EduPortas

For full frame, 6K and various flavors of ProRes that's a very very small number of cameras. Even more so if the camera AND lens totals around US$10k (the 32mm Cooke lens used for the entire show costs US$4,500 brand-new; the 6K version of the camera US5k)

I agree. Chapter 3 was the best. Bar none. But even if we don't like the story (I don't love it either), the reality is that millions of viewers swallowed the show with gusto. That does not happen if the technical image on the 80 inch TV falls apart.

Thus, the original reason for this thread.

This new gear is as bare-bones as it gets: cheap camera that shoot 6K and records RAW (for Hollywood) and a very good lens.

Ok, but the whole series was shot theRonin 4D and a Cooke lens. The decision was intentional and reveals they selected that gear not just for the ability to use in very dynamic scenes bc the technical quality of the images is practically Arri level. I seriously doubt they would have shot the entire series with that combo if the technical image quality lessened the final product shown on-screen.

Yeah, it's an industry, as you well noted. But I can't shake the feeling some share-holders will see the praised garnished by Adolescence and start to ask why they can't use "cheap" equipment like that in every project since it looks as "pro" as any Hollywood film out there. Blair Witch it is not. The last major breakthrough was the Sony FX3 camera for the big budget Creator movie. But that was one piece within a huge industry-like production process. Adolescence take a different route and seeing all the positive press it's garnered I expect 1,000 copy cat movie makers to try and imitate it.

Ok, that's interesting. - Canon XL-1 was used for a particular effect in 28 Days Later. - 5D M2 was used very sparingly in House for some specific shots that required very low-light. - SS used the iPhone 15 with a bunch of different and very expensive tools, unlike a "normal user" would. - FX3 illustrates my point. The effect of that particular accesible camera changed the industry for the better. Being a Sony though, it still is part of a very conservative tech ecosystem. Now the mold has been broken again with an even cheaper kit that included almost everything you need to make a Hollywood-level movie or mini-series. I was honestly shocked at how good the technical quality of the series was when watching it on a big-screen TV. Only the most hard-core of technical specialist will notice this is not an Alexa.

Thank you, that's great info. They used the 6K model which costs a measly US$5,000. The 6K US$9,999 model includes a very decent T3.0 lens. Again, for Hollywood, that's less than drinks on a Friday. There's some more technical info here ---> https://ymcinema.com/2025/04/16/the-heroes-of-adolescence-dji-ronin-4d-and-cooke-sp3-32mm/ We're about to see come huge changes in the industry now that hegemonic power are being shifted. The camera industry is not impervious to that huge seismic tech shift.

Since this forum has taken a strong liking to cinema this past couple of years, I'd think it be useful to point out the gear used in this very popular series. As you probably know, they used a DJI Ronin 4D and a Cooke SP3 32mm to shoot the entire series. That's about US$12,000 in total (not counting storage media). Either way, it's a breakthrough in the film industry that wishes to distance itself from the Arri/Sony duopoly. For the independent film industry this is even more important. Yes, for a mere mortal that's quite a bit of money. But for a film project -- any film project that wishes to be taken seriously -- it's basically peanuts. Arguably, it's a pretty decent looking media product. Only the most ardent film aficionados will notice any difference, if any, from an Arri or Sony film cam. For 99.9% of the rest of the world, it's great quality. I can see the American film-industry boycotting the Chinese DJI to protect their American gear. The wave of new pro and amateur projects filmed with the setup seen in Adolescence will be huge. We are "there".

It is. Mainly bc the original X100 is so limited in terms of AF and, as you said, focal length. But once you learn to live with that it's a very enjoyable experience when shooting through the hybrid OVF (forget about the EVF). There's still nothing out there. For maximum fun I just leave it at F8, 1/125 and move around the ISO during my trips. Single point center AF. Basically a point and shoot.

You cannot not include the original X100. It's basically just a point and shoot rangefinder with a 35mm F2 lens and one usable focus point in the center. Leaf shutter, incredibly advanced flash system, great skin tones. I really enjoyed using it until the TikTok fad made it a risk for me to use it for street photography. These suckers have become absurdly expensive. Now I'm having a blast with a tiny Nikon ccd point and shoot from about 20 years ago. Cheap as beans, fits everywhere, has flash, a nice wide to tele lens and the gf likes it. Of course the battery is mediocre, is very slow in operation and has glacial autofocus. BUT once you print an image created with those ccd sensors you realize the hype is real. I have NEVER seen skins tones as natural as the ones produced by these old Nikons (3300, 3400, etc).

Pretty sure Dogma 95 will be right up your ally (Lars Von Trier, Soren Kragh-Jacobsen, et al.) They proposed the same thing as you: no frills film-making with the story as the most important element. Enjoy ---> FULL LIST OF DOGME 95 RULES Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found). The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot). The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera). Optical work and filters are forbidden. The film must not contain superficial action (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur). Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden (That is to say that the film takes place here and now). Genre movies are not acceptable. The film format must be Academy 35 mm. The director must not be credited.

So Dave Bautista is NOT related to Perry Farrell?

Damn, gotta update my YT algorithm. Reviewers will do anything for clicks in this day and age LOL

Before your explanation I really thought you were talking about this guy

Thank you. Never heard of him. JA are a popular 90s grudge band. Famous songs include "Jane Says"

Yep, that's impressive by any measure imaginable.

Who the heck is Dave Bautista? The singer from Jane's Addiction?

In that video posted below he says he's lost about 35 kilos just by not drinking alcohol and "being drunk" almost every day for the last "20 years". A year later he's lost about 15 kilos more, by the look of the picture I posted. In total, about 50 kilos in less than two years. That's 110 pounds or almost 8 stone for you guys in the UK hehe

Thank you, clearly it has been more than a year since I watched one of his vids.

Yes, I clearly remember in some videos he elaborated on the mean-spirited comments ppl left on his videos when he appeared from the waist down.

Just saw a video of Matt Granger reviewing the new Nikon power zoom. I couldn't believe my eyes. This man probably lost 100 pounds in the last year (hadn't seen a video of his in that time, at least). Without any sense of irony I honestly wish he's ok and it's just a bit too much ozempic and not some sort of health issue.

They are just another type of movie. Realistic animation is still animation, no matter how much AI power behind it. We still respond best to other humans. Evidence is all around social media. Even in the very small screen of your iPhone most watch-time goes to humans in such "boring" activities like talking head podcasts. It's not a question of being "acceptable", it's more what people actually respond to. Unless our natural is fundamentally changed, humans still prefer to connect with other humans.

Al I'm saying is that 1% that humans recognize as fake when observing an AI human will exist. Animation has had this problem for decades now. Artists go to great lengths to make humans more and more realistic and people still criticize their work as fake. Hand-made + CGI production has been a staple of cutting edge animation studios for a while now and most artists have stopped searching for that "perfect" human imitation. It's so hard-wired into our brains that AI makers will inevitably stop searching for 100% real human impersonation.

Al I'm saying is that 1% that humans recognize as fake when observing an AI human will exist. Animation has had this problem for decades now. Artists go to great lengths to make humans more and more realistic and people still criticize their work as fake. Hand-made + CGI production has been a staple of cutting edge animation studios for a while now and most artists have stopped searching for that "perfect" human imitation. It's so hard-wired into our brains that AI makers will inevitably stop searching for 100% real human impersonation.