Both “Captain America” and “Black Swan” were partly filmed with a Canon 5D Mark II in 1080p.. most people today walking around with 4K cameras still cannot create images better than how the Canon 5D II was used for those films. Moral of the story, masterful technique is more effective than merely higher specs.
Yup, they were just lacking dynamic range in video. Now you have the 5D3 doing 15 stops of dynamic range in 14 bit 5.7K using Magic Lantern hacks. I believe that was the tipping point for the entire industry. Fujifilm soon followed with their 14 stop dynamic range x-h2s that stands toe to toe with the FX3 only with usable colors.
@@nativestrong7253 good point. yeah but in Hollywood for decades they make movies with actual film that have a lower level of dynamic range sometimes down to only 10 full stops of DR and the images and details of images are legendary. Even stuff shot in the 60’s like Kurosawa’s “Yojimbo”. It’s because the professionals rely on lighting techniques way more than sensor sensitivity. You don’t need a lot of dynamic range if you have good grip/gaffer methods My point is people are relying a lot on the specs of a particular camera’s sensor to capture the image, when in reality when you work in Hollywood it’s actually the technique used control the light and shape the amount of the light into the sensor that is more effective to the image than just having a sensor with high DR. Look at it this way, you actually need high DR sensors when you do not know how to properly set the room tone, lighting, to expose an image
@@mortenjensen946 Yup and sitting in the theatre most people cannot tell which particular scene was shot on the 5D MKii or the Arri Alexa or the Panavision all due to the mastery the DP, the AC, and the grip/gaffers crew had in setting the shots with the 5DMKii. Gear seems to matter less when you have mastered technique. Gear seems to matter more when you lack technique.
I can't remember which famous director this was attributed to, but it goes something like: "You are telling a story using tools, not using tools to tell a story."
@@OrganalogRelated, I found time to finally watch “The Creator”. Except for some script cheez, an overall stunning film! I started watching Monsters right after, but had to pause for now. Edwards is quite impressive and Rogue One is my favorite Star Wars story, outside of the original trilogy.
@@zaziou711George Lucas Some quotes by Jean Renoir "I am against great themes and great subjects... You can't film an Idea. The camera is an instrument for recording physical Impact." "I believe that perfection handicaps cinema."
Well, when you have a budget of $80M for set dressing, location, vfx, marketing, story, and cast... the camera used to shoot it becomes a less important matter.
Years ago, when I was hosting the DCP / Artful Camera podcast, the idea of using autofocus was considered an amateur move (unjustly, I might add). My ideal kit these days fits in my pocket most days, and occasionally in a small backpack. I love the idea of the immediacy of filmmaking with a studio in my pocket.
Excellent point. Orson Welles famously said, "A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army". It seems that sooner than we think, all a filmmaker will need is a camera, a handful of lights, a microphone and a computer to make a "Hollywood-level" film.
You are missing on crucial point as everybody else in this discussion: the reason why movies are rediculously expensive in Hollywood is 1. payment for famous actors and 2. UNIONS. Unions became an abolute plague in Hollywood though they provide some protection they also make film making in Hollywood unnecsassary expensive and complicated. My favorite cameraman Robby Müller had some very clear words about working in Hollywood: "I don't like it!" Look him up, you be surprised how humble and yet straight forward a genius can be.
Love Robby’s work I’ve seen some of his beautiful images. Honestly, my video isn’t so much on budget but bringing a point that Gareth has made, that new tools exist and the entire industry should be open to some filmmakers who want to utilize them including their filming methods.
Respectfully, this isn't an accurate take. Take my opinion for what it's worth - I'm an actor not a camera operator or an editor, but I've been on plenty of sets, worked in plenty of post production environments doing ADR and I have plenty of of friends in the industry. If they feared technology and change then everything would still be in 35mm, and editing houses would be using razor blades. Take your example of AVID still being the industry standard. This isn't because the studios are afraid of DaVinci resolve, (most of them are colour grading using DaVinci) but because AVID is still a beast at large scale complex edits typical in larger budget studio releases. Likewise with the FX3. It produces a great image but despite its great low light capabilities, it simply can't compete with something like an Alexa mini for dynamic range. An Alexa mini has more professional rigging options, and for many people the sensor produces a more pleasing filmic image. You don't have do adapt your Cooke cine primes on an Alexa. Gareth Edwards is a bit of an outlier. He prefers self shooting. he prefers the guerrilla style. He co-wrote and produced this project as well as directing it. The fact that a studio backed him to the tune of 80 million dollars doesn't exactly sound like fear to me.
Hey, thanks for your respectful comment but I disagree. AVID is not at all the only editing software capable of doing bigger projects or having collaboration tools. I feel this is just industry group think and straight up fear of change. I do agree that the Alexa is great but your rigging argument is still based this idea that everyone needs a huge crew. I'm not against big crews in general but they aren't for every filmmaker and the camera/gear should reflect that. I read, Gareth has made the case that studios should let filmmakers keep their way of doing things when they get approached to do studio films. I doubt they would let a first time studio filmmaker choose their camera, crew size etc. While I agree the industry has moved on from 35mm, that took a long time. There's tools or methods out here today that won't probably won't be used for years.
@@Organalog I completely agree that other NLEs can handle big projects, but why switch? Until the advantages actually outweigh the inconvenience of retooling and retraining, there is zero incentive to switch. It's the same with camera technology. Initially it took time to move from 35mm because digital cameras weren't good enough. A decade after Attack of the clones more than 3/4 of every movie was being shot digitally. An entire industry re tooled and retrained in less in a decade. New companies like RED emerged. Arri pivoted to digital with the Alexa in 2010. When the technology is better, and more convenient, the industry will adopt it as quickly as it can. Those that don't get left behind. (Pannavision) With regards to crew size, of course you can choose to shoot things with a smaller crew as long as you accept the sacrifices involved. You can use a steady cam instead of a track but the shots will look different. You can use a drone instead of a crane but the shot will look different and the downdraft from the blades means it can't get too close. You can use digital explosions instead of a real explosion but it will look different. Does what you gain from a small crew and prosumer camera outweigh what you loose? For Gareth Evans it did. For the vast majority it does not. None of this has anything to do with fear of technology. It has everything to do with convenience and compromise. A final thought, relevant to The Creator is to remember that while he used an $4000 FX3 as his A cam, he had 3 complete FX3 rigs with 3 rehoused vintage 75mm anamorphic lens and a prototype Atlus Mercury 42mm. So in order to accomodate run and gun guerrilla style on a movie set, he had well over $100,000 worth of cameras and lenses. Add in the completely custom rigs (x3) and you have a Holywood budget camera setup. This was to make it more convenient to quickly change setups and lenses without needing to delay shooting too long.
I think we just don’t agree but that’s ok. I’ll just leave it at this, when a movie like The Creator can make headlines, it says a lot about how quickly Hollywood embraces new technology or methods. Thanks again for your comment and for stopping by! :)
AVID is still the preferred NLE in Hollywood because it’s built from film workflows and is rock solid in terms of media management. I’d hate to try to match back to film using FCP, though Resolve and Premiere have flexibility that AVID does not
The idea that Avid is the only editor with those benefits and therefore overlooking the potential benefits that other NLEs have, proves the point that change is often slow and new technology is not quickly embraced. I doubt that Resolve or Final Cut (Focus 2015 movie starring Will Smith edited on it) is incapable if the workflows were carefully designed for them.
@@OrganalogA major 100 million Hollywood feature cutting on Premiere literally had to recently switch back to Avid when they ran into major issues on turnovers. FCP is not even a professional editing system and no major productions currently use it.
Listen I worked on battlestar galactica and they brought in a panasonic hvx200. The crew was saying how The industry wasn't trouble with all the emerging little cameras. What you realize on a show is that you need.Grips, you need a stunt department.You need hair you need Props, you need everything that the movie industry needs.You can make a Make a camera package less expensive that only affects the rental house like PAN division but doesn't affect the industry.The industry still needs all the moving parts and it will never change
Voice to text failed me. This only effects Arri, Red, Panavision, camera rental houses. The industry needs truckers, trailers, catering, honeywagons, stunt men, grips, camera ACs, locations PA, ETC
I think you are bang on. I had a small (very small) role in The Creator and was blown away by how small and nimble the crew was and how hands on Gareth was. I’ve been on much lower budget films with much larger crews. as a one man band doc filmmaker i took so much away from my short time on set having the chance to see that amazing crew in action.
Could you get more in depth into how many people were on set and how a day of filming was planned out? Im very curious about what i can implement in other film sets, thank you
Some very good points. I have made close to a dozen sub million dollar films and when I work on the almost no budget (under 100k) films you learn that your limitation can be your best friend. Walking with my 3 person or so camera and lighting crew from one side of a location to the other takes 5 minutes. But, even on a half million dollar budget where the producer (in two cases I dealt with this) wants to hire an “impressive” looking 4:03 crew, that same walk across the location took an hour. Cables, people, gear, etc. you shoot only 2/3rds of the shots you want. And you are doing it with more money! I have been dealing with this for over a decade, trying as a director to explain less is more sometimes but the union requirements that can kick in turn films into big slugging machines and you are better served often by minimizing to your essentials if you know what you are doing. And that comes from practice. So grab your DSLR and your friends and go try something. Bet you get more coverage in your neighborhood in a day than any of the big studios do
Well said, thanks for your opinion. Yes, I feel there's a vast disparity between how far technology has gotten how sluggish the old Hollywood system reacts. This slimmer faster method doesn't have to be for every film set but there definitely should be more acceptance and open mindedness to utilize small crews, new cheaper gear. That's why I feel The Creator is such a little victory because of how big of a production it was but how small of a footprint it made (filming wise). Thanks again.
Spot on assessment of the 'traditional is best' mindset of many emerging and active filmmakers. Gareth Edwards is a filmmaker very much in the vein of Kubrick in that they innovate through necessity and creatively thinking on how to get maximum output through the least amount of input (not effort). Saving time is as important as cost which is why they adopt a bare minimum approach.. It's a progressive mindset found in a lot of 'no filmschool' filmmakers. Great content!
I think if someone mentions the creator, then they should also mention that they used vintage lenses that cost 25k each. And the look comes down to the lens as well. Just because they used the same body as consumer doesn't mean that prosumer can do it as well as easily as people make it sound... especially since they also had CGI done by some of the best in the business
Watching a BTS of this, Gareth explains another reason they went with the FX3 was because the cost of the camera opened up more to the budget of actually getting to go to all the wonderful locations in the film. Smaller crew, smaller camera, and then more budget for better locations.
It’s hard to argue with that. If people don’t want to use the FX3, does it mean those filmmakers are less willing to try new tech? When using entry-level gear, the risk of faults significantly increases. Professional gears are heavy and expensive, but it also ensures the reliability.
That’s a dope name for a TH-cam channel. You’re spot on….most of these cameras can get very close to the quality of Arri cameras. I’m into my Sigma FP. The form factor, image, and color science is phenomenal. My intent is to master that camera, regardless of new camera releases.
Thanks! Sigma FP is super cool from what I’ve seen, the size and Cinema DNG, definitely be great to master something so powerful like that, thanks for letting me know.
same here with sigma fp and reading comments. Came here with full hate for sony fx3 and how everyone without knowloedge but having a good autofocus for videography and working for cheap and killing the sector in Turkey with what fx3 delivers while I am trying to gyrostabilize and colorgrade my works :)
Making films is so NOT about what camera you use. It is about just about everything BUT THAT. When you get out to actually make a film using things other than what you have laying around your house and your friends, you will find that out for yourself. Superb story, great actors that know what they are doing, exceptional locations, food, wardrobe, props, grip, lighting, the list goes on & on. And you can't do ANY of it without money. Not saying this to discourage, just be prepped for it while you are obsessing about the "camera".
I mostly agree with you and even made a video on this topic. Although, a major point is also for filmmakers to not be ignorant of new technology that can actually make your life easier and efficient for further opportunity to focus on your story/film. It’s a balance between being creative and technical. Thanks!
I just had a breakthrough with a iPhone shooting 4k at 29.97 - I am floored at the picture quality on a big screen without the expected noise and bad kind of pixel/grain. I had great lighting and know camera techniques and I used them. Still like my FX30, but my god things have come a long way in just 5 years even. So yes I agree on all above points you make.
ngl Ian Hubert is one of those people I admire on doing VFX and also be a film maker at the same time, just using Blender 3D now a days to make set extension and simple VFX is so much easy to access compare to where I started doing it back in 2008, I think the future of filmmakers will pretty much a bunch of small team making their own small series of movies (similar to making comics/manga)
I started shooting on a fx3 before I knew anything about the creator, I honestly just don't like big complicated lighting setups. I'm obsessed with how The Revenant looks, so what better to shoot on than a small camera that can shoot in the dark with great auto focus and tracking. Its genuinely saved several of my films, one even being shot in an alley in boston at night, only using street lights. It certainly doesn't look as good as a nice lighting setup, and Ive learned a lot from that, but the fact that I can just show up and shoot a film in one night is crazy.
it's not just the technology it's how the world have evolve and the type of people watching movies. In the old days, people love going to the movies and watch latest blockbusters but now there's social media like tik tok, Instagram, youtube etc. Hollywood won't change because they're too big and don't want to lose money. It's a money driven industry. Now, even with little or no budgets, you can make interesting short cinematic videos that people would watch. I myself like watching them more then watching Netflix. It's everyone for himself now and won't be long big movie companies have to compete with them.
It's not just the FX3 making headlines from the 81 million dollar feature, the DJI Ronin 4D was a B Cam for "Civil War". Mixed with Komodo Drone shots. Canon will get into the mix at some stage with the roll out of C80 and C400, anything is possible.
Truth be told only some shots were a FX3, a majority were FX9 - double check you'll see :) I personally don't think saying the FX3 was needed to create this film is even responsible, it leads on future filmmakers with nonsense. Any camera could have shot The Creator - it was clearly for publicity, not because it was the best tool - the right lighting and lenses, any camera could have done the same job. I've personally tested several cameras at half the ISO as the FX3 and boosted the exposure with cleaner more pleasing results - it all comes down to how you understand exposure, and how digital sensors work. Future filmmakers, you don't need any specific brand of camera to shoot anything, it is and always will be about what you need to tell the story the way you need to, the FX3 is not some god send monster camera, it took expensive lenses and lighting to even pull the quality out of that camera, and not to mention, The Creator is far from a visual masterpiece, loaded with tons of artificial noise to hide the issues the camera posed for the editing team, look closer next watch, and on a much bigger screen you'll see what I'm talking about.
Not sure where your getting your info from but the vast majority was filmed on FX3 they only used another camera for stage light sync purposes. Double check ;)
@@Organalog I don’t need to double check, in the newest interviews he stated it was really only used as a crash cam, and for hand held gimbal work, that’s why he even updated the IMDb - triple check.
@@Organalog bottom line, you’re too glued to worrying about the FX3 making a movie - I’m not sure why this video was made. Film makers have been using low cost cameras for over 30 years on sets, ex. 28 days later etc. , so why brag about this ? At least the Sony PD150s, and 5D’s and so on were capable from factory, the internal codecs on a FX3 are a joke for its price, even on The Creator they had to use extra equipment to bypass the internal disadvantages of the camera , so it feels weird to brag about an over priced incomplete camera when there are cheaper options that would have done a better job.
Saying they’re afraid is not clickbait, just maybe not the best word (for lack of a better word?) If anything maybe jealous, in the same way a struggling film maker will see some 20 year old kid make millions off dumb vlogs and twitch streams. Another aspect is the lens. The P+S probably cost more than 4 FX3s alone lol they weren’t shooting off GMs or something “basic” to the standard movies you see. Most people use Arri, so it’s refreshing to think that a $4k FX3 or a $6.8k Ronin 4D-6K is actually usable, instead of being forced to rent a $50k+ Arri. If you have access to even something like an Arri Alexa whether we are talking physically or monetarily, then yeah you’re gonna disagree with this video. But for those that struggle to pay for a $10k rig, this atleast gives us hope.
I like what you said in your video. Don't be intimidated by Hollywood. Use what you have at your disposal. Use Technology to your advantage and make movies cost effectively. There is so much new technologies available to create your stories in a cost effective way on your desktop. Just have fun and make good movies that you can stream well and make money online. It is difficult to get bumps on the seat at cinemas with so much content available online.
I like the video. I think the creator just prove what others have said in your comment section. Filmmakers been using prosumer tools for years. The possession of Hannah Rose was shot on a Sony A7S2 at 8bit and still came out looking good except for a few scenes. I think we’re focusing so much on the tools and not our skill set or getting better with our skill set.
Great video, you’re very true when you talk about film schools always try to push the norms of Hollywood, Me and my friend both shot two films this summer mine being a bit longer but smaller crew (practically no crew) and his being shorter but way bigger crew. We kinda saw that you can’t wear all the hats on a film but you don’t need so many people on your set where your overly stimulated. Some where in the middle is the perfect match for inde filmmaking
If he can find a way to make an epic big Hollywood movie with a tiny camera in a better way, I think that’s great, and we need more filmmakers doing what works for them instead of doing what Hollywood wants them to. Zack Snyder shot a short film on an iPhone with a gimble and it looks Hollywood level
40 years ago I was working in local community arts projects with the brief of "Demystifying media processes/ making media production accessible/facilitating creative communication for ordinary folks to express themselves". Back then it was photography, VHS, and Super 8. One serious problem was the ideology of co-workers who insisted traditional standards of 'quality' results did not matter, and were in fact far too reactionary - so should be discouraged... My position was communication would be more effective if new creators strived to achieve the best they could with limited low cost equipment and resources. To meet the reasonable expectations of an average audience. To engage and entertain, not alienate viewers..... In 2024, imho, the internet is awash with too many dire indie movies. Terrible poor quality boring vanity projects. Having said that, I am so delighted to discover the rare 'no budget' movies that are a superior experience than big budget Hollywood products.
Hollywood is not scared of change, they are just unaware of it. The reason being that most of the people who make these technical decisions are IT guys who are just going to look at the expenses of post-production as a whole. They are not aware of the creative process and they don't even know what they are missing out on. Post-prod in the industry is like a factory, workers work and it is just about if the end product looks the same as the director and studios imagined it to be. A lot of people in the post-prod use Media Composer but it not out of choice.
I can't take films shot on mirrorless cameras seriously. Unless you find a way to compact all the features of a real movie camera onto one (internal NDs, timephase out, full ISO range) I wouldn't worry too much about it. There's a reason Arri Alexa costs 100k+.
This trend has been going on since DV tape cams got HD output in the early 2000's but yeah the gear and the supply chain that needs to feed into it is less of a thing with newer tech but you still need good ideas, I have seen better film ideas on paper napkins than what makes it to the big screen, but skill and experience and VISION all play a huge part.
The FX3 isn't going to take over, nor threaten Hollywood. There's a reason why it takes 30 min. to hours to light and setup a shot or scene for Hollywood productions. That's kinda what the audience is paying for. For "The Creator" nobody will ever want to actually watch the film again after the initial viewing, so the quality of the cinematography doesn't really matter. Again, there's a huge difference between pointing a camera in a general direction with some LED lights and staging proper cinematography.
@@retroelectrical all true, and honestly as I mentioned above - the quality was not really a cinematic marvel by any means - special effects, overlays, and added noise mask many things and make it seem like a camera should be credited for a type of quality it didn’t even earn. I love that people make videos like these but I wish they questioned more, instead of teaming up and going along with a million others to manufacture a pseudo truth.
You make it sound like there’s only one way to do something for good results. There’s nothing wrong with taking awhile to light but that’s not for everyone nor is it the only way to make great images. People shouldn’t be afraid of new camera technology, The Creator looked great the audiences didn’t complain about that.
Yes but once you've set up the lighting and the scene, the point is that you can shoot it on a lower cost camera that is easier to work with, and still get amazing results (if you know what you are doing). That is the point, not the expensive setup to shoot in which we all would want if we can swing it.
@@rockrecordreport7136 not sure why you had to even to defend anything, for 40 years + it’s been that way, it’s nothing new, - fx3 didn’t create affordable ease of use shooting, great lighting equipment, and skilled teams have always been able to shoot on less expensive cameras with great results. The point most people are making, why pretend and put so much focus on this camera - this video could have been made using 100 other examples before this.
@@Lumin8Productions Cameras are making breakthroughs in size and price in the last 5 years even. So you saying "before this" is saying nothing really. How long really is "before this" that you refer to. What were the 4k cameras that you speak of for the last 40 years and what did they cost even 10 years ago if you have any idea, and please name a few or 100 of them. You are way to vague.
I don't think Hollywood fears the FX3, i think its companies like Arri, Red that fear such cameras. I mean I have in my possession the best camera quality you an get for 7500, GFX100ii, this is the best thing I have worked with in terms of quality of Arri etc...I used A7Siii in my last movie "Meeting Ketu". Next movie will be GFX.
Good content, you overdid the "smooth highlights look" on your video though. It looks as if you have lowered the Gain, lowered contrast, but it doesn't look natural.
Well, actually te FX3 is kinda cheating for low light, but if you look closer, a lot of detail and sharpness is lost, even with the FX9. Compare them to a Venice (2) or an Alexa 35 and you'll see. Maybe not so obvious on the devices most people watch the movies on, but on a decent HDR screen or in the cinemas there is. Sure, some can be fixed in post, or most likely cover up, but these consumer/prosumer cameras are not a real threat. Especially when it's less than one percent of the whole budget.
I own an fx3 and there's no detail loss at 12,800 iso. Either you're lighting your scene wrong or you don't own one or have experience filming with one.
No one appreciates lighting. honestly, a well lit shot filmed with an iphone will look better than an FX3 shot filmed with no professional lighting. There's a reason it takes 30 minutes to flip the camera around
they also used i think expensive anamorphic lenses, and atomos recodter do get proresRAW, and i saw in an interview they used amazing amound of color gradingm adding grain etc for it to look cinematic. but it was never a camera it is always a story telling, plenty of not great movies out there with amazing cameras :P
I agree about using any camera but in this case though, it was the camera. The flexibility of its size to enable to move and shoot in minimal lighting helped tell the story easier.
@@Organalog Yeah i agree, i ment, in any movie, what camera they use is never the reason for the movie to be good. Its always the story and basicaly anything else is more important than the camera itself. They could make a great movie on iphone if they wanted. And there is very thin line between flexibility of camera and quality of the picture. In this film sacificed a little of the quality and ease of postpoduction for the convinience with gave them freedom to do this movie at all. But we have to give it to ILM, they carried the whole movie anyway...
@@Organalog I think you have the wrong idea. Idk if you’re in the film industry or if you have been to big productions sets, but ‘hollywood’ loves new technologies, specially if it makes things faster and efficient.
@@Organalog your title states, Hollywood fears the fx3. Why would Hollywood fear the fx3 when they have access to the best of the best camera's? Don't get me wrong, I shoot solely on the fx3 since it's release but Hollywood is definitely not fearing the fx3 😂. Your statement to your video is very clickbait. It should be worded as "Does the FX3 have a place in Hollywood?"
Once DJI drops their full-frame $2000 mirrorless, it’s gonna be OVER for a lot of cine cam companies. The OP3 is already a revelation coming from something like a mildly-rigged A7Sii. Small, good wireless systems are also disruptive tech, like the newest DJI Mic Mini, or even Track Es with COS11s/4060s. Booms of course still have a place, but with the wide acceptance of seeing gigantic “podcast” SM7Bs in frame now, talking head stuff for short-form is getting so democratized. Throw in great new lights like affordable panels such as Amaran F22c or even Zhiyun C100 and now you can get super results from half a backpack worth of gear. I’m not saying it’s time to bin all your c stands, just that you might not need an Alexa rental for your next festival flick if things keep trending this direction.
When studio films are now costing $250m+ and then they spend another $150m on marketing, then no one comes to the cinema to watch it - something has to change. Some directors embrace technology and efficiency = make sure the script & pre-vis works before filming starts. Reduce crew size (use modern tech), use emerging talent in front of camera no big bucks stars), keep principle photography as small as possible, don't rewrite the script during filming, no reshoots only pickups. Today's Post production / VFX - I don't know man, but that's a million people in the credits right there. Fix that by telling great stories Gareth Edwards, Alex Garland, James Gunn all get this, even if they don't always nail the script.
Wasn't it Spielberg that was the first director to use an ariflex that could film inside of a car and pan back and forth, when making "Sugarland Express"...before that, He shot the movie Duel with a small crew over only thirteen days...I think he might have went on to make them (Hollywood) a lot of money😅 $$
This video is coming in clutch, especially with so much kerfuffle because of the iPhone 16. Many ruling it out as a camera because xyz reason and you should just use an actual camera. With what money? The body costs twice as much and the lens 4x the price of the body. If the iPhone can do it and we have plenty of evidence it can, why not just use that? Nobody is saying you'll have Interstellar by the end, but at least you'll have a finished film - contrary to popular belief, a conceptualised film in your head cannot be uploaded on TH-cam, but a finished film can.
Yeah I agree with this, I’m just saying why more filmmakers should try and embrace newer technology (including iPhone) or whatever helps get out of your way and make your films.
had to watch this several times so as not to come here with a knee jerk reaction. yes - prosumer tech has been used in feature films made by studios and indies for years; either as A-camera or a B-camera or for inserts and crash cams. and it hasn't been until recent years where prosumer cameras have become reliable anough that an entire feature could be filmed with one. the Hollywood movie machine has had over 100 years experience in making movies. the studios and the the supporting infrastructures have honed this art to a reliable process that works. this infrastructure includes skilled crafts people - the "bloated" massive film crews that are referred to and master fabricators who make all of the custom gear and equipment needed to make a film. and here's the thing about some directors - they just don't care about the crew and they don't care about the process. they care about their FILM. doing reverses WILL take time, and seriously, 30 min is not a long time to turnaround for a reverse. a lot of this delay can be eliminated up front with proper planning, wild walls in the set and lighting for 360 and multiple cameras. but understand, this comes with compromises. you won't get vilmos or deakins lighting when lighting for 360s and multiple cameras. the triangle of fast/quick/cheap will definitely be in play. while i appreciate the dogma school of filmmaking and working with a lean crew and gear, one has to appreciate this model rarely works on major studio projects. Panavision, Arri, Red and often the modern cameras of choice because they are reliable. They are a known quantity and are battle tested. These cameras are "mil-spec" and can handle the rigours of daily hard use. If one goes down on set, there's often the B-camera that can be pulled in and often a spare can be brought in fromt the rental house same day. the A7S3 is a fav or mine for indie filmmaking, especially it's value in scaling down the G&E crew, but it has weak links like the HDMI connection which needs to be protected with a cage and extension cable - and even then it can easily break taking down your external monitor and recorder. And if you call the rental house for help they will tell you - it's not a pro camera and they won't be sending you a free replacement. as for the giant crews, when all the filmmaking gear from the camera to the honey wagons are rented on a daily/weekly basis it becomes necessary to have a larger crew to accomplish the page count for the day and within budget and to achieve the director's vision. this is not to say that breakout films haven't been made with skeleton crews - but those animals are rare. when one is essentially burning a $100 bill every minute of the production day, there isn't time to wait on a skeleton crew to get the work done for the next setup. what really triggered me about this video is the dismissive tone towards the industry crew. the majority of us are artists who deeply care about our craft and what we help to create. how many people can point out to family and friends something they were a part of that might stand the test of time like a classic film? we're certainly not here to get rich, but like roadies - we get immense satisfaction for helping to create something you will enjoy and maybe even impact your life in a meaningful way. and right now the vast majority of us film crew are hurting economically from the industry streaming implosion. savings, homes, and even lives have been lost as a result. yes, at least 1 documented case of a crew member in the crew parking lot and a few others who are suspected to be self un-aliving all as a result from the recent financial strain. marriages and relationships have dissolved because 1 or even both partners in the industry are no longer able to support the family. please consider - while this new prosumer camera may be the latest "holy grail" - it has an impact on not only the industry, but those that support it. the crew lose their jobs, everyone they support is impacted down to lady who owns the taco truck and every biz that's supported by crew wages. it's truly the Butterfly Effect. don't be a cpl upham from private ryan. have some empathy for those that are going through severe hardship as our industry reinvents itself as a resultt of new tech and AI.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not against crew members, they are incredibly valuable hard working artists. I’m against a monolithic belief ALL productions must make films in only one true way. I feel this ideology is rampant even by low budget filmmakers, who lack resources and may not even make their film at all because of a belief that a large crew is the only way. Finally for once we see a large Hollywood production that allowed the filmmaker to make a film with other artists in the way they comfortable doing. That’s worth celebrating. I’m not trying to disparage big crew members or the Hollywood standard of filmmaking, I’m just against others perpetually telling filmmakers that there’s no other way because in a large way The Creator proved there certainly is one. Thanks for your thoughts. Please know I mean well to all crew people.
@@Organalog - based on the credits for “the creator” there’s over 40 crew in camera + electrical, not including the 2 DPs. total crew + post VFX is in the HUNDREDS. Maybe next time choose a film like the 2015 award wining indie “tangerine” filmed entirely on iPhones with a skeleton crew.
Please research the filming production part of The Creator. You might be seeing the post production side. Unless my research in reading articles and interviews is incorrect his shooting crew was small in Hollywood terms. My point still stands though, there isn’t only one way to make a film, as you alluded to in your own example.
@@Organalog - let’s be clear, you seem to be advocating for a smaller shooting g crew, namely director operating, 1st AC, DP, Boom, and gaffer around d camera while the rest of the crew stays far away or at next location. I have no issue with that. i am big fan of dogma film and appreciate the more collaborative vibe of a more intimate film set. my point is that certain films will require a larger crew and it would be a shame to mislead others into believing that they can craft a larger scale production without considerations for crew/set safety and working hours/day.
I never advocated for unsafe working conditions in any capacity. I even say in the video “I’m not saying that everyone has to make movies in a small crew” Also, honestly and humbly people who have larger productions probably aren’t watching my videos and I’m also using the safe and responsible Gareth Edward’s example. I agree dogma was the best, some really great films came out of that movement. Anyways, I wish you well.
Honestly... most modern films out there look great. I don't really like the ultra sharp look of some, but they still look "pro" . The big issue to me is that few of these Hollywood films have good stories behind them. All style, no substance. So when I see how mirrorless cameras across the board are leveling the playing field... they really give the opportunity for someone outside of Hollywood to tear the gates down. It's a highly transitional time for American cinema. I think we're watching the end of the movie brats and everything that followed them. I really wonder what things will look like a decade from now.
Hi Organalog. Forgive me for telling you how to run your channel, but your video needs some color grading. Or perhaps set you r color in as you film. Either way, leaving it in log looks bad. Just my opinion. (edit) The information the video was very help. Thanks
You probably saw this on a mobile device. It looks better on a desktop. This isn't ungraded log. Mobile check first, is something I'm going to do next time.
@@Organalog it's not a mobile issue. Watched it on my M3 MacBook Pro as well. Your skin tone looks quite orange. Compare it to this one...th-cam.com/video/dfw4ECqQpL0/w-d-xo.html
Unfortunately The Creator is a cliche story told in a cliche way, offering nothing new other than see through skulls. I knew exactly what's going to happen next and I was just sitting there, bored, waiting for the plot to happen. I'm sure I was not the only one.
Idk I enjoyed it. The world building and visual effects work was spectacular, it had a lot of genuine ideas that some big blockbusters lack. I understand it’s not for everyone.
Yeah you probably never heard of X2Pro app? Have you been following any progress other NLE’s have made? AVID also looks like 90’s UI. Although, It does have good collaboration tools from what I read but Resolve and FCP have methods as well.
@@Organalog When you are working on 50-100 million dollar TV shows and features - you can’t simply rely on third party vendors to supplement the lack of EDL/AAF transfer support and work with small companies that do not have top level workflow and post-systems engineers to handle issues. These programs may be ok for cutting 10 min TH-cam videos but you can’t work on high end union scripted TV shows/features with these tools. They have tried and failed with FCP and Premiere - the David Fincher team is the only ones who have succeeded in executing high-end workflows for big VFX features in Premiere and that’s because their internal teams wrote a tone of proprietary File Maker and python script based plugins to make Premiere operate more like a professional picture editing system like Avid. To say the Avid interface looks “outdated” seems to admit you have not worked in major scripted long form, VFX editorial narrative workflows 🤷
Strongest argument for AVID is collaboration, you can’t say AVID is more advanced in terms of all in one studio for color and VFX all built in. You basically are proving my point though that the traditional thinking in Hollywood hinders progress in developing new ways of working (Fincher team is breaking through group think). Thank you for sharing your perspective I understand way people see things this way too!
@ That’s a separate argument if you want 1 program to do all post but currently for major scripted shows, color, sound, and VFX are usually done by dedicated vendors. The pipelines of these major vendors like Company3, Picture Shop, Skywalkwer, Delux, Light Iron etc. rely on EDL based turnover workflows which may seem archaic but that’s what currently exists. The team that made Everything Everywhere All at Once proved they could do everything in house with Adobe Creative Cloud but that’s not the norm. I have recently spoken to a few editors who cut studio features and they are currently on films cutting with Resolve so I would say Resolve is much more likely to become a legitimate competitor to Avid for high end feature editorial post.
I get that its scary going from 100 people to just 5, but cant they gradually reduce the crew size? This year 100 people, next year 90, the next year 80.
I don’t get it? Your argument is form factor? I use an FX30 as a b cam to my F55, not it or an FX3 is going to replace that. I don’t understand what you’re trying to justify here.
@@Organalog because there is a tried an true science to the approach. It’s not just grab a camera and shoot. If you don’t understand lighting, you have no business behind a camera. This will not ever change. Regardless of camera size.
Nobody said you should not know lighting but a case against your point, the story is king and I can point to countless examples that shitty lighting still led to great pieces of cinema.
@@Organalog you’re missing the point. You’re not going to redefine an entire scientifically proven approach to film because you think said method is “Old”. Go ahead and give that whack with audio engineering while you’re at it. You guys really need to start thinking before posting shit like this.
Bro, don’t cap the creator did not have amazing cinematography it has very forgettable almost AI like imagery. I do hear you out, though theres definitely a lesson that can be taken from how it was made. whats in FRONT of the lens, they did a great job of making sure that took priority.
Let's stop being naïve. No matter what camera you use, a big budget movie remains a big budget movie. The camera and crew positions are but a tiny fragment of the budget. What costs money is the art direction, the logistics, the locations, the talent, and the time spent on pre production and post production. You want to film with an FX3 instead of an Arri? No problem. You'll simply have to spend more time in post. You want to do all the special effects yourself? No problem... but you'll need more post production time.... and time is money. Sound editing done at home may need three months where a sub contractor may do it in 3 weeks freeing your time for something else. All those small budget solutions just trade money for time. And since time is money... you wind up spending just as much as if you had just done it right the first time. Oh... and did I forget to mention it... if a script takes up a year of your time... raising the money another year... pre production 3 to 6 months... stars... costumes... locations... thousands of hours in post... are you going to save any real time/money by using an FX3 rather than an ARRI? I dont thing so.
Um, FX3 = more time in post? Why? Gareth Edwards just wanted to freely turn the camera around. Slim down the shooting crew and allocate the budget where it’s most helpful, that does prioritize time. Thank you for your opinion/comment but there’s certainly many different ways to solve problems.
For more Filmmaking videos www.youtube.com/@Organalog
Both “Captain America” and “Black Swan” were partly filmed with a Canon 5D Mark II in 1080p.. most people today walking around with 4K cameras still cannot create images better than how the Canon 5D II was used for those films. Moral of the story, masterful technique is more effective than merely higher specs.
Absolutely there are some pretty beautiful films shot during the DSLR era Like Crazy & Sound of My Voice (Canon 7D) comes to mind. Thanks!
Yup, they were just lacking dynamic range in video. Now you have the 5D3 doing 15 stops of dynamic range in 14 bit 5.7K using Magic Lantern hacks. I believe that was the tipping point for the entire industry. Fujifilm soon followed with their 14 stop dynamic range x-h2s that stands toe to toe with the FX3 only with usable colors.
@@nativestrong7253 good point. yeah but in Hollywood for decades they make movies with actual film that have a lower level of dynamic range sometimes down to only 10 full stops of DR and the images and details of images are legendary. Even stuff shot in the 60’s like Kurosawa’s “Yojimbo”. It’s because the professionals rely on lighting techniques way more than sensor sensitivity. You don’t need a lot of dynamic range if you have good grip/gaffer methods
My point is people are relying a lot on the specs of a particular camera’s sensor to capture the image, when in reality when you work in Hollywood it’s actually the technique used control the light and shape the amount of the light into the sensor that is more effective to the image than just having a sensor with high DR.
Look at it this way, you actually need high DR sensors when you do not know how to properly set the room tone, lighting, to expose an image
Captain America use the 5d m2 for some stunts only
@@mortenjensen946 Yup and sitting in the theatre most people cannot tell which particular scene was shot on the 5D MKii or the Arri Alexa or the Panavision all due to the mastery the DP, the AC, and the grip/gaffers crew had in setting the shots with the 5DMKii. Gear seems to matter less when you have mastered technique. Gear seems to matter more when you lack technique.
I can't remember which famous director this was attributed to, but it goes something like:
"You are telling a story using tools, not using tools to tell a story."
That’s great very true. I think though sometimes the tools can inspire the story as well. A balance. Thanks!
@@OrganalogRelated, I found time to finally watch “The Creator”. Except for some script cheez, an overall stunning film! I started watching Monsters right after, but had to pause for now. Edwards is quite impressive and Rogue One is my favorite Star Wars story, outside of the original trilogy.
Monsters is a little gem of a film.
Jean Renoir I think
@@zaziou711George Lucas
Some quotes by Jean Renoir
"I am against great themes and great subjects... You can't film an Idea. The camera is an instrument for recording physical Impact."
"I believe that perfection handicaps cinema."
Well, when you have a budget of $80M for set dressing, location, vfx, marketing, story, and cast... the camera used to shoot it becomes a less important matter.
It’s about the method of freedom.
Thank you. Gear isn’t the problem. Budgets are the problem. People need to stop focusing on gear and start focusing on budgets
Years ago, when I was hosting the DCP / Artful Camera podcast, the idea of using autofocus was considered an amateur move (unjustly, I might add). My ideal kit these days fits in my pocket most days, and occasionally in a small backpack. I love the idea of the immediacy of filmmaking with a studio in my pocket.
Excellent point. Orson Welles famously said, "A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army". It seems that sooner than we think, all a filmmaker will need is a camera, a handful of lights, a microphone and a computer to make a "Hollywood-level" film.
You are missing on crucial point as everybody else in this discussion: the reason why movies are rediculously expensive in Hollywood is 1. payment for famous actors and 2. UNIONS.
Unions became an abolute plague in Hollywood though they provide some protection they also make film making in Hollywood unnecsassary expensive and complicated.
My favorite cameraman Robby Müller had some very clear words about working in Hollywood: "I don't like it!"
Look him up, you be surprised how humble and yet straight forward a genius can be.
I love that well said. I think we might have already gotten there (pen stage) almost.
Love Robby’s work I’ve seen some of his beautiful images.
Honestly, my video isn’t so much on budget but bringing a point that Gareth has made, that new tools exist and the entire industry should be open to some filmmakers who want to utilize them including their filming methods.
ONE OF THE BEST VIDEOS OUT RN
makes me feel like Im the only one holding myself back Subbed
I know the feeling. Thanks for watching!
Respectfully, this isn't an accurate take. Take my opinion for what it's worth - I'm an actor not a camera operator or an editor, but I've been on plenty of sets, worked in plenty of post production environments doing ADR and I have plenty of of friends in the industry. If they feared technology and change then everything would still be in 35mm, and editing houses would be using razor blades. Take your example of AVID still being the industry standard. This isn't because the studios are afraid of DaVinci resolve, (most of them are colour grading using DaVinci) but because AVID is still a beast at large scale complex edits typical in larger budget studio releases. Likewise with the FX3. It produces a great image but despite its great low light capabilities, it simply can't compete with something like an Alexa mini for dynamic range. An Alexa mini has more professional rigging options, and for many people the sensor produces a more pleasing filmic image. You don't have do adapt your Cooke cine primes on an Alexa. Gareth Edwards is a bit of an outlier. He prefers self shooting. he prefers the guerrilla style. He co-wrote and produced this project as well as directing it. The fact that a studio backed him to the tune of 80 million dollars doesn't exactly sound like fear to me.
Hey, thanks for your respectful comment but I disagree. AVID is not at all the only editing software capable of doing bigger projects or having collaboration tools. I feel this is just industry group think and straight up fear of change. I do agree that the Alexa is great but your rigging argument is still based this idea that everyone needs a huge crew. I'm not against big crews in general but they aren't for every filmmaker and the camera/gear should reflect that. I read, Gareth has made the case that studios should let filmmakers keep their way of doing things when they get approached to do studio films. I doubt they would let a first time studio filmmaker choose their camera, crew size etc. While I agree the industry has moved on from 35mm, that took a long time. There's tools or methods out here today that won't probably won't be used for years.
@@Organalog I completely agree that other NLEs can handle big projects, but why switch? Until the advantages actually outweigh the inconvenience of retooling and retraining, there is zero incentive to switch. It's the same with camera technology. Initially it took time to move from 35mm because digital cameras weren't good enough. A decade after Attack of the clones more than 3/4 of every movie was being shot digitally. An entire industry re tooled and retrained in less in a decade. New companies like RED emerged. Arri pivoted to digital with the Alexa in 2010.
When the technology is better, and more convenient, the industry will adopt it as quickly as it can. Those that don't get left behind. (Pannavision)
With regards to crew size, of course you can choose to shoot things with a smaller crew as long as you accept the sacrifices involved. You can use a steady cam instead of a track but the shots will look different. You can use a drone instead of a crane but the shot will look different and the downdraft from the blades means it can't get too close. You can use digital explosions instead of a real explosion but it will look different. Does what you gain from a small crew and prosumer camera outweigh what you loose? For Gareth Evans it did. For the vast majority it does not. None of this has anything to do with fear of technology. It has everything to do with convenience and compromise.
A final thought, relevant to The Creator is to remember that while he used an $4000 FX3 as his A cam, he had 3 complete FX3 rigs with 3 rehoused vintage 75mm anamorphic lens and a prototype Atlus Mercury 42mm. So in order to accomodate run and gun guerrilla style on a movie set, he had well over $100,000 worth of cameras and lenses. Add in the completely custom rigs (x3) and you have a Holywood budget camera setup. This was to make it more convenient to quickly change setups and lenses without needing to delay shooting too long.
I think we just don’t agree but that’s ok. I’ll just leave it at this, when a movie like The Creator can make headlines, it says a lot about how quickly Hollywood embraces new technology or methods. Thanks again for your comment and for stopping by! :)
@@Organalog no problems man.
@andrewdickson1556 You can try a Chinese camera Ruying 4d，hhhh
AVID is still the preferred NLE in Hollywood because it’s built from film workflows and is rock solid in terms of media management. I’d hate to try to match back to film using FCP, though Resolve and Premiere have flexibility that AVID does not
The idea that Avid is the only editor with those benefits and therefore overlooking the potential benefits that other NLEs have, proves the point that change is often slow and new technology is not quickly embraced. I doubt that Resolve or Final Cut (Focus 2015 movie starring Will Smith edited on it) is incapable if the workflows were carefully designed for them.
what do you mean match back to film?
@@OrganalogA major 100 million Hollywood feature cutting on Premiere literally had to recently switch back to Avid when they ran into major issues on turnovers. FCP is not even a professional editing system and no major productions currently use it.
Traditional thinking is really the bane of progress.
Listen I worked on battlestar galactica and they brought in a panasonic hvx200. The crew was saying how The industry wasn't trouble with all the emerging little cameras. What you realize on a show is that you need.Grips, you need a stunt department.You need hair you need Props, you need everything that the movie industry needs.You can make a Make a camera package less expensive that only affects the rental house like PAN division but doesn't affect the industry.The industry still needs all the moving parts and it will never change
Voice to text failed me. This only effects Arri, Red, Panavision, camera rental houses. The industry needs truckers, trailers, catering, honeywagons, stunt men, grips, camera ACs, locations PA, ETC
I think you are bang on. I had a small (very small) role in The Creator and was blown away by how small and nimble the crew was and how hands on Gareth was.
I’ve been on much lower budget films with much larger crews.
as a one man band doc filmmaker i took so much away from my short time on set having the chance to see that amazing crew in action.
Super cool to read that! You got to see it first hand. Thanks for sharing, I’m glad that the experience was helpful and insightful.
Could you get more in depth into how many people were on set and how a day of filming was planned out? Im very curious about what i can implement in other film sets, thank you
Short & Sweet - great vid and insights - love how you get so much info across in your vids under 10mins - keep it up! Subbed.
It’s always so rewarding to read comments like yours, thank you!
Some very good points. I have made close to a dozen sub million dollar films and when I work on the almost no budget (under 100k) films you learn that your limitation can be your best friend. Walking with my 3 person or so camera and lighting crew from one side of a location to the other takes 5 minutes. But, even on a half million dollar budget where the producer (in two cases I dealt with this) wants to hire an “impressive” looking 4:03 crew, that same walk across the location took an hour. Cables, people, gear, etc. you shoot only 2/3rds of the shots you want. And you are doing it with more money! I have been dealing with this for over a decade, trying as a director to explain less is more sometimes but the union requirements that can kick in turn films into big slugging machines and you are better served often by minimizing to your essentials if you know what you are doing. And that comes from practice. So grab your DSLR and your friends and go try something. Bet you get more coverage in your neighborhood in a day than any of the big studios do
Well said, thanks for your opinion. Yes, I feel there's a vast disparity between how far technology has gotten how sluggish the old Hollywood system reacts. This slimmer faster method doesn't have to be for every film set but there definitely should be more acceptance and open mindedness to utilize small crews, new cheaper gear. That's why I feel The Creator is such a little victory because of how big of a production it was but how small of a footprint it made (filming wise). Thanks again.
I think Kubrick always kept his crew to a minimum.
Great vid but when you are talking to the camera its super dark like the exposure got cranked down
Thanks! Yeah it looks fine on a computer but the mobile didn’t come out as desired.
Spot on assessment of the 'traditional is best' mindset of many emerging and active filmmakers. Gareth Edwards is a filmmaker very much in the vein of Kubrick in that they innovate through necessity and creatively thinking on how to get maximum output through the least amount of input (not effort). Saving time is as important as cost which is why they adopt a bare minimum approach.. It's a progressive mindset found in a lot of 'no filmschool' filmmakers. Great content!
Thanks! Awesome you mention Kubrick. One of the ways he was able to shoot for so long on films was his crew size was small.
I think if someone mentions the creator, then they should also mention that they used vintage lenses that cost 25k each. And the look comes down to the lens as well. Just because they used the same body as consumer doesn't mean that prosumer can do it as well as easily as people make it sound... especially since they also had CGI done by some of the best in the business
You masterize your exposure, grain, light and color. I will just follow you for beeing able to make something out of the dullest background ever.
Watching a BTS of this, Gareth explains another reason they went with the FX3 was because the cost of the camera opened up more to the budget of actually getting to go to all the wonderful locations in the film. Smaller crew, smaller camera, and then more budget for better locations.
It’s hard to argue with that. If people don’t want to use the FX3, does it mean those filmmakers are less willing to try new tech? When using entry-level gear, the risk of faults significantly increases. Professional gears are heavy and expensive, but it also ensures the reliability.
Love this, totally hit the nail on the head ! Kudos
Very kind thanks!
After watching your videos, I can say I'm your thousandth subscriber!
Yay! Thanks so much for watching and subscribing!
This was a really good video, I was just wondering did you shoot in HDR and if you did, did you colour grade?
Thanks! I went with something different on the grade, lifted shadows. It looks better on desktop than it does on mobile.
@@Organalog oooo I see, thanks for letting me know! I want to try shooting my videos in HDR and I’m asking a lot of questions
Same here! I’d love to try and experiment with HDR too!
My question is do I order an fx3 this fall or stick with my current rig and wait for fx3 mii in the summer😮
That’s a dope name for a TH-cam channel. You’re spot on….most of these cameras can get very close to the quality of Arri cameras. I’m into my Sigma FP. The form factor, image, and color science is phenomenal. My intent is to master that camera, regardless of new camera releases.
Thanks! Sigma FP is super cool from what I’ve seen, the size and Cinema DNG, definitely be great to master something so powerful like that, thanks for letting me know.
same here with sigma fp and reading comments. Came here with full hate for sony fx3 and how everyone without knowloedge but having a good autofocus for videography and working for cheap and killing the sector in Turkey with what fx3 delivers while I am trying to gyrostabilize and colorgrade my works :)
Just got my FP and the image quality is beautiful
Please turn the lights on in your room
Never
Is this video a remake of Rebel Without A Crew?
Love RR, GOAT pioneer.
I have the FX3 and I LOVE IT!
And I am a 1 man crew.
Making films is so NOT about what camera you use. It is about just about everything BUT THAT. When you get out to actually make a film using things other than what you have laying around your house and your friends, you will find that out for yourself. Superb story, great actors that know what they are doing, exceptional locations, food, wardrobe, props, grip, lighting, the list goes on & on. And you can't do ANY of it without money. Not saying this to discourage, just be prepped for it while you are obsessing about the "camera".
I mostly agree with you and even made a video on this topic. Although, a major point is also for filmmakers to not be ignorant of new technology that can actually make your life easier and efficient for further opportunity to focus on your story/film. It’s a balance between being creative and technical. Thanks!
@@Organalog You are welcome, great video brother! Keep going! : ) 🎥
I just had a breakthrough with a iPhone shooting 4k at 29.97 - I am floored at the picture quality on a big screen without the expected noise and bad kind of pixel/grain. I had great lighting and know camera techniques and I used them. Still like my FX30, but my god things have come a long way in just 5 years even. So yes I agree on all above points you make.
Super exciting times!
ngl Ian Hubert is one of those people I admire on doing VFX and also be a film maker at the same time, just using Blender 3D now a days to make set extension and simple VFX is so much easy to access compare to where I started doing it back in 2008, I think the future of filmmakers will pretty much a bunch of small team making their own small series of movies (similar to making comics/manga)
Oh yes I've seen his work, incredible! Thanks
I've been trying to imitate ian recently, hhhh
His techniques are really efficient.
I started shooting on a fx3 before I knew anything about the creator, I honestly just don't like big complicated lighting setups. I'm obsessed with how The Revenant looks, so what better to shoot on than a small camera that can shoot in the dark with great auto focus and tracking. Its genuinely saved several of my films, one even being shot in an alley in boston at night, only using street lights. It certainly doesn't look as good as a nice lighting setup, and Ive learned a lot from that, but the fact that I can just show up and shoot a film in one night is crazy.
Dude thank you so much for this I needed to hear this 🫡
Why is the video so dark? Are you filming a movie for DC or making a TH-cam video? (I know nothing about cinematography)
it's not just the technology it's how the world have evolve and the type of people watching movies. In the old days, people love going to the movies and watch latest blockbusters but now there's social media like tik tok, Instagram, youtube etc. Hollywood won't change because they're too big and don't want to lose money. It's a money driven industry. Now, even with little or no budgets, you can make interesting short cinematic videos that people would watch. I myself like watching them more then watching Netflix. It's everyone for himself now and won't be long big movie companies have to compete with them.
Well said! I think you have a point.
Why film in the dark, tho?
Mobile problem, looks fine on desktop. Will look into next time.
@@Organalog It like you tried a new lut and struck out there. Oh well, it's just a video and your hair looks good.
Tried something different here, mostly lifted black shadows. Some people can't stand something that stands out. Thanks for your comment!
It's not just the FX3 making headlines from the 81 million dollar feature, the DJI Ronin 4D was a B Cam for "Civil War". Mixed with Komodo Drone shots.
Canon will get into the mix at some stage with the roll out of C80 and C400, anything is possible.
Very true, hopefully more unconventional good cameras get a chance, who knows how it can open creative paths to tell stories better. Thanks.
Truth be told only some shots were a FX3, a majority were FX9 - double check you'll see :)
I personally don't think saying the FX3 was needed to create this film is even responsible, it leads on future filmmakers with nonsense. Any camera could have shot The Creator - it was clearly for publicity, not because it was the best tool - the right lighting and lenses, any camera could have done the same job. I've personally tested several cameras at half the ISO as the FX3 and boosted the exposure with cleaner more pleasing results - it all comes down to how you understand exposure, and how digital sensors work.
Future filmmakers, you don't need any specific brand of camera to shoot anything, it is and always will be about what you need to tell the story the way you need to, the FX3 is not some god send monster camera, it took expensive lenses and lighting to even pull the quality out of that camera, and not to mention, The Creator is far from a visual masterpiece, loaded with tons of artificial noise to hide the issues the camera posed for the editing team, look closer next watch, and on a much bigger screen you'll see what I'm talking about.
Not sure where your getting your info from but the vast majority was filmed on FX3 they only used another camera for stage light sync purposes. Double check ;)
@@Organalog I don’t need to double check, in the newest interviews he stated it was really only used as a crash cam, and for hand held gimbal work, that’s why he even updated the IMDb - triple check.
IMDb is unreliable for that, at one point it was saying it used the Arri 65. Listen to videos and podcasts with DP, quadruple check.
@@Organalog bottom line, you’re too glued to worrying about the FX3 making a movie - I’m not sure why this video was made. Film makers have been using low cost cameras for over 30 years on sets, ex. 28 days later etc. , so why brag about this ? At least the Sony PD150s, and 5D’s and so on were capable from factory, the internal codecs on a FX3 are a joke for its price, even on The Creator they had to use extra equipment to bypass the internal disadvantages of the camera , so it feels weird to brag about an over priced incomplete camera when there are cheaper options that would have done a better job.
Also I’m glad the only thing you focused on from everything I said was how often the camera was used on set. Argue the rest smh.
Saying they’re afraid is not clickbait, just maybe not the best word (for lack of a better word?) If anything maybe jealous, in the same way a struggling film maker will see some 20 year old kid make millions off dumb vlogs and twitch streams.
Another aspect is the lens. The P+S probably cost more than 4 FX3s alone lol they weren’t shooting off GMs or something “basic” to the standard movies you see.
Most people use Arri, so it’s refreshing to think that a $4k FX3 or a $6.8k Ronin 4D-6K is actually usable, instead of being forced to rent a $50k+ Arri. If you have access to even something like an Arri Alexa whether we are talking physically or monetarily, then yeah you’re gonna disagree with this video. But for those that struggle to pay for a $10k rig, this atleast gives us hope.
I like what you said in your video. Don't be intimidated by Hollywood. Use what you have at your disposal. Use Technology to your advantage and make movies cost effectively. There is so much new technologies available to create your stories in a cost effective way on your desktop. Just have fun and make good movies that you can stream well and make money online. It is difficult to get bumps on the seat at cinemas with so much content available online.
great video!
Lighter is better. My favorite is still the movie Victoria (2015). One take, filmed on Canon C300 🎥
Love that movie too! Looks beautiful
I like the video. I think the creator just prove what others have said in your comment section. Filmmakers been using prosumer tools for years. The possession of Hannah Rose was shot on a Sony A7S2 at 8bit and still came out looking good except for a few scenes.
I think we’re focusing so much on the tools and not our skill set or getting better with our skill set.
Absolutely, skill matters most. Thank you.
Hollywood welcomes anything to make movies cheaper. They will still say they lost money on a movie, they just get to keep more of t.
I'm making a music video with a high end phone..lol they have come a long way...has a great cinema mode.
They certainly have and getting better.
This is a fantastic and intuative insight. Well done brother 👍
Thank you for your kindness!
Great video, you’re very true when you talk about film schools always try to push the norms of Hollywood, Me and my friend both shot two films this summer mine being a bit longer but smaller crew (practically no crew) and his being shorter but way bigger crew. We kinda saw that you can’t wear all the hats on a film but you don’t need so many people on your set where your overly stimulated. Some where in the middle is the perfect match for inde filmmaking
Thanks, great to hear your opinion, good luck with your projects.
The guy has no right to complain. About lighting when he turned the Godzilla film so dark that you can’t see anything
If he can find a way to make an epic big Hollywood movie with a tiny camera in a better way, I think that’s great, and we need more filmmakers doing what works for them instead of doing what Hollywood wants them to. Zack Snyder shot a short film on an iPhone with a gimble and it looks Hollywood level
💯 what I’m trying to say. Gareth Edward’s has expressed this similar sentiments in interviews.
In Hollywood, the focus puller is the autofocus.
Imagine the 35mm focus pullers, those guys are legendary.
3:08 yeah, amen to that. I know the pain 🙋♂awesome video, thanks.
Thanks!
40 years ago I was working in local community arts projects with the brief of "Demystifying media processes/ making media production accessible/facilitating creative communication for ordinary folks to express themselves". Back then it was photography, VHS, and Super 8. One serious problem was the ideology of co-workers who insisted traditional standards of 'quality' results did not matter, and were in fact far too reactionary - so should be discouraged... My position was communication would be more effective if new creators strived to achieve the best they could with limited low cost equipment and resources. To meet the reasonable expectations of an average audience. To engage and entertain, not alienate viewers..... In 2024, imho, the internet is awash with too many dire indie movies. Terrible poor quality boring vanity projects. Having said that, I am so delighted to discover the rare 'no budget' movies that are a superior experience than big budget Hollywood products.
This is why films have to be interesting with colour sound and special effects, all of these stand out
Interesting video. Subbed.
Very nice, Thanks!
Great video, good point yeah!
FX3 is a beast ^^
Thank you!
Hollywood is not scared of change, they are just unaware of it. The reason being that most of the people who make these technical decisions are IT guys who are just going to look at the expenses of post-production as a whole. They are not aware of the creative process and they don't even know what they are missing out on. Post-prod in the industry is like a factory, workers work and it is just about if the end product looks the same as the director and studios imagined it to be. A lot of people in the post-prod use Media Composer but it not out of choice.
I can't take films shot on mirrorless cameras seriously. Unless you find a way to compact all the features of a real movie camera onto one (internal NDs, timephase out, full ISO range) I wouldn't worry too much about it. There's a reason Arri Alexa costs 100k+.
Beautifully said.
“You have to make movies in the way you are comfortable making”
This trend has been going on since DV tape cams got HD output in the early 2000's but yeah the gear and the supply chain that needs to feed into it is less of a thing with newer tech but you still need good ideas, I have seen better film ideas on paper napkins than what makes it to the big screen, but skill and experience and VISION all play a huge part.
Absolutely, very accurate.
The FX3 isn't going to take over, nor threaten Hollywood. There's a reason why it takes 30 min. to hours to light and setup a shot or scene for Hollywood productions. That's kinda what the audience is paying for. For "The Creator" nobody will ever want to actually watch the film again after the initial viewing, so the quality of the cinematography doesn't really matter.
Again, there's a huge difference between pointing a camera in a general direction with some LED lights and staging proper cinematography.
@@retroelectrical all true, and honestly as I mentioned above - the quality was not really a cinematic marvel by any means - special effects, overlays, and added noise mask many things and make it seem like a camera should be credited for a type of quality it didn’t even earn. I love that people make videos like these but I wish they questioned more, instead of teaming up and going along with a million others to manufacture a pseudo truth.
You make it sound like there’s only one way to do something for good results. There’s nothing wrong with taking awhile to light but that’s not for everyone nor is it the only way to make great images. People shouldn’t be afraid of new camera technology, The Creator looked great the audiences didn’t complain about that.
Yes but once you've set up the lighting and the scene, the point is that you can shoot it on a lower cost camera that is easier to work with, and still get amazing results (if you know what you are doing). That is the point, not the expensive setup to shoot in which we all would want if we can swing it.
@@rockrecordreport7136 not sure why you had to even to defend anything, for 40 years + it’s been that way, it’s nothing new, - fx3 didn’t create affordable ease of use shooting, great lighting equipment, and skilled teams have always been able to shoot on less expensive cameras with great results.
The point most people are making, why pretend and put so much focus on this camera - this video could have been made using 100 other examples before this.
@@Lumin8Productions Cameras are making breakthroughs in size and price in the last 5 years even. So you saying "before this" is saying nothing really. How long really is "before this" that you refer to. What were the 4k cameras that you speak of for the last 40 years and what did they cost even 10 years ago if you have any idea, and please name a few or 100 of them. You are way to vague.
I don't think Hollywood fears the FX3, i think its companies like Arri, Red that fear such cameras. I mean I have in my possession the best camera quality you an get for 7500, GFX100ii, this is the best thing I have worked with in terms of quality of Arri etc...I used A7Siii in my last movie "Meeting Ketu". Next movie will be GFX.
You have no clue how much this video inspired me ❤
Gareth Edward's bravery, inspired me in a big way!
Good content, you overdid the "smooth highlights look" on your video though. It looks as if you have lowered the Gain, lowered contrast, but it doesn't look natural.
Thanks but don’t forget color grading is subjective. I tried something different here, lifted shadows.
Great thesis.
Very weird reaction from certain individuals. Irrelevant or lame arguments, lost opportunities for a discussion.
Subscribed.
Yes, some strange ones for sure! Thank so much, welcome to the channel.
Well, actually te FX3 is kinda cheating for low light, but if you look closer, a lot of detail and sharpness is lost, even with the FX9. Compare them to a Venice (2) or an Alexa 35 and you'll see. Maybe not so obvious on the devices most people watch the movies on, but on a decent HDR screen or in the cinemas there is. Sure, some can be fixed in post, or most likely cover up, but these consumer/prosumer cameras are not a real threat. Especially when it's less than one percent of the whole budget.
If that’s true I definitely didn’t notice and I watch camera tests all the time. Thanks.
No cheat, second base at 12800 is real even in Prores raw
I own an fx3 and there's no detail loss at 12,800 iso. Either you're lighting your scene wrong or you don't own one or have experience filming with one.
no you will see! 98 percent of people won't that's what you don't get.
You can shoot a high quality film simply with an iPhone. All you need is a vision. And lighting. Lighting is important for that cinematic look.
Absolutely! Thanks
No one appreciates lighting. honestly, a well lit shot filmed with an iphone will look better than an FX3 shot filmed with no professional lighting. There's a reason it takes 30 minutes to flip the camera around
The Creator looked great though…both statements can be true, just need to think about lighting.
Many BBC drama shows like Luther started using the original 2.5K Black Magic camera for quick settup shots for the same reason.
One of my favorite cameras!
@@Organalog I still use it, upscaled to 4K, it's a beast
Very interesting, Im in film school and part of the curriculum was getting the FX6, I HATE it. I used a BMPC4k for the last 5 years before school.
Oh wow, why is that? I love my Sony cameras and love blackmagic too, what don’t you like about it?
Anyway, you have a new subscriber
they also used i think expensive anamorphic lenses, and atomos recodter do get proresRAW, and i saw in an interview they used amazing amound of color gradingm adding grain etc for it to look cinematic. but it was never a camera it is always a story telling, plenty of not great movies out there with amazing cameras :P
I agree about using any camera but in this case though, it was the camera. The flexibility of its size to enable to move and shoot in minimal lighting helped tell the story easier.
@@Organalog Yeah i agree, i ment, in any movie, what camera they use is never the reason for the movie to be good. Its always the story and basicaly anything else is more important than the camera itself. They could make a great movie on iphone if they wanted. And there is very thin line between flexibility of camera and quality of the picture. In this film sacificed a little of the quality and ease of postpoduction for the convinience with gave them freedom to do this movie at all. But we have to give it to ILM, they carried the whole movie anyway...
I’ll make it short and sweet. All the tools are out there. It comes down to talent.
Uhhh, Hollywood doesn’t not fear the FX3, what a ridiculous statement. Cool video tho.
not literally, conceptually. Thanks!
Not Conceptually as well, but nice clickbait, you got me 😂 @@Organalog
So Hollywood loves using the newest technology and doesn’t try and reuse the same old tools/methods over and over again?
@@Organalog I think you have the wrong idea. Idk if you’re in the film industry or if you have been to big productions sets, but ‘hollywood’ loves new technologies, specially if it makes things faster and efficient.
@@Organalog your title states, Hollywood fears the fx3. Why would Hollywood fear the fx3 when they have access to the best of the best camera's? Don't get me wrong, I shoot solely on the fx3 since it's release but Hollywood is definitely not fearing the fx3 😂. Your statement to your video is very clickbait. It should be worded as "Does the FX3 have a place in Hollywood?"
The Weeknd’s new video was shot on the iPhone. It’s crazy how much these tools can do
Absolutely
I mean for that one they had to spend more money just toacomodate to the iphone same as 28 years. those are just advertisments
Ok but saying their advertisements doesn’t make using a phone is any less valid.
With thousands of dollars of supporting equipment.
Once DJI drops their full-frame $2000 mirrorless, it’s gonna be OVER for a lot of cine cam companies. The OP3 is already a revelation coming from something like a mildly-rigged A7Sii. Small, good wireless systems are also disruptive tech, like the newest DJI Mic Mini, or even Track Es with COS11s/4060s. Booms of course still have a place, but with the wide acceptance of seeing gigantic “podcast” SM7Bs in frame now, talking head stuff for short-form is getting so democratized. Throw in great new lights like affordable panels such as Amaran F22c or even Zhiyun C100 and now you can get super results from half a backpack worth of gear. I’m not saying it’s time to bin all your c stands, just that you might not need an Alexa rental for your next festival flick if things keep trending this direction.
totally agree .... thx buddy
thanks for watching
When studio films are now costing $250m+ and then they spend another $150m on marketing, then no one comes to the cinema to watch it - something has to change.
Some directors embrace technology and efficiency = make sure the script & pre-vis works before filming starts. Reduce crew size (use modern tech), use emerging talent in front of camera no big bucks stars), keep principle photography as small as possible, don't rewrite the script during filming, no reshoots only pickups.
Today's Post production / VFX - I don't know man, but that's a million people in the credits right there. Fix that by telling great stories
Gareth Edwards, Alex Garland, James Gunn all get this, even if they don't always nail the script.
Wasn't it Spielberg that was the first director to use an ariflex that could film inside of a car and pan back and forth, when making "Sugarland Express"...before that, He shot the movie Duel with a small crew over only thirteen days...I think he might have went on to make them (Hollywood) a lot of money😅 $$
What ever happened to him? 😉
This isn’t new, David Lynch shot Inland Empire with a Sony DCR VX1000.
This video is coming in clutch, especially with so much kerfuffle because of the iPhone 16. Many ruling it out as a camera because xyz reason and you should just use an actual camera. With what money? The body costs twice as much and the lens 4x the price of the body.
If the iPhone can do it and we have plenty of evidence it can, why not just use that? Nobody is saying you'll have Interstellar by the end, but at least you'll have a finished film - contrary to popular belief, a conceptualised film in your head cannot be uploaded on TH-cam, but a finished film can.
Yeah I agree with this, I’m just saying why more filmmakers should try and embrace newer technology (including iPhone) or whatever helps get out of your way and make your films.
@@Organalog Yes, I agree with this too. Whatever gets the job done 🙂↕️
Gave a Like because you dragged AVID
I hope they improve it! Competition is always good but man opening it up after using FCP feels like dusting off an old relic from the 90’s.
man don''t kill your highlights with your A cam. But this video is in good point
Joker 🃏 voice: “try a different grade and everyone loses their minds!” Thanks
Good perspective, thanks.
Thank u
had to watch this several times so as not to come here with a knee jerk reaction.
yes - prosumer tech has been used in feature films made by studios and indies for years; either as A-camera or a B-camera or for inserts and crash cams. and it hasn't been until recent years where prosumer cameras have become reliable anough that an entire feature could be filmed with one.
the Hollywood movie machine has had over 100 years experience in making movies. the studios and the the supporting infrastructures have honed this art to a reliable process that works. this infrastructure includes skilled crafts people - the "bloated" massive film crews that are referred to and master fabricators who make all of the custom gear and equipment needed to make a film. and here's the thing about some directors - they just don't care about the crew and they don't care about the process. they care about their FILM. doing reverses WILL take time, and seriously, 30 min is not a long time to turnaround for a reverse. a lot of this delay can be eliminated up front with proper planning, wild walls in the set and lighting for 360 and multiple cameras. but understand, this comes with compromises. you won't get vilmos or deakins lighting when lighting for 360s and multiple cameras. the triangle of fast/quick/cheap will definitely be in play.
while i appreciate the dogma school of filmmaking and working with a lean crew and gear, one has to appreciate this model rarely works on major studio projects. Panavision, Arri, Red and often the modern cameras of choice because they are reliable. They are a known quantity and are battle tested. These cameras are "mil-spec" and can handle the rigours of daily hard use. If one goes down on set, there's often the B-camera that can be pulled in and often a spare can be brought in fromt the rental house same day. the A7S3 is a fav or mine for indie filmmaking, especially it's value in scaling down the G&E crew, but it has weak links like the HDMI connection which needs to be protected with a cage and extension cable - and even then it can easily break taking down your external monitor and recorder. And if you call the rental house for help they will tell you - it's not a pro camera and they won't be sending you a free replacement.
as for the giant crews, when all the filmmaking gear from the camera to the honey wagons are rented on a daily/weekly basis it becomes necessary to have a larger crew to accomplish the page count for the day and within budget and to achieve the director's vision. this is not to say that breakout films haven't been made with skeleton crews - but those animals are rare. when one is essentially burning a $100 bill every minute of the production day, there isn't time to wait on a skeleton crew to get the work done for the next setup.
what really triggered me about this video is the dismissive tone towards the industry crew. the majority of us are artists who deeply care about our craft and what we help to create. how many people can point out to family and friends something they were a part of that might stand the test of time like a classic film? we're certainly not here to get rich, but like roadies - we get immense satisfaction for helping to create something you will enjoy and maybe even impact your life in a meaningful way.
and right now the vast majority of us film crew are hurting economically from the industry streaming implosion. savings, homes, and even lives have been lost as a result. yes, at least 1 documented case of a crew member in the crew parking lot and a few others who are suspected to be self un-aliving all as a result from the recent financial strain. marriages and relationships have dissolved because 1 or even both partners in the industry are no longer able to support the family.
please consider - while this new prosumer camera may be the latest "holy grail" - it has an impact on not only the industry, but those that support it. the crew lose their jobs, everyone they support is impacted down to lady who owns the taco truck and every biz that's supported by crew wages. it's truly the Butterfly Effect.
don't be a cpl upham from private ryan. have some empathy for those that are going through severe hardship as our industry reinvents itself as a resultt of new tech and AI.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not against crew members, they are incredibly valuable hard working artists. I’m against a monolithic belief ALL productions must make films in only one true way. I feel this ideology is rampant even by low budget filmmakers, who lack resources and may not even make their film at all because of a belief that a large crew is the only way. Finally for once we see a large Hollywood production that allowed the filmmaker to make a film with other artists in the way they comfortable doing. That’s worth celebrating. I’m not trying to disparage big crew members or the Hollywood standard of filmmaking, I’m just against others perpetually telling filmmakers that there’s no other way because in a large way The Creator proved there certainly is one. Thanks for your thoughts. Please know I mean well to all crew people.
@@Organalog - based on the credits for “the creator” there’s over 40 crew in camera + electrical, not including the 2 DPs. total crew + post VFX is in the HUNDREDS.
Maybe next time choose a film like the 2015 award wining indie “tangerine” filmed entirely on iPhones with a skeleton crew.
Please research the filming production part of The Creator. You might be seeing the post production side. Unless my research in reading articles and interviews is incorrect his shooting crew was small in Hollywood terms. My point still stands though, there isn’t only one way to make a film, as you alluded to in your own example.
@@Organalog - let’s be clear, you seem to be advocating for a smaller shooting g crew, namely director operating, 1st AC, DP, Boom, and gaffer around d camera while the rest of the crew stays far away or at next location. I have no issue with that. i am big fan of dogma film and appreciate the more collaborative vibe of a more intimate film set. my point is that certain films will require a larger crew and it would be a shame to mislead others into believing that they can craft a larger scale production without considerations for crew/set safety and working hours/day.
I never advocated for unsafe working conditions in any capacity. I even say in the video “I’m not saying that everyone has to make movies in a small crew” Also, honestly and humbly people who have larger productions probably aren’t watching my videos and I’m also using the safe and responsible Gareth Edward’s example. I agree dogma was the best, some really great films came out of that movement. Anyways, I wish you well.
Honestly... most modern films out there look great. I don't really like the ultra sharp look of some, but they still look "pro" . The big issue to me is that few of these Hollywood films have good stories behind them. All style, no substance. So when I see how mirrorless cameras across the board are leveling the playing field... they really give the opportunity for someone outside of Hollywood to tear the gates down. It's a highly transitional time for American cinema. I think we're watching the end of the movie brats and everything that followed them. I really wonder what things will look like a decade from now.
Yes! Same here. Thanks!
I fear the new updates from Sony. Cameras are breaking from the new updates.
Yeah I read I’m worried about that 😓 shutter angle tho.
😂😢
They sure don’t fear utterly tasteless writing.
They used the fx3 as a sony marketing movement. That's all
Even if that’s true, they did, and proved it can be done.
Hi Organalog. Forgive me for telling you how to run your channel, but your video needs some color grading. Or perhaps set you r color in as you film. Either way, leaving it in log looks bad. Just my opinion.
(edit) The information the video was very help. Thanks
You probably saw this on a mobile device. It looks better on a desktop. This isn't ungraded log. Mobile check first, is something I'm going to do next time.
@@Organalog it's not a mobile issue. Watched it on my M3 MacBook Pro as well. Your skin tone looks quite orange. Compare it to this one...th-cam.com/video/dfw4ECqQpL0/w-d-xo.html
The camera these days is not the thing - it’s all about the lenses and post.
I do believe this, but like the FX3 shoots in 12,800 😅
Unfortunately The Creator is a cliche story told in a cliche way, offering nothing new other than see through skulls. I knew exactly what's going to happen next and I was just sitting there, bored, waiting for the plot to happen. I'm sure I was not the only one.
Idk I enjoyed it. The world building and visual effects work was spectacular, it had a lot of genuine ideas that some big blockbusters lack. I understand it’s not for everyone.
@@Organalog I guess the audience spoke with their wallets.
Right but box office is never a good determinant in quality of a film, it’s time that will tell.
Gran reflexion, soy tu fan
Avid is outdated? Yeah, try getting metadata to high end vendors like Skywalker Sound and ILM out of Resolve or FCP haha😅
Yeah you probably never heard of X2Pro app? Have you been following any progress other NLE’s have made? AVID also looks like 90’s UI. Although, It does have good collaboration tools from what I read but Resolve and FCP have methods as well.
@@Organalog When you are working on 50-100 million dollar TV shows and features - you can’t simply rely on third party vendors to supplement the lack of EDL/AAF transfer support and work with small companies that do not have top level workflow and post-systems engineers to handle issues. These programs may be ok for cutting 10 min TH-cam videos but you can’t work on high end union scripted TV shows/features with these tools. They have tried and failed with FCP and Premiere - the David Fincher team is the only ones who have succeeded in executing high-end workflows for big VFX features in Premiere and that’s because their internal teams wrote a tone of proprietary File Maker and python script based plugins to make Premiere operate more like a professional picture editing system like Avid. To say the Avid interface looks “outdated” seems to admit you have not worked in major scripted long form, VFX editorial narrative workflows 🤷
Strongest argument for AVID is collaboration, you can’t say AVID is more advanced in terms of all in one studio for color and VFX all built in. You basically are proving my point though that the traditional thinking in Hollywood hinders progress in developing new ways of working (Fincher team is breaking through group think). Thank you for sharing your perspective I understand way people see things this way too!
@ That’s a separate argument if you want 1 program to do all post but currently for major scripted shows, color, sound, and VFX are usually done by dedicated vendors. The pipelines of these major vendors like Company3, Picture Shop, Skywalkwer, Delux, Light Iron etc. rely on EDL based turnover workflows which may seem archaic but that’s what currently exists. The team that made Everything Everywhere All at Once proved they could do everything in house with Adobe Creative Cloud but that’s not the norm. I have recently spoken to a few editors who cut studio features and they are currently on films cutting with Resolve so I would say Resolve is much more likely to become a legitimate competitor to Avid for high end feature editorial post.
Well said.
Thanks!
True!
I get that its scary going from 100 people to just 5, but cant they gradually reduce the crew size? This year 100 people, next year 90, the next year 80.
I mean yeah but the point is small or big crews, filmmakers should be able to make that choice.
The more money the less competitors. Big budget implies quality. That's not the case.
"...trying to emulate hollywood model without hollywood money."
I don’t get it? Your argument is form factor? I use an FX30 as a b cam to my F55, not it or an FX3 is going to replace that. I don’t understand what you’re trying to justify here.
Technology evolved and improved the ways to make films more efficiently but we are still making movies like we did over 100 years ago.
@@Organalog because there is a tried an true science to the approach. It’s not just grab a camera and shoot. If you don’t understand lighting, you have no business behind a camera. This will not ever change. Regardless of camera size.
Nobody said you should not know lighting but a case against your point, the story is king and I can point to countless examples that shitty lighting still led to great pieces of cinema.
@@Organalog you’re missing the point. You’re not going to redefine an entire scientifically proven approach to film because you think said method is “Old”. Go ahead and give that whack with audio engineering while you’re at it. You guys really need to start thinking before posting shit like this.
We obviously don’t agree but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Bro, don’t cap the creator did not have amazing cinematography it has very forgettable almost AI like imagery. I do hear you out, though theres definitely a lesson that can be taken from how it was made. whats in FRONT of the lens, they did a great job of making sure that took priority.
Absolutely that’s the priority. So many great movies were shot on low quality tech. Although, I think The Creator looks good. Thanks.
Let's stop being naïve. No matter what camera you use, a big budget movie remains a big budget movie. The camera and crew positions are but a tiny fragment of the budget. What costs money is the art direction, the logistics, the locations, the talent, and the time spent on pre production and post production. You want to film with an FX3 instead of an Arri? No problem. You'll simply have to spend more time in post. You want to do all the special effects yourself? No problem... but you'll need more post production time.... and time is money. Sound editing done at home may need three months where a sub contractor may do it in 3 weeks freeing your time for something else. All those small budget solutions just trade money for time. And since time is money... you wind up spending just as much as if you had just done it right the first time. Oh... and did I forget to mention it... if a script takes up a year of your time... raising the money another year... pre production 3 to 6 months... stars... costumes... locations... thousands of hours in post... are you going to save any real time/money by using an FX3 rather than an ARRI? I dont thing so.
Um, FX3 = more time in post? Why? Gareth Edwards just wanted to freely turn the camera around. Slim down the shooting crew and allocate the budget where it’s most helpful, that does prioritize time. Thank you for your opinion/comment but there’s certainly many different ways to solve problems.
What I actually fear is AI taking over human's jobs in filmmaking, a technology which gareth edwards also seem to be keen to