IronFilm

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/the-creator-budget-gareth-edwards-1235609000/ 

"...if you take the Excel document for a Hollywood blockbuster and start deleting zeros, you’re going to find you’re crippled really fast and you can’t really do anything and you’ll be complaining the entire time. But if you take the indie movie Excel document and start adding zeros, it’s the most liberating thing in the world."

This AC is a big fan of the Deity slate!

4 hours ago, sanveer said:

Interesting, never thought of it like that. Then what about the Panasonic BGH1? Would a director have put a word for using that for a project too. I wonder how popular it was or is. 

Could have been someone on the Panasonic size pushing for it, or it could have been someone shooting a Netflix production with a Varicam LT who wanted a good C Cam / crashcam to use alongside their Varicams. 

I'm eagerly awaiting the Sony GX3  

19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah maybe, although Canon has plenty of traction in rental, broadcast and in videography they're not up there with Sony, ARRI and RED at the top end of filmmaking. C700 was a big failure.

Exactly!

Many many DoPs might never have shot with a Canon camera since the era of the Canon C300mk1. 

10 hours ago, kye said:

I never hear people in the pro forums talking about Canon, only ARRI / RED / Venice.

I feel like even Blackmagic gets talked about more than Canon! As they're now the default go to for low/no budget filmmaking recommendations. 

4 hours ago, kye said:

Ah, I just realised I mis-read your comment in my above reply as "the quality that the manufacturers keep in the drawer (through limiting their potential with too heavy-handed image processing and compression)".

You are right, of course, especially considering that the main reason people keep them in a drawer is because of their limited technical specifications, when realistically people have just gotten used to the latest technologies.  Most cameras we keep on shelves or in drawers are better than 16mm film, and that was what was used to shoot all but the highest budget TV shows and was used on a number of serious feature films too, like Black Swan (2010), Clerks (1994), El Mariachi (1992), The Hurt Locker (2008), Moonrise Kingdom (2012), The Wrestler (2008), etc etc..

I think the biggest problem is that people don't know how to colour grade, or don't know what is possible.  I mean, anyone with a Blackmagic camera that shoots RAW has enough image quality to make a feature.

Not just 16mm film, but consider how many productions got shot on a Sony PMW-EX3 or Panasonic AJ-HDC27 or Sony HDW-F900 Cameras. (or many other similar such cameras)

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900r-camera 

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-hdw-f900-camera 

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/panasonic-aj-hdc27-varicam-camera

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/sony-pmw-ex3-camera

And all of us have "better" cameras at home than those!

4 hours ago, kye said:

Hell, if the movie Tangerine could be a success when sh

ot on the iPhone 5S, then no-one has any excuses for not being able to write a movie that is within the creative limitations of their equipment.  Even a shitty webcam could be used to shoot a found-footage horror movie set in the days of analog camcorders!

Keep in mind that Tangerine had easily at least $50K+ of sound gear being used. And probably easily double that in terms of lighting gear. 

10 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

ive from Tokyo

Give us a livestream! ha

10 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

She even wanted it in hipster brown with the retro case to match.

I want a brown retro case for my Fujifilm X-A3 too! Lost the case one night while out drinking, but phew, didn't lose the camera itself!!

4 minutes ago, sanveer said:

And there may be an approval fee, which Sony doesn't wanna pay. 

I'd guess it might be more likely there often needs to be first a push from a creative team (director/DP/producer) to get Netflix to add something to the list? 

And nobody has been pushing for the FX30 just yet to be added? 

On 10/1/2023 at 1:26 PM, ntblowz said:

FX9 was used for shooting in those led wall for sync, on location is pure FX3 ( up to 8 of them)

https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-frame-the-creator-co-dp-oren-soffer/

Least anybody thought they were insane enough to shoot with 8 cameras all at once, I was relieved to read:

8 Cameras At The Ready

I have heard this before, and it is a reminder that most film productions have a handful of cameras pre-rigged and ready at a moment’s notice. The philosophy I like to remember is that no one likes to wait on camera. Oren and the team made sure to have all their options open when shooting with eight different cameras in different configurations. Some configurations were a Drone, Crane, Shoulder Rig, Gimbal Rig, and even a barebones rig ready to capture anything needed at a moment’s notice.

22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can't seem to find anywhere confirmation of whether they shot 16bit raw to the Atomos or the internal codec?

Also from the same article:

ProRes Raw

While the Sony FX3 is a powerful camera, its internal codec was not quite as robust as the team required. In order to get the most out of the FX3, the filmmakers use the Atomos Ninja V+ as an onboard ProRes Raw recorder. To capture the best bit depth, color and dynamic range out of the FX3, the ProRes Raw option seems to be the best option for an $80,000,000 sci-fi feature film.

22 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Was the movie shot anamorphic?

Yes it was:

So, what was the lens used the most often on “The Creator?” The 75mm Kowa 2x anamorphic lens with a prototype of the Atlas Mercury 42mm as a backup for the small spaces where the 75mm was too tight. Think interior car scenes for the 42mm. Lenses provided by Keslow Camera

On 9/27/2023 at 12:28 AM, BTM_Pix said:

Fuji Instax Mini Evo.

What a weird and wild "hybrid camera"!!

(with a totally different meaning of the word "hybrid" than we normally use with cameras)

On 9/27/2023 at 6:34 PM, soundknight21 said:

Imagine getting the S5iix for low light wide to portrait (24-130) then getting an S-MFT adapter, cropping down the Sensor and shooting wildlife with the 100-400...

Would this work or am I missing something in the physics? 

You mean a MFT to L adapter. 

And sadly the mount flange depths means it won't work 😞

1 minute ago, sanveer said:

Maybe because they both (FX30 and FX3), have almost identical height, weight n depth.

I was meaning the Netflix list. 

Edit: 

Just now, sanveer said:

Or were you referring to the Netflix approved list? 

Yes!

On 9/26/2023 at 4:16 AM, BTM_Pix said:

Or for charging £1K for a basic matte box.

Ummm... that seems too crazy cheap for a matte box setup from ARRI? 

I mean, you could go with just the matte box and nothing else:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1288783-REG/arri_k2_66124_0_mmb_2_mini_matte_box.html 

But that kinda defeats the purpose of having one? You need more. 

A basic setup (using smaller / cheaper 4x5 filters, not the 6x6 filters. And skinny 15mm rails, not standard studio 19mm rails) is five and a half grand:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1341045-REG/arri_kk_0015177_lmb_4x5_pro_set.html

Going for 6x6 filters and 19mm rails means over seven grand:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1438561-REG/arri_kk_0020233_lmb_6x6_pro_19mm.html

On 9/26/2023 at 1:03 PM, sanveer said:

I am comparing the GM5 to the Netflix Approved Sony FX3, the A7Siii, and the Fuji X100v.

Strangely the FX30 is not (yet??) on that list?? 

On 9/26/2023 at 1:33 AM, BTM_Pix said:

(NB before the "ah but the top panel display" comments start its worth remembering that the G9MK2 doesn't have one now either)

And I'm sad about that! 😞

Even my first ever digital stills camera (the cheapie Nikon D50) had a top display! 

It's a big reason to go for a bigger body, to have the space for all that extra info to be displayed to you. 

On 9/26/2023 at 3:26 AM, kye said:

TBH, if we're going to judge everyone that didn't give us what they could have given us, we'd all better be saving up for an Alexa, because the people who worked on every other camera released in the history of the world are going in front of a firing squad tomorrow at dawn.

To be fair... we even can be extremely judgmental about the many moronic/weird design design decisions that ARRI cameras have had! To give a couple of quick examples: the dumb locations for the TC and Audio inputs on the ALEXA Mini 

On 9/26/2023 at 4:11 AM, sanveer said:

A Netflix Certification 😎

They'd only need to add TC support to it? There is nothing else major that it is missing? 

Panasonic BGH1 is on the list! (but I wonder why S1H, GH5S, and GH6 isn't on the list???) Hmmm... none of the Blackmagic Pockets are on the list either! 😕 

https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-Image-Capture-Requirements-and-Best-Practices#h_01G6KEYFG76GRKVMJS382H5638 

Oh wait... its recording bit rates are too low? The specs say: 

4096 x 2160 at 23.98/24.00/25/29.97/47.95/50/59.94/100/120 fps [150 to 600 Mb/s] 

Netflix says:

Data Rate

Minimum 240Mbps at 24FPS 

On 9/26/2023 at 4:16 AM, BTM_Pix said:

So, when it comes to the G9MK2......can you make it make sense for me?

When you view it as something be to used for Birding / Sports photography with big chunky telephoto lenses such the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100-400mm f/4-6.3 ASPH. POWER O.IS., then the bulky G9 size kinda makes sense. 

I worry less about the G9's size, and worry more about the fact that the GX/GM/GF series hasn't been properly updated in donkey years (and that the G series seems to have lost its way). 

Having a big beefy G9mk2 is less of an issue if we're spoiled for choice with plenty of portable / compact little cute cameras for street photography / gig photography / casual shooting / tourist snaps / hiking / etc 

9 hours ago, kye said:

I'm reminded of the comments from @John Brawley talking about how he used a super-minimal setup based on the BMMCC when shooting The Resident.

What's the odds of him wanting to exclusively shoot such a production with BMMCC? And to ditch the URSA Mini completely.

The odds would be between minimal to nil. 

18 hours ago, ntblowz said:

You are quoting without battery, with the big battery it weighs a lot.

Is that a fair comparison though, what battery is this being included in the weight? The BP-U60 or even the BP-U90? If instead of that you use the little small BP-U30? That would be a much lighter setup! 

The battery options for the FX6 is a benefit of the FX6. It's easy to have a long running setup (use the BP-U90) or a lightweight setup (use the BP-U30). While the FX3 either has a puny small internal battery, or a rather awkward rig (definitely worse than a FX6!) with a V Lock battery. 

10 hours ago, ntblowz said:

Well it will be a $80millon marketing gimmick in the making.

Even though the average movie goer (or even the average movie reviewer) doesn't know what "a Sony FX3" is, this still helps them massively create this underdog story of we're this plucky independent-ish film going our own way, doing things in our own manner, and we're not like those big studio films that some people are getting turned off by. 

On 9/25/2023 at 3:24 PM, kye said:

I think I understand where @IronFilm is coming from - the advantage of a larger body is that you get dedicated buttons and other things that are useful on set.  Think about it, if there was no use for something then they wouldn't add it to the camera, regardless of how large they were allowed to make it.

It's not just about the extra buttons for speedier usage, it is also about the tonnes of extra features that makes life easier:

TC

Built in ND filters 

Multiple (independent!) outputs 

SDI output(s)

etc etc etc etc 

On 9/25/2023 at 3:24 PM, kye said:

On a controlled set you'd imagine that they'd have a proper cinema lens with remote follow-focus etc attached, matte box, v-mount power, monitor, and the whole thing would be rigged appropriately.  

Eh, I've been working since last week on a fairly "uncontrolled set" (man, I wish I had more control over the racket being made! Too much noise) and this camera is "rigged up" that we're using (if anything, this is a more minimalistic setup for itself currently, as it is stripped down for the ever suffering Steadicam Op):

On 9/25/2023 at 3:24 PM, kye said:

By the time you add all that then the difference between an FX3 and FX6 is maybe only an extra 25% to the size of the whole rig.

It's only 250gm difference between a FX6 and FX3 body, so the difference would often be not even close to as much as 25% between the two rigs.

18 hours ago, ntblowz said:

I dunno why you so hung up on it need to be cinema camera.. at least the sensor is the same right lol 😆 

It's about practical ease of use and that the cost difference between a low end cinema camera and a stills / consumer camera is very low in the grand scheme of things.

Think about Monsters for instance that Gareth Edwards made beforehand, if there had been a soccer mum's handycam with "the same sensor" as the Sony EX3, do you think he'd have shot with that instead??

Of course not!!

Likewise, I struggle to understand why a person would willingly choose a FX3 over say a FX6/FX9/Burano if they're shooting even a modestly funded feature film (unless it is some very niche scenario. Such as "a marketing gimmick"??)

3 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Those lens are 'only' 10k each. Probably makes a difference 😉

A damn bargain indeed for sure!

You can buy an entire set and still have plenty of change left over vs buying a single Cooke Anamorphic

On 9/24/2023 at 12:27 AM, IronFilm said:

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. 

Camera gear is shockingly cheap to rent. I'm working on a low budget / self funded short film right now, which is using an ALEXA 35 with Panavision anamorphics. 

You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky, like when people want to be able to say we "shot it on an iPhone" purely for the sake of the marketing aspects for driving the film out there to be seen by the audiences. 

After all, would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead? 

My bad! It's not a set of Panavision lenses we're currently using, it's Cooke Anamorphics:

11 hours ago, kye said:

"so his crew consisted of just his actors (Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able), a sound tech, a line producer, a translator and a driver. Edwards operated the camera, grabbing footage guerrilla style whenever they came upon a compelling location while traveling through Central America."

You're talking about Gareth Edward's 2010 film "Monsters". 

That was of course not shot on a Sony FX3.

It was shot on a Sony though! But a Sony PMW-EX3 (with a Letus Ultimate adapter and some Nikon SLR lenses).

I'd say the modern day equivalent of that is the Sony FX6 or FX9. (even the FX9 is cheaper than the EX3 was!) 

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

I'd be more interested to learn more detailed breakdowns about any breakthrough indie film shot for sub £1M (or heck, go even lower, a quarter of that amount! Or merely a tenth??). 

No matter what the camera is that it was shot on, be it an OG BMPCC or an ARRI ALEXA 35.

As I feel the camera itself is fairly irrelevant vs the overall approach taken to budgeting / scheduling / crewing / etc 

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

Interesting to learn that Shallow Grave had that kind of production cost. I feel something comparable today could, in the right hands, be made for even less.

Sure, it could be made cheaper today. (as film stock now doesn't have to be purchased)

But... 

1) odds of success (a positive ROI) is waaay lower, because the competition now is much stiffer 

2) because of the previous point, you have to make the film to an even higher standard. (which costs more!)

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

The apartment in Shallow Grave, for example, is probably built on a soundstage. It would be an interesting challenge to produce a movie of a similar scale  today, without using soundstages etc and see how far a small budget can really go.

I feel that you're massively underestimating the big cost savings from shooting on a sound stage. 

4 hours ago, octoplex said:

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.

I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.

Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.

Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.

Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

Thanks for sharing! I checked it out, I hadn't heard of that before (although of course knew about his later films). 

Keep in mind, he made this for "a million quid". Which in today's money means over £2M

10 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

I think the Hollywood machine will largely remain the same. However, this will inspire many, many indie or lower budget productions. I really hope Edwards/Fraser detail how using such small camera package impacted the overall production. I imagine the time savings were immense. And, I imagine the FX3's low light abilities affected how they lit the picture.

I just don't quite understand why a filmmaker such as Edwards used a FX3, when much better cameras for productions such as Sony BURANO (or back then, the FX6) are available cheaply. 

Camera gear is shockingly cheap to rent. I'm working on a low budget / self funded short film right now, which is using an ALEXA 35 with Panavision anamorphics. 

You're not saving that much from the overall budget by shooting with an FX3 instead, it just feels a bit gimmicky, like when people want to be able to say we "shot it on an iPhone" purely for the sake of the marketing aspects for driving the film out there to be seen by the audiences. 

After all, would we even be talking about this film at all today if he'd chosen an ALEXA 35 for it instead? 

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

OK, it means a pair rather than a single unit, but smaller and lighter units which have more range (I have the Sigma 16-28 also) and better in low light. And cheap as chips on the used market now, relative to their performance.

Then again, perhaps that pair of lenses would be too bulky and heavy for your preferences 

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I want to change my S1H because in order to use my lens of choice, the Leica 24-90, I have to use the battery grip and that means 2.8kg or in old money, about 6lbs.

I have been looking at all kinds of options but 2 contenders now rising to the top, especially after editing this S5ii shot wedding which I am doing right now, is the S1H and the S1R.

I might just get another S1H, ditch the grip, ditch the Leica 24-90 and instead run a pair of the things gripless and with the much smaller and lighter Sigma 28-70mm on one and the Sigma 105mm prime on the other.

OK, it means a pair rather than a single unit, but smaller and lighter units which have more range (I have the Sigma 16-28 also) and better in low light. And cheap as chips on the used market now, relative to their performance.

It is a pity that the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 and Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 are not available in L Mount. 

I wonder if it might ever come out in L Mount? 

As if you're looking for two lenses that cover the 24mm to 105mm ish range, then that might be an even better combo to consider??

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I've been eying up the new Cookes...and came to the conclusion, I'd need to be Coked up to do that properly

Dealing in coke is the way to go to able to afford cooke