of the camera they shot on? what?? the movie made over 100million dollars for a brand new original IP. lol Like bro what are you talking about right now
No. I never said it flopped bc of the camera and financially it was a flop. Plenty of articles written on that topic.
@@JeremyWalton You probably didnt understand my point I guess. Newcomers even students included focus on what camera to buy for their short film, while the deciing factor of quality is depending on other factors like I mentioned, And I think oppenheimer would do better irrelevant of what camera it was shot on, the name nolan is such a marketing tool by itself. I dont think The creator is even known in many of the countries as a movie. So if you bring up the topic of how much a movie grossed, Im gonna talk about how much you spent on marketing.
I think the film gained more from the advertising for the Sony FX3 than from the film itself
Pure PR and marketing by Sony and they got it right.
The fx3,bmpcc,red Komodo,z-cam or any other modern prosumer “cinema” camera are all fully capable cameras. If you have one and don’t need things like sdi or gen-lock or timecode input and output a new camera WON’T help your cinematography. Save your money and work on your craft with what you have. If you see great images coming from a new camera let me tell you a secret. Your images WON’T look that great from that camera if you’re images aren’t looking that great with what you currently have. I’ve seen short films shot on the Red Dragon sensor that look like absolute garbage with a lot of noise and bad composition and lighting and highlights starting to clip with it being way to overexposed and I’ve seen films shot on a bmpcc or a Sony A7sii that look like any other movie shot on an Arri or Red camera.
sometimes artists choose to set certain parameters to a project simply out of artistic principle. I've chosen cameras and setups to shoot features on entirely just to have that experience and have those decisions influence the outcome in some way. I will admit, my films are cheap as chips and I can afford to take that risk. Seems a bit more out of place on a massive hollywood production but hey, it seemed to work. First time for everything !
Full frame and small, I film around the world, crossing borders is certain countries, filming ins certain countries can be danger, creator shows that we can have a small compact camara on the go without drawing attention, it’s on my list
Yeah my mom was so hooked on that marketing ploy… she sat next to me and was like „they really shot that on a fx3? Couldn’t they‘ve any other camera?“ 😂
Appreciate why you made this video and some of your sentiments. However now the dust has settled it is clearer around the reasons why the FX3. The main reasons they shot on the FX3 was form factor and the 12,800 iso capabilities. The Fx9 has a different sensor and doesn't shoot clean high ISO the Fx3 and the FX6 have also got better rolling shutter performance than the FX9 surprisingly. the Shotdeck interview demystified a lot. It would seem that the FX3 wasn't an intentional marketing stunt and you can be fairly sure of that because the only people who really care about it are filmmakers like ourselves
the interesting thing to understand is how in the general workflow they treated images shot with anamorphic lenses s35 (P+S) on a full format sensor.
Blackmagic is good for the skin color but I always prefered FX3 because it is the best in low light
Finally!!!!! A camera YT'er with a mind of his own! Subbed! You are a rare breed my friend. There is too much group-think on all these reviews on the movie and on cameras in general. Also don't trust what studios say about what is or is not profitable. all movies with wide release make their money back eventually. All of them.
i think the low-light performance was huge reason. as someone who has been shooting on a sony a7sii since 2015. Lowlight performance means you can use lighter smaller lights, and move them around more quickly. theoretically an fx6 could have been used as on option aswell (same sensor as an fx3)
RED and ARRI are jerks and Edwards is tired of dealing with them.
An FX9 or pretty much anything bigger then the FX3 would not had worked on the gimbal setup combined with the lenses.
The gimbal itself has a max payload.
It saves them needing a steadicam and jib for a majority of the action sequences
It's too late, I bought it 3 days ago haha
lol
It's a great camera Boss!! I have the FX3 and FX30 and mannnnnnn!!! I will let the camera do the talking! But there's a reason why they didn't use a canon camera for the Creator.
Looking forward to you making your own Creator.
Everyone wins. You win for having a camera to use and they win for selling another camera. Win win
@@elix_productions hey, Which camera do you prefer of the two?
The TH-cam world collectively went berserk when it CAME OUT that the camera they used was within reach of OUR budgets. The production team has stated many times it was because they could have 9 completely different rigs for quick-grab proper tool for proper shot-type, and the small form factor along with the 12,800 ISO made for not only smaller rigs to carry around but they could go with a slimmed down lighting and grip package as they traveled all around Southeast Asia to do a scene here, a scene there.
The rest of the world either wanted to see it, or didn't. Shooting Oppenheimer on IMAX had nothing to do with box office returns, any more than shooting with an FX3 - Nolan made a huge movie with a ton of buzz, about an important figure in our history, with an all-star cast - and it was (checks notes) Christopher Nolan.
More people wanted to see THAT than a hardcore sci-fi war movie - regardless of camera used.
from my perspective, every few years a camera is created to give average filmmakers inspiration. I remember in 2012 an block buster movie came out called ACT Of VALOR which was made on a canon 5d m2 and in 2015 the film mad max road fury, on a certain scene the use a black mage cinema 2.5k with an tokina 11-16 they used also a few original black magic pocket that was only 1080 pm at the time on a marvel Avengers: Age of Ultron and now we have the Sony e30 which did another ground breaking statement again in 2023 with the movie The Creator its a great time to be a filmmaker. this all proves you dont need to spend thousands from your retirement to buy a camera to produced quality work
Click bait?
...you’re underselling 12800 for existing(minimal) light, color science fix & vfx heavy in post. GE shoot similar to “Monsters”... plus according to Orin they shot like 4 hours run and gun to get one “magic” shot.
I don't think I'm underselling. I think the filmmakers were underselling. They hardly mentioned lowlight performance. Like I said in the video, it was a reason, not "the reason". They talked more about the other features and Soffer said the look of the film wasn't because of the Sony camera. Using the FX3 and what the filmmakers were saying didn't mesh well. That's all.
Stop hating lol
you would get so many more creative and no-nonsense "PRACTICAL" ideas for getting shots and getting movies filmed (like the ambulance scene or run and gun on a non-closed beach) for much smaller budgets if you had more directors (who are usually their own DPs) from the low and micro budget indie world hired for studio movies - In the 8 features I have made, you find out when you have a 250k or 100k budget or less on some of those that you have to be creative and have to have problem solving capabilities in order to pull off the shots and your vision for the movie rather than just throwing unlimited money at it and having a whole team take a full day or more to get the same 5 second ambulance flipping over shot....I wouldnt even know what to do with a studio budget lol...Id still make the movies the same way as far as my approach to them...we'd just have more $ for actors, props, locations, make up etc....when you put those people in the directors chairs is when we will start to get more great cinema again!
Almost CLICK BAIT
Marketing? Such a tiny fraction of the potential viewership would have known about the cameras.
In conclusion: its all about marketing
Even if it was marketing, I think the point was that you can use whatever can get the job done. The end result, editing, camera movement, post production can get the desired result. Creativity is the front seat. Story is a big factor also.
Totally confused.. in the heading it says 'don't by the FX3' but the video doesn't address why we shouldn't? a confusing watch wondering when the main statement will be addressed... inserts it seemed to be someone's partial take on the movie? I think?
I went for an fx3 in 2024 about 1 month ago, it's good because I think of the fan. So you could say I am a fan of it. Not because it was used in the creator.
Great video but, I think , its not comparison of director with Reds and smaller cameras etc. Its difference with IMAX. Its release on IMAX screen, thats big. Or am I missing something?
I hated the movie tho. The scene where they were carrying robot on a stretcher with sad music plot really got me. I was laughing in cinema haha 🤣
There's a lot of IMAX films. The difference is how they word things. For example "shot on IMAX" vs "filmed for IMAX". Oppenheimer used IMAX cameras. Top Gun Maverick used certified cameras like the Venice so they get a "filmed for IMAX". This is marketing. Will it matter to most people? Probably not, but as a filmmaker doing TH-cam videos on filmmaking, there's a big difference between Oppenheimer shooting with IMAX cameras and the FX3.
The main point of focus has to be the SENSOR. If for 4000$ you get a sensor that's good enough for FotoKem colorists to deliver the 80 million dollar look, then that means the sensor IS Hollywood quality. It's a bargain. So, buy the FX3
The difference was they bought 10 fx3 with different lens and setups and instead of waiting in between shots to rig up the camera, he was able to switch up the camera quickly for the next shots.
Edwards like the high iso performance @ 12,800
Maybe they used the fx3 because they were paid to? They tested it. The visuals were very comparable so why not.
this is some crazy click baiting lmao
Summary: You are not a cinematographer because you have the fx3 but there are great cinematographer who use the fx3. 11 minutes saved
I'm really surprised about all the chat for the fx3 filming this movie. A lot of time something similar was made... for example one of the season finale of dr. House was shot on a canon 5d mk 2...8bit no log ecc. It was to film in a more agile way in small spaces as far as I know...i suppose that this was made for some logistic choice as well....or maybe just for marketing as they record raw trough an atomos recorder 😅😅😅 so they could used a lot of cameras as well as the fx3!
Why not the FX3? It is a brilliant camera and after seeing the film, it looked beautiful. I think you should buy the FX3.
Interesting! One would think marketing. Very cool regardless.
bmpcc6kpro is my fav cinematic camera!!
I agree with all of that, but just to think the humble and relatively affordable ZV-E1 is basically an upgraded FX3 with the AI chip from the A7R V, that's just incredible. That just goes to show that these days, it's not about gear as even a vlogging camera from Sony will give you identical results to large cinema cameras, the limiting factor is your skills.
You don't even need big expensive lights anymore as the second native ISO of 12,800 means you can use cheap low powered lights to achieve the same results, what an incredible time to be alive.
Interesting perspective, Jeremy! This is insightful stuff. Great analysis! 👏
“You don’t need 300 million”
It wasn’t the camera, and even the script was dumb. Washington doesn’t need to be paid at the same rate as say, his dad, or Leonardo. AI prob wrote the script.
$80 mil makes sense, as long as you have their most important part:
Industrial Light & Magic.
It’s the most legendary post houses ever
Great!
I physically worked on this film.
My uncle was one of the gaffers on this film. It was mostly FX9 as well as Arri 65 which was on set and used for hero shots. FX3 was used for handheld or moving running shots. Not sure why the lying but the truth will come out.
Same here. My uncle was on the Apollo, and he saw that the Earth looked like a pineapple on a pizza. the truth will come out one day.🙃
I didn't see the movie. Yet. But incredible movies have been made with far less so that's not really a thing. It did feel like a giant Sony commercial for a while. My best friend does movies for Sony. Always thought that was odd. That is power. I never asked him but I assume it was all shot on Sony. I'm a Canon fanboy. Just like the image better. It looks like an Atomos logo on the FX3 camera rig. I have 3 of them. Also a fan of Atomos.
movie The Creator is the reason why i want to buy the r5c
Finally the truth is revealed… It’s a marketing ploy. Absolutely. With an $80 million budget they could’ve used any camera they wanted. So much bullshit. I still think the movie could’ve looked better using the Komodo X. I’ve used the Komodo and it has a very film like quality.
Now I’d like to know what did they do with the FX3 Footage… Lots and lots of color grading and other such effects.
for them to say cameras do not have their own looks is disingenuous at best....
Some may even look at your video as jumping on the FX3 bandwagon and The Creator film to help with the TH-cam algorithm. Just sayin'.
It felt like it was a marketing campaign for the fx3 to get sales which worked. Because any pro would know it could have easily been shot on a bmpcc or even better a red Komodo for the same weight and rigging capabilities and if they went with the Komodo an already very well established post production workflow with red raw files. It’s not like there is a limited number of quality cameras at a small size now. 99% of the “look” is down to locations,wardrobe,blocking,lighting,set dressing,colorist. A LOT of cameras some costing less than the fx3 captures more than enough information to get those same shots if all you are switching out is the camera and the everything else is the same. When I heard the interview and he mentioned the color science which has hardly anything to do with the camera quality and more about how they fine tune the internal “luts” for lack of a better word of how it captures the data from manufacture to manufacture of what it considers red and blue and green and what they feel are attractive skin tones they may adjust things but overall all that can be adjusted in post and will be adjusted heavily in post so Jim mentioning the color science then mentioning what is actually important like the colorists work in post & the locations and wardrobe and lighting then I was confused.
80 million dollars used for marketing Sony FX 3 ? Your logic is full of validity 👌
Ur logic is flawed pro res as he said gave as much quality that u cant distinguish from an alexa
@@slurp3194 hard to pick out. Their testing is just color charts focus charts,bokeh charts with different lenses. It’s difficult to point out any modern prosumer “cinema” camera in tests now. They all capture enough data to hardly make a difference. They aren’t comparing an iPhone to an Alexa they are comparing the fx3 with 15 stops of dynamic range to cameras like the Komodo with 16+ stops of dynamic range to the Alexa LF with 14+ stops of dynamic range. They are comparing bmpcc with 13+ stops of dynamic range to both of those cameras. Raw is raw in a lot of these cases. You can push braw pretty far without it breaking the same with r3d and arriraw. Literally no reason apart from maybe lowlight which doesn’t make a huge deal on narrative work because can always darken things later in the coloring process but no real reason they would need to go with the fx3 over the red Komodo. The fx3 has less dynamic range, no internal raw, a new ProRes raw format that hasn’t been pushed through workflows as much as red’s raw has been so red raw is more familiar. The Komodo could easily cut between a red dragon if they needed gen-lock. But the Komodo also has the ability to add on expander modules that adds sdi & timecode or genlock without adding much weight and the lack of gen-lock & sdi were a few things the cinematographer wished the fx3 had. So they could have shot the whole thing on the Komodo without needing to use the fx9 instead of the fx3 for 5 days. On a technical level the Komodo would have been a better choice. They could have even used the same gimbal and switched to a smaller monitor because they wouldn’t need external raw capabilities.
They already said that they chose the FX3 because of the colour science with that kind of body. The Red Komodo is not in the form factor they were looking for (it wasn't the weight, it was the form factor), and the bmpcc did not have a full frame version back then. They shot the test footage on a Nikon Z series camera and they just wanted to keep that form factor since they liked it so much. The FX3 is the most reliable cinema camera in that form factor, and the price allowed them to have quite a few of them lying around on different rigs, ready to roll at a moment's notice. Would not have really been possible with the price of a full frame RED system even if the form factor matched what they were looking for.
TH-cam DP hot take click bait titling.
You really made this whole video just to be wrong.
Agree with your hypothesis re a marketing campaign. But it was also likely a whole bunch of reasons, many of which you also touched upon.
That said, this far I can't see any obvious hype from Sony re how suitable etc an FX3 might be - implications being you should probably seriously think about buying one if you want to work more professionally - which logically is 'nuts'. Because any serious assessment will easily conclude that a good film has a lot more to do with the quality of story, production team, props, costume, locations, post FX etc etc and only a small part attributable to a camera choice.
Then again perhaps a more informal (covert) attempt by Sony - it wouldn't look too good if seen to be overt sponsorship - esp if it didn't work out too well!?