I sent a message over to the gaffer who said the entire film was shot on the fx3 - no Alexa 65 what so ever. IMDb isn't usually the most accurate when it comes to technical specs. There are some shots in the trailer that are full CG though and not shot on the fx3
Why will them choose to shoot with an FX3 instead for a massive CGI movie instead of a Venice, or FX6/9, etc?; The fx3 hasn´t enough latitude, and has an active electronic denoise filter that makes the image looks totally video and probably its causes some issues with led dome. Maybe they used it in some shots, but the entire movie?... Is it possible? For sure, but seems risky even is well know that Greig Frasers has a strong indie background, and for example in The Batman shots with vintage lenses... But, I´m sorry but i can´t believe it without checking this info. I´m sure if this was true Sony´s PR would come out with a featurette about this, maybe in the future, or maybe not, but i´ll put this info on hold until further confirmation.
@@raquetamalvada on Twitter Oren Soffer said, "We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)" This is of course, speculation, but I'm not sure why they would withhold technical information unless it was in some way. Surprising or innovative. There are thousands of movies where we know well in advance that they are shooting Arri, or iMAX, or red, etc. So why the secrecy? I hear everything you're saying, and as stated in the video, things could have changed. But I'm fairly certain Fraser was talking about this film when discussing "shooting the entire movie on an FX3" in Thailand. I am curious why IMDb says Sony raw 4.2k. who knows. Maybe it's inaccurate, or Maybe they used a modded version of the FX3 with unreleased firmware, and they have some partnership w Sony that will come out closer to the film. It's still really early days, I'm sure. I guess we'll all find out. It's worth noting too, that at the time that Oren Soffer said the above quote, the specs were still Arri 65 and FX3. So it's possible that the Arri 65 is the inaccurate part.
@@raquetamalvada Form the little inside info I have with the crew, the whole thing was shot on the FX3. There are probably some inserts that where shot with other cameras - just like with any film - the same camera is never used for the entire production, 2 or 3 shots from other cameras will sneak in there, but the FX3 seems like the best choice for the film. 1) Fraser said that he wanted low light capability, the FX3 has 12800 iso, and the FX9 doesn't, so that rules the FX9 out. The FX6 is pretty much the same sensor, but is a horrible camera to rig out if you want a more custom build, so as an AC I'd prefer the FX3 if I'm doing any advanced rigging.
Personally I love when prosumer cameras are used for big Hollywood films. Something about it feels like an underdog story to me. I think back to when Gareth used the Sony EX3 coupled with a Letus 35 to make monsters and it looked pretty great, and then I look back to 28 days later shot on a Canon Xl1 and it gives you that inspiration to take your inexpensive camera and go shoot amazing films.
The EX3's CCD sensor just gives that raw film look when paired with the right lenses. There's just something so beautiful yet journalistic experience in Monsters that I think what makes Gareth Edwards such an interesting film maker.
Great scoop! The FX3 seems to have no significant disadvantage, especially when it’s on a gimbal or handheld. It’s pure motion picture goodness, especially when recording RAW, but even at low bitrates.
fx3 looks to plastic for me, got one as C Cam next to my Arri and Varicam. Arri ,Aricam, Venice only cameras that are pleasing my eye but obviously the fx3 has it´s place for certain shots.
@@frankbregulla564true, if you pair it with crappy lenses, shoot on the basic internal codec, and don’t know how to color grade… But when paired with quality lenses (like the Atlas Mercury anamorphics as they used on this film), the Ninja V+ recorder (to jump up to 12-bit ProRes RAW, which bypasses the internal noise reduction that can make it look plasticy), and have a good colorist (which they definitely had being a major studio film), you can have night and day differences, making this punch way above its class.
This is awesome news! I just got one and am still just scratching the surface of what it can do. I already loved this trailer and now to know it’s potentially possible (obviously factoring the years of technical and creative experience that DP has + other expert VFX artists and crew on the film have) for me to make something even remotely similar as far as quality. This literally made my day👌🏾
4 years on Panasonic cameras, I made the switch over to Sony after getting hired by a few production companies in my area for B-Cam/BTS. Started with the A7IV which almost felt like a step back for me, aside from usable autofocus(rolling shutter was rough) One day, I noticed my local camera shop was selling an FX3 with 3 Sony batteries for $2900 so I decided to pick it up. Really thankful and it was Money well spent, as it really opened up my chances to get on sets as a proper B-Cam to FX6s and even the Venice which have matched up with it nicely.
I greatly appreciate this video. Not for validating a prosumer level camera but just for shifting creators focus. Also 2 realistically most of us wont even wont be shooting films like these. Focus on your story and everything else is just tools
@4:46 when you said "it reminds us that story comes first and the tools are there to help the story" YESSS thank you that's something that I think so many people, editors, CZcamsrs, anyone need to remember first and foremost
I never realized that Greg Freiser did this movie too. Also, Sony FX3 sounds like one of those rare cameras used for filmmaking regarding how big of a deal you're making of it. Must be quite something special for this film.
I love it. In 2023, specs-wise you can get more bang for buck out of something like a Lumix s52 x, which just released. In terms of camera sensitivity with the ISOs, I think the sony's are the only ones in this class. In general, there are lots of cameras that are just as good as the FX3. It's just a fun little camera, with a really nice form, factor and body, and great specs for a good image. Came right after the A7S3 which was when Sony finally embraced internal 10-bit 422, and new color science, which allowed you to actually take full use of the dynamic range. Before that you really couldn't. So I would say before the A7S3 and FX3, Sony cameras really were lacking in features. And other camera systems were way ahead, those two cameras mark a delineation point for actual professional functionality
@@ScottJeschke I feel your excitement. I'm from a generation where 'film' were the only thing at the theater. We had great movies like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Grand Prix (1968), Dirty Harry, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and too many others to mention. Today I have to set aside my Nikon F2a for my Sony digital cameras. What I like about this move to shooting with less expensive, yet professional quality cameras is it is a challenge to us to make movies, shorts, etc. with far less expensive cameras like Sony's tiny ZV-E10. I've seen many videos on YT done by a number of people using the E10. Unbelievable the quality of something that costs $700. We are in a new age where 'filmmaking' has to be pushed aside to what I like, story telling. It's as different as dial-up phones are from today's cellphones.
I agree with your main points. It is just that cameras are not a super large part of the production and its cost though... I can totally imagine a big spending on lighting for example. It reminds me some short films sponsored by Apple trying to make a point that iPhone is good enough and actually a lot of production other than cameras are invested. Good vid!
Usually the smaller cameras are sometimes B cams but mostly C,D cams used for crash, handheld or on sticks in tight spaces, sometimes rigged on aerial drones, occasional high iso night scenes (depending), explosions, underwater. They do it with a lot of movies like top gun, marvel, mad max etc.. Usually 80-90% of shots are all on the main camera which is Arri.
I have a Sony a7IV and I truly agree with your opinion. True there's this G.A.S but recently I'm blaming for my lack of skills if my image is not up to par with my vision. I'll keep on tweaking and think about how to light the scene to achieve the desired look I have in my head. But more often than not I don't have enough time to achieve the look. Close but not the one I wanted. And I think, color grading is the saviour of these lacks. I blame myself for that. So to counter that G.A.S feeling I keep on watching 'Terrance Malick' film and recently 'At Eternity's Gate'. Fantastic Films.
I also experienced this exact thing as a solo shooter. Sure my A7iv elevated the quality of image but I realized quickly that i was lacking in lighting, grading and composition knowledge. These days I spend more time watching tutorials and breakdowns than shooting. But slowly i can see progress.
This has been done many times in the past with other cameras. ( I wouldn't be surprised if Sony kicked in money for the budget with the understanding that some parts of the film would be shot with the FX3, because it's a great sales pitch for the camera )
@@AnthonyHadleyJr oh man. so glad! Dude, I love that speech. It's my annual kick in the butt that I need to stop making excuses and make my first feature
Totally! Haha. I mean after years of CZcamsrs saying "it's not a cinema camera" it's kind of like.. turns out it's good enough for one of the most innovative DPS on the planet though, so... 😅
Great video man, definitely makes me excited to shoot more with my FX3. First time I've watched any of your stuff and I really liked how you covered this topic, will def stick around for more :)
Nice set up for your videos man! I expect a lot of this movie! Because I love Gareth and he seems to bring something original on big screen, even if I do see the artistic refs...
Camera choice post 2022 are comparable to choosing film negatives. I feel like Frasier and team probably chose the FX3 bc it’s like having a Kodak 12800D film stock 😵
This was a really cool discussion man, even as a novice I enjoyed it. All i jave is an a7iii and dont have the finance to buy something specifically for video. So my intention is just to do the best i can, and eventually if I start bumping up against the limitations of the body, ill have to re-evaluate from there.
Don't forget many of us have had a Sony FX3 for a few years now. It's called the Sony A7s3, and it's exactly the same camera! More people should look at what directors like Steven Soderbergh have been doing for a long time now. He's been more than happy to use Lumix, iPhones, and whatever he can get his hands on to be creative. He was offered a 4K Red to shoot Che on, and turned it down, saying "HD is plenty good enough, thanks".
Good job man! I have been freeze framing the creator bts for days trying to figure this out. I think you nailed it. They also used cinema anamorphic lenses so probably need a focus pulller but gmaster lense with af will work like magic
Interesting choice of FX3 given that it's a VFX heavy movie; tracking and VFX will be a nightmare with the rolling shutter. Guessing it's the night scenes that allows the ISO 12800 to shine. I'm really curious if the whole film was cut in FCPX given that the raw codec is ProRes RAW, rather than using PP's raw plugin.
Yeah, I'm really curious about the post workflow. I doubt rolling shutter was a huge issue though. Most of the vfx shots are very controlled and smooth
So rad…. I have 2 of the FX3’s with the Sigma 24-70 and the 85 art prime. For most of us it’s always only ever a one man band, right? Lol. I bought a ronin RS2 and they’ve just never missed focus, never given me anything but a rewarding image to push/pull as far as i could ever want - every week for the last 2 years. - That’s just the internal 10 bit too. Sony keeps adding value to them as well. If they had internal ND’s they’d be perfect.. But they’d also just be FX6’s 😂
It’s weird how we select tools. I nearly got an FX3/FX6 but ProRes Raw cannot work with Davinci natively without some possible conversions with potential drawbacks. Ended up with a Komodo and have been very happy with it for three years now. We need to stop obsessing over brands. Steve Yedlin correctly points out how futile brand allegiance is when most cameras now can capture enough data to create identical looks in the color pipeline. I would have been just as happy with Sony ProRes raw, or Fuji XH2, or canon c70. They all produce fantastic images. Now let’s go make great films.
Yeah, I think brands mattered until about 2ish years ago when every camera got at least 10bit log. Once DaVinci got Color Space Transform it all really stopped mattering. The one thing that was flawed in Steve Yedlin's argument at the time was that you couldn't change color science. Not without advanced tetra math, coding and nuke. Now DaVinci has CST and DCTLS, so the sky is the limit in terms of a cameras inherent photographic look being manipulated. But to my knowledge, prior to Yedlin, every DP including Deakin's was just building LUTs on top of the existing color science of the cameras, so despite LUTs and grades, cameras really did have "looks". When it comes to red vs arri though, the choice more often came down to workflow and ease of use. Especially in that 2010 - 2016 era. Yedlin gets real nerdy on this on the Masters of Color podcast. And he even conceded that DPs were stuck w inherent color science of the cameras in the early days of digital
Raw is not the same at all. Prores raw is 12 bit and very limited compared to something like red raw or arri raw or even black magic raw. Even if they used 16bit raw with something like atomos neon it would still have less dynamic range than red or arri cameras. I am not that impressed that they used fx3 because it is an outstanding camera and I have always known that the camera plays a very small part of the final image and even smaller part of the final film.
@@Yodd Prores RAW to an atomos is 16 bit linear that is converted to 12 bit log. Less DR by a stop and a half. The camera played a BIG part in the movie being the ONLY camera used as confirmed by the gaffer of the film Nice try.
My wallet thanks you for your comment at 6:30, as I was considering buying either an FX6 or an FX3. I'm staying with my current camera setup. "You already have the tool that is more than capable for the job." ✌
The best way, in my opinion, and for my style, is to get both. I have a fx6, for tripod/shoulder and an a7s3 for gimbal, special shots, gripped. This allows me to be so flexible and efficient.
I shot a whole feature film in 2022 with Canon C100 mark ii 8 yrs old camera and now my movie is in few festivals and tickets are on sale for screening on my town, I talk about the camera more in details on my channel if you will be interested, the video title goes, CANON C100 MARK II WHY I SHOT AN ENTIRE MOVIE WITH THIS 8YRS OLD CAMERA, Thanks for this video Scott, Sometimes we feels less motivated to shoot what we love just because our cameras doesn't have a lot of K's, Its good if you can afford one but it should not stop you if you don't have one.
*NEW CONFIRMATIONS OF FX3.* Check my latest community post for BTS photos. Looks like the FX3 as an A cam to me. Same shape, size and side handle 1/4 screw mount. www.youtube.com/@ScottJeschke/community 8/21 UPDATE: FX3 if ever I saw one. czcams.com/video/8cOXJ0SC7uU/video.html Gareth talking about it: "Pretty much the whole movie was shot on the FX3" czcams.com/video/qgYkBUFNVxk/video.html Also officially confirmed by Gareth Edwards on a panel. screenrant.com/the-creator-movie-new-technology-production-director-gareth-edwards-details/
It is crazy that they used 2x anamorphic lenses on this, it means he ends up with 2592x1080 (with crop to make the ratio 2,4/1). That is not a lot. I've done it with my fx6 with 1,8 anamorphic, but that was for adverts.
I am a bit curious about the anamorphic look here. Especially thinking back on Rogue One. In Rogue One, they used refurbished 1.25x anamorphic lenses (they resurfaced thanks to Hateful Eight). But it was a regular 2.4:1 scope release instead of the full 2.76:1 that the lenses was originally made for on 65mm cameras. My guess has been that they used the 1.9:1 standard crop of the camera instead of the full 2.20:1 (I think that particular Arri camera was 65mm equivalent in sensor size). Because that way the resulting image is so close to 2.40:1 that the crop is insignificant. But here. The trailer and the IMDB specs lists it as 2.76:1. This makes me curious. The bokeh is very oval. Maybe even 2x anamorph ovality (probably not a word). The IMDB page doesn't say yet what kind of anamorphics are used. Quick math says that a 1.5x anamorph on a 1.9:1 sensor gets an image very close to 2.76:1. They are easier to find on prosumer levels as well. But then again. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe they are regular 2x anamorphs and they shot in 4:3 sensor. That gives a 2.67:1 image. Close to the final crop of 2.76:1. Anyone knows more? I'm just guessing wildly here.
If I had to guess I'd say internal ND, and Machine Learning tech for exposure. It's crazy how phones are able to capture so much dynamic range. Granted it's baked in, compressed, and not even close to the same bit depth and color depth.. but impressive nonetheless, and perhaps an indicator. More predictably though, I'm sure 8K
@@ScottJeschke higher dynamic range at more consumer level cameras will be more of a breakthrough than 8K. The FX3 and a ton of mirrorless cameras capture 12-13 stops of clean usable dynamic range which is pretty much what every cinema camera captures, with the exception of Arri capturing 14.5 and the Alexa 35 capturing 17.5. Now imagine if every other camera company can capture 14 plus stops of dynamic range and at a consumer body? That's breakthrough.
@@ivanperez5937 Yeah. I agree. For me personally, anything related to exposure would be a breakthrough, I'm more saying that I'm sure 8k is what the camera companies are going to push. Which to me, is not all that useful. More DR would be amazing indeed
I agree w compression, but compression from a great distance makes background look huge next to mid and foreground. There's a shot of Paul in the Dune 2 trailer that really demonstrates this. Or the ET flying across the moon shoot for instance. Moon looks massive compared to the way that it would versus on a wide lens. I agree that wide lenses do a good job capturing scope. Wide lenses from a good distance w the right foreground placement do a good job capturing scale though
@Scott Jeschke I find it can work if you make sure there's some good midground, or ideally a good ground plane in the shot. Otherwise it can look like a cheesy A over B carrldboard cut out comp. If an object in the background is so massive that it still dominates with a wide angle lens, then it looks MASSIVE. To me anyway.
But it’s way they use the long lenses. The relationship between the subject the object or background and the subject’s proximity to camera. It makes us feel we are there experiencing the scale of the situation. The wide often disconnects us from that experience. It can achieve a certain scope but the feeling is different.
@@ScottJeschke Different strokes for different folks I guess. Can't say I saw much in that Dune 2 trailer that floated my boat. There were a couple of nice shots of Paul running on top of the dunes. The rest of it was very beige and smeary. Super indistinct and could have been shot pretty much anywhere due to the super shallow depth of field. Throw some sand down on a parking lot, set the lens to T1.3 and have at it. Why bother shooting in Jordan if you can't ever see anything?
Where do you feel the xh2s falls in this conversation? I know the point is to communicate that the prosumer field as a whole has elevated and is comparable to cinema lines but I'm curious about your thoughts on the Fuji cinema
If anything, I think they are the ones to do it. The xh2s is a amazing camera. On par with the FX3 outside of timecode and a few other tools you can grab from a monitor. This is a very capable camera.
ARRI came out and said no ARRI camera was used on this film (probably because they don’t want people thinking this footage / content was from an Alexa… not to say it looks bad or anything; but they’re going to protect their brand / image if people think it was shot on an ARRI). It was shot entirely using the FX3.
Skin tones in the movie are not arri like… looks much closer to a red camera look. And that one scene on the beach which look like it took place on a cloudy moonlit night….well the camera they used must’ve had some great lowlight performance qualities
IMDB no longer shows the ARRI Alexa 65 in the specs. Nor does it show the FX3, but it still shows 4.2K in Sony Raw. This would indicate that it was in fact shot on the FX3. Maybe they are hesitant about admitting a Hollywood Blockbuster was shot on a $3900 camera.
Interesting. I saw on Twitter the DP Oren Soffer said they aren't yet able to talk about specs/ package, so I'm wondering if there's some special press planned. One of the viewers on here said they dm'ed the gaffer, and that he said the entire thing was FX3.
@@ScottJeschke Wow! I also remember hearing somewhere that Atlas lent them a set of prototype Mercury anamorphic lenses. The Mercury's 1.5x squeeze combined with the FX3 sensor would produce something close to that odd 2.76:1 ratio they are showing. If they can't talk about it yet could that mean that the specs are somewhat controversial, like maybe FX3s and Atlas Mercury lenses? Here's hoping. Thanks for posting the video, Scott. I'm happy to see this is getting some attention. I teach film at our local college and this is exactly the kind of thing we like to show our students. It really gets their gears turning.
The FX3 is a capable camera no doubt. But let’s not forget, this movie is a “big budget” Hollywood production… on average, big budget productions are working with more than $100,000,000… The camera is but a single element within the production. In a project of this scope every element of the shoot is controlled. And when that footage goes into post, professional colorists and VFX teams are working with it. It’s not so much about the camera, but more about the overall production. Just watch the credits roll till the end to understand how many people come together to make a project like this come to life.
I think that's part of the fun event though. A movie like this doesn't need to shoot on the FX3. But it's fun that it is because it's such a big project
Forget the credits and how many people worked on this. I’ve seen YT footage look almost similarly as gloss and high end with one dude using a canon lens….. You don’t need a 10 minute end credit roll to get studio looks anymore. I’m a half full person.
Plenty of examples of big budget films shot on low cost cameras for various reasons if you really look hard. And plenty shot on the most expensive format Film. But I need to point out that the intermediate budget is why the high end “Venice” LF etc exist. When you need to work fast the Venice having built in 1 stop ND’s saves time, the reliable workflow and forgivingness of the latitude gives you comfort in many situations. I agree you can used any modern camera to make a big budget film and sup it up to support large Pany anamoric lenses and wireless video and FF. But when you have an intermediate budget the things built into the Venice or LF save you time and money. It’s a mistake to shoot a movie you have 9 days to make on a camera that’s not reliable fast and easy to use and many pro-sumer cameras are just that, unreliable slower to use and more difficult Those bells and whistles aren’t just there for show on high end cameras - they are worth every penny
no. Not even close. There are a huge difference between a pro range and a proconsumer. The biggest difference is the dynamic range and low light reading. The resolution is also a factor. What you did not mention is the advancement of technology. A proconsumer is inching closer to pro range. Stop spreading misinformation. what you are talking about is production value. There are multiple factors.
@@dutchmilk Give me any good 4K camera, Good Lenses, Good Gaffer, Good Art Director, Anamorphic Glass and a Great story. I will make you a masterpiece. It’s not misinformation, it’s facts. I mean THE CREATOR just showed you this.
@@dutchmilk Resolution not so much a factor, low light overestimated. no one needs 12560 iso, handling, dynamic in the highlights, the color filters / color sience on sensor more important
Respectfully, The DP said on Twitter that IMDb was inaccurate, as it often is. Like Wikipedia, anyone can update it. I've linked recent comicon clips of Gareth Edwards literally saying this was the camera they shot the whole film on (FX3). And provided images on my community page. So far there's no evidence of the Alexa 65 being used at all, apart from the IMDb, which is likely false
@@nicolasdupere sure thing! And same! I can't wait either :) I think it's linked the desc but there's a clip of Edwards talking about how they used it. Very inspiring and exciting
A poor workman blames his tools. I'm pretty sure Roger Deakins could shoot a blockbuster with a Super 8 and an old iPhone. And let's not forget the lenses and all the other stuff here was pro-level it wasn't a kit lens and a single bulb backlight!
“Black Swan” was filmed with a Canon 7D. “Captain America 1” was filmed with a Canon 5D Mark II. Even a Sony A6300 is more powerful than these cameras… with that being said my point is you can use any camera for a full feature release ONLY IF know what you’re doing. It’s not about the camera it’s about the execution
For sure! Although, for those movies it was primarily specialty shots. Black swan for instance was mostly shot on 16 mm film. But I totally agree that a tool is only as good as its artist.
@@ScottJeschke Yes you are correct, the subway shots, some of the tracking shots, and some of the shots that included green screen work in “Black Swan” was shot in the Canon 7D and the post production team literally had to degrade the 7D footage to match 16mm, then send it into a 2k master. With Cap America a lot of the motorcycle scenes in the forest fight were on the 5D Mark II but unless you’re a trained professional most audiences cannot actually tell which shot was from the Alexa and which was the 5D. If your post processing execution is good enough, and with the correct lighting you can do wonders with cameras that you can go out and buy at Best Buy. Production setup is more important than camera sensor and most of ALL prosumer available cameras in the $800-$2000 range are more powerful than what pros had to use up to the year 2010 Keep up the good work I like your videos a lot 👍👍👍
The slate at the beginning of the video for True Love, says Sony under "camera". True Love was the working title of The Creator. One of the viewers here said they DM'ed the gaffer, who said the film was 100% FX3 🤷♂. All remains to be seen, but all the indicators would point to it being this film, which was in fact shot in Thailand.
you have a camera now get a few millions and do a movie XDXD jokes aside, i for example have a komodo and i am trying to shoot good stuff. we dont need an arri alexa or whatever to create good stuff. the rest you need is a pain, lighting, wireless stuff for your first ac, story, talent. the kamera is not the biggest point .... its just the canvas and the rest is the color
yes but if you do all this effort the camera is most of the times the smallest position so why not using the best camera / color science, arri amira roughly about 15.000 used + 3-4 Leica R Lenses so 20000 in total and it does not get much better. would be my recommendation
@@frankbregulla564 love the global shutter on the komodo for handheld shots + tokina 11-20 atx cine lens and the dzo 20-55 zoom. Its a bombshell setup. I decided to put more into lights and diffusers as light is the key in my opinion. Cameras are all pretty great these days
@@PARISONFIRE yes very nice setup as well. i prefer older lenses even if mechanically not very good they deliver more texture. digital sensors in general too clean looking, old lenses like Leica R´s can add some feeling . for me the arri sensor even the older one like in alexa and amira is still the best sensor if you don´t need to shoot low light.
The real Creator is the Lord Jesus Christ. And the only way to Heaven is by faith in the blood that he shed for the forgiveness of your sins on the cross of Calvary. "For by him were all things created..." - Colossians 1:16 KJV "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" - Ephesians 1:7 KJV The Holy Bible says that you are a sinner, and without Jesus Christ, you will die in your sins and spend eternity burning in Hell. There is no sin that can enter Heaven. You must have your sins washed in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ; he shed his blood for you on the cross of Calvary. Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven - you must turn to him, trust him, believe on him and him alone for the salvation of your soul. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:23-28 KJV
How so? They're definitely very different, but some overlap w big scale through lensing, large formats, use of handheld, etc. Curious your thoughts though.
ARRI came out and said no ARRI camera was used on this film (probably because they don’t want people thinking this footage / content was from an Alexa… not to say it looks bad or anything; but they’re going to protect their brand / image if people think it was shot on an ARRI). It was shot entirely using the FX3.
Everything in the video accurately represents the information at hand, including the quote from Freiser indicating "shooting an entire film in Thailand" on the FX3. He's on Dune 2, so another film in Thailand seems unlikely. The slate for True Love (the former title of The Creator) says "Sony" under camera. And the video addresses the changing nature of IMDB and what was reflected at the time, so I'm not sure what the misinformation is.
BM looks better than the Sony, got em all including Arri, Varicam...FX3 the worst out of the bunch but obviously still fantastic for such a small digital camera. No one shots on fx3 a movie by choice, might be marketing or sponsoring
@@frankbregulla564 i am not sony fanboy at all. I work 14 years in the industry and i have eyes. I have tested all populair cameras and there is nothing that objectively indicats that bm is better. It is personal preference. Bm has better raw codec, everything else is worse. Also if you have worked as long in the industry as you claim, you would have known that you could match fx3 to look identical to bm pocket in post. Most people have harder time grading sony, because it requires actual knowledge of grading that goes beyond basics. While bm cameras are very easy to grade.
@@Yodd color science, sensor better, organic looking in BM in my opinion, I own all Sony´s FX9, FX6, FX3,. The FX9 best looking out of the three and I use these cameras a lot for documentary etc...but for B-Roll for my Arri Amira or Mini when I shoot Commercials I always use BM 6K. Anyway, maybe personal taste but I would never use FX3 for a movie, If I would have to go cheap then BM6K, picture more pleasing to the eye.
Greig does like sucking all the life out of the actors in the grade so it makes sense that he'd go with Sony mirrorless to get it half way there in-camera. (only half joking)
You seem like a nice guy, but dude, enough with the nonsense! No bloody way the whole of "The Creator" was shot on the FX3. It looks like the Alexa 65 and it was shot on such. Some crash cam / tight-spot shots on the FX3, sure. If anyone thinks the FX3 and the Alexa 65 (or Sony Venice, for that matter, which is what would have used to get the best "Sony" look) have the same highlight rolloff and colour tonality, I don't know what else to say. Other than consider taking up another hobby that doesn't involve eyesight.
I'm going off what the DP said. And the information at hand is now saying the movie was shot entirely on the FX3. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I even say in the video that if the information presents itself otherwise, I will mention it as a pinned comment. IMDb even only says FX3 now. Which I know IMDB changes and can be modified. But I'm presenting the information in its current public state, while making allowance that it may change as we learn more. I can absolutely tell the difference between those cameras. That's not the point of the video. I'm also not a hobbyist. I've DP'ed a distributed feature film and am a repped director.
Oof this didn’t age well. Imagine taking some sort of high ground and being condescending someone else that they have bad eyesight only to be super wrong by their own eyes! Fx3 was pretty much confirmed to be the main camera by DP for this project. Maybe someone else needs to get their eyes checked 😂
@@ScottJeschke great footage and colorgrading. looks super cinematic. i also like the good placed teal (window) and orange (lamp) look. and you didnt cranked up the whole sprectrum of the darkest and the lightes spot. thank you. very inspiring.
I sent a message over to the gaffer who said the entire film was shot on the fx3 - no Alexa 65 what so ever. IMDb isn't usually the most accurate when it comes to technical specs. There are some shots in the trailer that are full CG though and not shot on the fx3
Thank you so much for this info! Going to pin this. So cool
Spectacular ❤🎉
Why will them choose to shoot with an FX3 instead for a massive CGI movie instead of a Venice, or FX6/9, etc?; The fx3 hasn´t enough latitude, and has an active electronic denoise filter that makes the image looks totally video and probably its causes some issues with led dome. Maybe they used it in some shots, but the entire movie?... Is it possible? For sure, but seems risky even is well know that Greig Frasers has a strong indie background, and for example in The Batman shots with vintage lenses... But, I´m sorry but i can´t believe it without checking this info. I´m sure if this was true Sony´s PR would come out with a featurette about this, maybe in the future, or maybe not, but i´ll put this info on hold until further confirmation.
@@raquetamalvada on Twitter Oren Soffer said,
"We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)"
This is of course, speculation, but I'm not sure why they would withhold technical information unless it was in some way. Surprising or innovative. There are thousands of movies where we know well in advance that they are shooting Arri, or iMAX, or red, etc. So why the secrecy? I hear everything you're saying, and as stated in the video, things could have changed. But I'm fairly certain Fraser was talking about this film when discussing "shooting the entire movie on an FX3" in Thailand. I am curious why IMDb says Sony raw 4.2k. who knows. Maybe it's inaccurate, or Maybe they used a modded version of the FX3 with unreleased firmware, and they have some partnership w Sony that will come out closer to the film. It's still really early days, I'm sure. I guess we'll all find out. It's worth noting too, that at the time that Oren Soffer said the above quote, the specs were still Arri 65 and FX3. So it's possible that the Arri 65 is the inaccurate part.
@@raquetamalvada Form the little inside info I have with the crew, the whole thing was shot on the FX3. There are probably some inserts that where shot with other cameras - just like with any film - the same camera is never used for the entire production, 2 or 3 shots from other cameras will sneak in there, but the FX3 seems like the best choice for the film. 1) Fraser said that he wanted low light capability, the FX3 has 12800 iso, and the FX9 doesn't, so that rules the FX9 out. The FX6 is pretty much the same sensor, but is a horrible camera to rig out if you want a more custom build, so as an AC I'd prefer the FX3 if I'm doing any advanced rigging.
Personally I love when prosumer cameras are used for big Hollywood films. Something about it feels like an underdog story to me. I think back to when Gareth used the Sony EX3 coupled with a Letus 35 to make monsters and it looked pretty great, and then I look back to 28 days later shot on a Canon Xl1 and it gives you that inspiration to take your inexpensive camera and go shoot amazing films.
Totally agree
The EX3's CCD sensor just gives that raw film look when paired with the right lenses. There's just something so beautiful yet journalistic experience in Monsters that I think what makes Gareth Edwards such an interesting film maker.
Frfr this comment the one
☝️ couldn’t have said that better 👍🏾🔥
Great scoop! The FX3 seems to have no significant disadvantage, especially when it’s on a gimbal or handheld. It’s pure motion picture goodness, especially when recording RAW, but even at low bitrates.
fx3 looks to plastic for me, got one as C Cam next to my Arri and Varicam. Arri ,Aricam, Venice only cameras that are pleasing my eye but obviously the fx3 has it´s place for certain shots.
@@frankbregulla564true, if you pair it with crappy lenses, shoot on the basic internal codec, and don’t know how to color grade…
But when paired with quality lenses (like the Atlas Mercury anamorphics as they used on this film), the Ninja V+ recorder (to jump up to 12-bit ProRes RAW, which bypasses the internal noise reduction that can make it look plasticy), and have a good colorist (which they definitely had being a major studio film), you can have night and day differences, making this punch way above its class.
This is awesome news! I just got one and am still just scratching the surface of what it can do. I already loved this trailer and now to know it’s potentially possible (obviously factoring the years of technical and creative experience that DP has + other expert VFX artists and crew on the film have) for me to make something even remotely similar as far as quality. This literally made my day👌🏾
I can’t think of a better camera to learn on.
4 years on Panasonic cameras, I made the switch over to Sony after getting hired by a few production companies in my area for B-Cam/BTS.
Started with the A7IV which almost felt like a step back for me, aside from usable autofocus(rolling shutter was rough)
One day, I noticed my local camera shop was selling an FX3 with 3 Sony batteries for $2900 so I decided to pick it up.
Really thankful and it was Money well spent, as it really opened up my chances to get on sets as a proper B-Cam to FX6s and even the Venice which have matched up with it nicely.
I greatly appreciate this video. Not for validating a prosumer level camera but just for shifting creators focus. Also 2 realistically most of us wont even wont be shooting films like these. Focus on your story and everything else is just tools
I honestly don’t see fx3 as prosumer, it’s comfortably professional at prosumer prices
@4:46 when you said "it reminds us that story comes first and the tools are there to help the story" YESSS thank you that's something that I think so many people, editors, CZcamsrs, anyone need to remember first and foremost
Amen 👊
I never realized that Greg Freiser did this movie too. Also, Sony FX3 sounds like one of those rare cameras used for filmmaking regarding how big of a deal you're making of it. Must be quite something special for this film.
I love it. In 2023, specs-wise you can get more bang for buck out of something like a Lumix s52 x, which just released. In terms of camera sensitivity with the ISOs, I think the sony's are the only ones in this class. In general, there are lots of cameras that are just as good as the FX3. It's just a fun little camera, with a really nice form, factor and body, and great specs for a good image. Came right after the A7S3 which was when Sony finally embraced internal 10-bit 422, and new color science, which allowed you to actually take full use of the dynamic range. Before that you really couldn't. So I would say before the A7S3 and FX3, Sony cameras really were lacking in features. And other camera systems were way ahead, those two cameras mark a delineation point for actual professional functionality
Greg and Gareth are super tight. I think you'll see a lot more from that team, assuming people show up to see The Creator.
@@ScottJeschke I feel your excitement. I'm from a generation where 'film' were the only thing at the theater. We had great movies like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Grand Prix (1968), Dirty Harry, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and too many others to mention. Today I have to set aside my Nikon F2a for my Sony digital cameras. What I like about this move to shooting with less expensive, yet professional quality cameras is it is a challenge to us to make movies, shorts, etc. with far less expensive cameras like Sony's tiny ZV-E10. I've seen many videos on YT done by a number of people using the E10. Unbelievable the quality of something that costs $700. We are in a new age where 'filmmaking' has to be pushed aside to what I like, story telling. It's as different as dial-up phones are from today's cellphones.
I agree with your main points. It is just that cameras are not a super large part of the production and its cost though... I can totally imagine a big spending on lighting for example. It reminds me some short films sponsored by Apple trying to make a point that iPhone is good enough and actually a lot of production other than cameras are invested. Good vid!
It sure looked amazing!! It’s sad to realize how 10 of 20 years from now those big camera companies might start to feel like Blockbuster
thanks for the breakdown and you're absolutely right. 🔥🔥🔥
Usually the smaller cameras are sometimes B cams but mostly C,D cams used for crash, handheld or on sticks in tight spaces, sometimes rigged on aerial drones, occasional high iso night scenes (depending), explosions, underwater. They do it with a lot of movies like top gun, marvel, mad max etc.. Usually 80-90% of shots are all on the main camera which is Arri.
not in this case, this was shot entirely with FX3
But I don't see any issues in using Sony FX3 or 6 as the main camera as well..?
@@willchao1733MOSTLY shot with the FX3. Which is still a big deal and exciting to hear about.
Thanks! Amazing how up and coming channels like yours have so much to say.
Wow! You're amazing. Thank you so much 🙏🙏
I have a Sony a7IV and I truly agree with your opinion. True there's this G.A.S but recently I'm blaming for my lack of skills if my image is not up to par with my vision. I'll keep on tweaking and think about how to light the scene to achieve the desired look I have in my head. But more often than not I don't have enough time to achieve the look. Close but not the one I wanted. And I think, color grading is the saviour of these lacks. I blame myself for that. So to counter that G.A.S feeling I keep on watching 'Terrance Malick' film and recently 'At Eternity's Gate'. Fantastic Films.
I also experienced this exact thing as a solo shooter. Sure my A7iv elevated the quality of image but I realized quickly that i was lacking in lighting, grading and composition knowledge. These days I spend more time watching tutorials and breakdowns than shooting. But slowly i can see progress.
We love the idea of a Big budget film being shot on prosumer cameras! It's simply brilliant!!
This has been done many times in the past with other cameras. ( I wouldn't be surprised if Sony kicked in money for the budget with the understanding that some parts of the film would be shot with the FX3, because it's a great sales pitch for the camera )
That’s a reasonable assumption.
This is amazing! I can’t wait to see this movie and all of the bonus/behind the scenes content! Thanks for making this video!
Same! Can't wait. And thanks so much for watching!
@@ScottJeschke I was just about to come back to this video and thank you again for the sxsw keynote link! It was right on time.
@@AnthonyHadleyJr oh man. so glad! Dude, I love that speech. It's my annual kick in the butt that I need to stop making excuses and make my first feature
at the same time let's admit it still gives validation
Totally! Haha. I mean after years of CZcamsrs saying "it's not a cinema camera" it's kind of like.. turns out it's good enough for one of the most innovative DPS on the planet though, so... 😅
Great video man, definitely makes me excited to shoot more with my FX3. First time I've watched any of your stuff and I really liked how you covered this topic, will def stick around for more :)
Thanks so much for this super kind feedback! And welcome to the channel. Happy to have you here
Entirely shot on Sony FX3. Confirmed by multiple credible sources.
Nice set up for your videos man! I expect a lot of this movie! Because I love Gareth and he seems to bring something original on big screen, even if I do see the artistic refs...
Thank you so much! Me too. I'm really looking forward to this film. It's exciting to have a big movie that is an original piece of IP
Camera choice post 2022 are comparable to choosing film negatives. I feel like Frasier and team probably chose the FX3 bc it’s like having a Kodak 12800D film stock 😵
Haha amazing 😂
Today, lighting and color grading expertise are more important than camera choice when shooting digitally.
This was a really cool discussion man, even as a novice I enjoyed it. All i jave is an a7iii and dont have the finance to buy something specifically for video. So my intention is just to do the best i can, and eventually if I start bumping up against the limitations of the body, ill have to re-evaluate from there.
I had heard that he was shooting a film with an FX3, but I had no idea is was THIS FILM. My jaw is on the floor.
I heard that the upcoming inception 2 will be shot on the Pentax camera line
Don't forget many of us have had a Sony FX3 for a few years now. It's called the Sony A7s3, and it's exactly the same camera!
More people should look at what directors like Steven Soderbergh have been doing for a long time now. He's been more than happy to use Lumix, iPhones, and whatever he can get his hands on to be creative. He was offered a 4K Red to shoot Che on, and turned it down, saying "HD is plenty good enough, thanks".
I really need specs on that shoulder stabilizer rig!
Absolutely wonderul video! Keep up the good work.
Thank you so much 🙏
Good job man! I have been freeze framing the creator bts for days trying to figure this out. I think you nailed it. They also used cinema anamorphic lenses so probably need a focus pulller but gmaster lense with af will work like magic
oh man, Greg freiser is so good, can't wait to watch it.
I appreciate this video, enjoyed watching, thanx 🙏great #motivation
Next level video!!! Bravo!
Really appreciate this 🙏
Great video, solid points! 100% how you translate what's within >>> gear :)
Thanks so much!
Interesting choice of FX3 given that it's a VFX heavy movie; tracking and VFX will be a nightmare with the rolling shutter. Guessing it's the night scenes that allows the ISO 12800 to shine.
I'm really curious if the whole film was cut in FCPX given that the raw codec is ProRes RAW, rather than using PP's raw plugin.
Yeah, I'm really curious about the post workflow. I doubt rolling shutter was a huge issue though. Most of the vfx shots are very controlled and smooth
So rad…. I have 2 of the FX3’s with the Sigma 24-70 and the 85 art prime. For most of us it’s always only ever a one man band, right? Lol. I bought a ronin RS2 and they’ve just never missed focus, never given me anything but a rewarding image to push/pull as far as i could ever want - every week for the last 2 years. - That’s just the internal 10 bit too. Sony keeps adding value to them as well. If they had internal ND’s they’d be perfect..
But they’d also just be FX6’s 😂
ha for sure!
It’s weird how we select tools. I nearly got an FX3/FX6 but ProRes Raw cannot work with Davinci natively without some possible conversions with potential drawbacks. Ended up with a Komodo and have been very happy with it for three years now. We need to stop obsessing over brands. Steve Yedlin correctly points out how futile brand allegiance is when most cameras now can capture enough data to create identical looks in the color pipeline. I would have been just as happy with Sony ProRes raw, or Fuji XH2, or canon c70. They all produce fantastic images. Now let’s go make great films.
Yeah, I think brands mattered until about 2ish years ago when every camera got at least 10bit log. Once DaVinci got Color Space Transform it all really stopped mattering. The one thing that was flawed in Steve Yedlin's argument at the time was that you couldn't change color science. Not without advanced tetra math, coding and nuke. Now DaVinci has CST and DCTLS, so the sky is the limit in terms of a cameras inherent photographic look being manipulated. But to my knowledge, prior to Yedlin, every DP including Deakin's was just building LUTs on top of the existing color science of the cameras, so despite LUTs and grades, cameras really did have "looks". When it comes to red vs arri though, the choice more often came down to workflow and ease of use. Especially in that 2010 - 2016 era. Yedlin gets real nerdy on this on the Masters of Color podcast. And he even conceded that DPs were stuck w inherent color science of the cameras in the early days of digital
Thank you for sharing! Great information!!! We shot our music videos on the Sony s7III
Once you're shooting on a pro level raw codec its all the same! the amazing thing is you get it for $4k now
Not really . Pro res usually
And then you develop a lens addiction.
@@andrewlutes2048 yep that usually comes next
Raw is not the same at all. Prores raw is 12 bit and very limited compared to something like red raw or arri raw or even black magic raw. Even if they used 16bit raw with something like atomos neon it would still have less dynamic range than red or arri cameras. I am not that impressed that they used fx3 because it is an outstanding camera and I have always known that the camera plays a very small part of the final image and even smaller part of the final film.
@@Yodd Prores RAW to an atomos is 16 bit linear that is converted to 12 bit log. Less DR by a stop and a half. The camera played a BIG part in the movie being the ONLY camera used as confirmed by the gaffer of the film Nice try.
My wallet thanks you for your comment at 6:30, as I was considering buying either an FX6 or an FX3. I'm staying with my current camera setup. "You already have the tool that is more than capable for the job." ✌
The best way, in my opinion, and for my style, is to get both. I have a fx6, for tripod/shoulder and an a7s3 for gimbal, special shots, gripped. This allows me to be so flexible and efficient.
I shot a whole feature film in 2022 with Canon C100 mark ii 8 yrs old camera and now my movie is in few festivals and tickets are on sale for screening on my town, I talk about the camera more in details on my channel if you will be interested, the video title goes, CANON C100 MARK II WHY I SHOT AN ENTIRE MOVIE WITH THIS 8YRS OLD CAMERA, Thanks for this video Scott, Sometimes we feels less motivated to shoot what we love just because our cameras doesn't have a lot of K's, Its good if you can afford one but it should not stop you if you don't have one.
Can you send me the trailer or film
@@michaeldstern Shure!
*NEW CONFIRMATIONS OF FX3.*
Check my latest community post for BTS photos. Looks like the FX3 as an A cam to me. Same shape, size and side handle 1/4 screw mount.
www.youtube.com/@ScottJeschke/community
8/21 UPDATE: FX3 if ever I saw one. czcams.com/video/8cOXJ0SC7uU/video.html
Gareth talking about it: "Pretty much the whole movie was shot on the FX3"
czcams.com/video/qgYkBUFNVxk/video.html
Also officially confirmed by Gareth Edwards on a panel.
screenrant.com/the-creator-movie-new-technology-production-director-gareth-edwards-details/
10 bit 4.2.2 is so great as it is. But as 12 bit and 14 stops of true dynamic range becomes the norm , film making would be more accessible than ever.
It is crazy that they used 2x anamorphic lenses on this, it means he ends up with 2592x1080 (with crop to make the ratio 2,4/1). That is not a lot. I've done it with my fx6 with 1,8 anamorphic, but that was for adverts.
If IMDb is at all accurate they did a 2.76:1 ratio for this, which I imagine reduced some of that crop
@@ScottJeschke that is so wide!
it looks like a cyclone is happening outside lol
I am a bit curious about the anamorphic look here. Especially thinking back on Rogue One.
In Rogue One, they used refurbished 1.25x anamorphic lenses (they resurfaced thanks to Hateful Eight). But it was a regular 2.4:1 scope release instead of the full 2.76:1 that the lenses was originally made for on 65mm cameras. My guess has been that they used the 1.9:1 standard crop of the camera instead of the full 2.20:1 (I think that particular Arri camera was 65mm equivalent in sensor size). Because that way the resulting image is so close to 2.40:1 that the crop is insignificant.
But here. The trailer and the IMDB specs lists it as 2.76:1. This makes me curious. The bokeh is very oval. Maybe even 2x anamorph ovality (probably not a word). The IMDB page doesn't say yet what kind of anamorphics are used. Quick math says that a 1.5x anamorph on a 1.9:1 sensor gets an image very close to 2.76:1. They are easier to find on prosumer levels as well.
But then again. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe they are regular 2x anamorphs and they shot in 4:3 sensor. That gives a 2.67:1 image. Close to the final crop of 2.76:1.
Anyone knows more? I'm just guessing wildly here.
I just assumed the latter. It does make the most of the sensor.
You’re spot on with your math in that it was shot on 1.5x anamorphics, as it was shot using the Atlas Mercury FF 1.5x Anamorphics.
@@InfamousStar1 Are you sure? I heard Gareth used "vintage anamorphics lenses", but the mercuries are literally brend new.
FX3, but it's all about the glass.
That's true and also most forget that the Story has the power to compel a look.
Thanks man ,
No one going to talk about the fact this dude has a whole ass hurricane happening outside his window?
😂😂😂😂
Gareth said he used FX3 during comicon
Yep. At this point it's all over his press tour. Pretty cool
It seems like for example the Sony FX3 is more than enough technically… But what do you think will be the next significant technical ”breakthrough”?
If I had to guess I'd say internal ND, and Machine Learning tech for exposure. It's crazy how phones are able to capture so much dynamic range. Granted it's baked in, compressed, and not even close to the same bit depth and color depth.. but impressive nonetheless, and perhaps an indicator. More predictably though, I'm sure 8K
@@ScottJeschke higher dynamic range at more consumer level cameras will be more of a breakthrough than 8K. The FX3 and a ton of mirrorless cameras capture 12-13 stops of clean usable dynamic range which is pretty much what every cinema camera captures, with the exception of Arri capturing 14.5 and the Alexa 35 capturing 17.5. Now imagine if every other camera company can capture 14 plus stops of dynamic range and at a consumer body? That's breakthrough.
@@ivanperez5937 Yeah. I agree. For me personally, anything related to exposure would be a breakthrough, I'm more saying that I'm sure 8k is what the camera companies are going to push. Which to me, is not all that useful. More DR would be amazing indeed
But it does have that yellow/blue Sony look.
Nice video man! 🙌🏼
thanks so much!
Word.
There is a difference between less emphasis on the camera and techology advancement.
Can't say I agree with your view on long vs wide lenses. Long lenses compress stuff and make them look flat, wide makes it expansive.
I agree w compression, but compression from a great distance makes background look huge next to mid and foreground. There's a shot of Paul in the Dune 2 trailer that really demonstrates this. Or the ET flying across the moon shoot for instance. Moon looks massive compared to the way that it would versus on a wide lens. I agree that wide lenses do a good job capturing scope. Wide lenses from a good distance w the right foreground placement do a good job capturing scale though
@Scott Jeschke I find it can work if you make sure there's some good midground, or ideally a good ground plane in the shot. Otherwise it can look like a cheesy A over B carrldboard cut out comp. If an object in the background is so massive that it still dominates with a wide angle lens, then it looks MASSIVE. To me anyway.
But it’s way they use the long lenses. The relationship between the subject the object or background and the subject’s proximity to camera. It makes us feel we are there experiencing the scale of the situation. The wide often disconnects us from that experience. It can achieve a certain scope but the feeling is different.
@@jacksonpetit1212 exactly
@@ScottJeschke Different strokes for different folks I guess. Can't say I saw much in that Dune 2 trailer that floated my boat. There were a couple of nice shots of Paul running on top of the dunes. The rest of it was very beige and smeary. Super indistinct and could have been shot pretty much anywhere due to the super shallow depth of field. Throw some sand down on a parking lot, set the lens to T1.3 and have at it. Why bother shooting in Jordan if you can't ever see anything?
Where do you feel the xh2s falls in this conversation? I know the point is to communicate that the prosumer field as a whole has elevated and is comparable to cinema lines but I'm curious about your thoughts on the Fuji cinema
I've heard great things! I personally have not used on though. Lot of people swear by them
If anything, I think they are the ones to do it. The xh2s is a amazing camera. On par with the FX3 outside of timecode and a few other tools you can grab from a monitor. This is a very capable camera.
Great video, you just got a subscriber, sir.
Thank you so much! Welcome to the channel. So glad to have you here
@@ScottJeschke Glad to be here too, I'm going down the rabbit hole and I will definitely be watching all your videos in the next few days ;)
@@FabioPansera love it! Will love to hear your thoughts. Lots of fun ones in the backlog
ALSO $8000 Atlas Mercury lenses
And us a7siii users sitting over here like 'hey yall...member?'
Damn you beat me to the jump. lol
Stoked for this movie, but it’s incredibly cringy that they composited filmed footage on top of the actual Beirut explosion.
Oof. I just heard this from someone else today. Is that in the trailer?
It's crazy youre not talking about how a BIG PORTION of this movie is literally shot on HD WEBCAMS!!!!
imagine a komodo sized arri
They used ARRI-65 for everything with VFX,
FX-3 was used only for scenes without VFX.
ARRI came out and said no ARRI camera was used on this film (probably because they don’t want people thinking this footage / content was from an Alexa… not to say it looks bad or anything; but they’re going to protect their brand / image if people think it was shot on an ARRI). It was shot entirely using the FX3.
Camera good but lenses are the key
Skin tones in the movie are not arri like… looks much closer to a red camera look. And that one scene on the beach which look like it took place on a cloudy moonlit night….well the camera they used must’ve had some great lowlight performance qualities
IMDB no longer shows the ARRI Alexa 65 in the specs. Nor does it show the FX3, but it still shows 4.2K in Sony Raw. This would indicate that it was in fact shot on the FX3. Maybe they are hesitant about admitting a Hollywood Blockbuster was shot on a $3900 camera.
Interesting. I saw on Twitter the DP Oren Soffer said they aren't yet able to talk about specs/ package, so I'm wondering if there's some special press planned. One of the viewers on here said they dm'ed the gaffer, and that he said the entire thing was FX3.
@@ScottJeschke Wow! I also remember hearing somewhere that Atlas lent them a set of prototype Mercury anamorphic lenses. The Mercury's 1.5x squeeze combined with the FX3 sensor would produce something close to that odd 2.76:1 ratio they are showing. If they can't talk about it yet could that mean that the specs are somewhat controversial, like maybe FX3s and Atlas Mercury lenses? Here's hoping. Thanks for posting the video, Scott. I'm happy to see this is getting some attention. I teach film at our local college and this is exactly the kind of thing we like to show our students. It really gets their gears turning.
The FX3 is a capable camera no doubt. But let’s not forget, this movie is a “big budget” Hollywood production… on average, big budget productions are working with more than $100,000,000… The camera is but a single element within the production. In a project of this scope every element of the shoot is controlled. And when that footage goes into post, professional colorists and VFX teams are working with it. It’s not so much about the camera, but more about the overall production. Just watch the credits roll till the end to understand how many people come together to make a project like this come to life.
For sure. No doubt
I think that's part of the fun event though. A movie like this doesn't need to shoot on the FX3. But it's fun that it is because it's such a big project
Forget the credits and how many people worked on this. I’ve seen YT footage look almost similarly as gloss and high end with one dude using a canon lens…..
You don’t need a 10 minute end credit roll to get studio looks anymore.
I’m a half full person.
Plenty of examples of big budget films shot on low cost cameras for various reasons if you really look hard. And plenty shot on the most expensive format Film.
But I need to point out that the intermediate budget is why the high end “Venice” LF etc exist. When you need to work fast the Venice having built in 1 stop ND’s saves time, the reliable workflow and forgivingness of the latitude gives you comfort in many situations.
I agree you can used any modern camera to make a big budget film and sup it up to support large Pany anamoric lenses and wireless video and FF. But when you have an intermediate budget the things built into the Venice or LF save you time and money. It’s a mistake to shoot a movie you have 9 days to make on a camera that’s not reliable fast and easy to use and many pro-sumer cameras are just that, unreliable slower to use and more difficult
Those bells and whistles aren’t just there for show on high end cameras - they are worth every penny
@@Lelandkrane I bet it was simply the 12800 ISO on the FX3 that sold them. It really is a game changer with natural interiors.
What shutter angle/speed did you shoot your talking head? Seems narrower/faster than 180 / 1/48. Looks good!
Thank you! 1/50, but it's the new 24p on the fx3. Not 23.98, so that might be it. There's oddly a pretty noticeable difference
Most cameras are the same, Your lenses, art direction and lighting is where you separate the men from the boys.
no. Not even close. There are a huge difference between a pro range and a proconsumer.
The biggest difference is the dynamic range and low light reading. The resolution is also a factor. What you did not mention is the advancement of technology. A proconsumer is inching closer to pro range.
Stop spreading misinformation.
what you are talking about is production value.
There are multiple factors.
@@dutchmilk Give me any good 4K camera, Good Lenses, Good Gaffer, Good Art Director, Anamorphic Glass and a Great story. I will make you a masterpiece. It’s not misinformation, it’s facts. I mean THE CREATOR just showed you this.
@@dutchmilk Resolution not so much a factor, low light overestimated. no one needs 12560 iso, handling, dynamic in the highlights, the color filters / color sience on sensor more important
Why do people keep saying this, on imdb it say they used the Arri Alexa 65.
Respectfully, The DP said on Twitter that IMDb was inaccurate, as it often is. Like Wikipedia, anyone can update it. I've linked recent comicon clips of Gareth Edwards literally saying this was the camera they shot the whole film on (FX3). And provided images on my community page. So far there's no evidence of the Alexa 65 being used at all, apart from the IMDb, which is likely false
@@ScottJeschke That's a good answer! Thanks!
But I can't wait to see the behind the scene to really see it in action!
@@nicolasdupere sure thing! And same! I can't wait either :) I think it's linked the desc but there's a clip of Edwards talking about how they used it. Very inspiring and exciting
Yeah, even ARRI came out and said no ARRI camera was used on this film.
A poor workman blames his tools. I'm pretty sure Roger Deakins could shoot a blockbuster with a Super 8 and an old iPhone. And let's not forget the lenses and all the other stuff here was pro-level it wasn't a kit lens and a single bulb backlight!
Just saw this film. The image was very disappointing on the big screen and I work in the film industry.
🙌
“Black Swan” was filmed with a Canon 7D. “Captain America 1” was filmed with a Canon 5D Mark II. Even a Sony A6300 is more powerful than these cameras… with that being said my point is you can use any camera for a full feature release ONLY IF know what you’re doing. It’s not about the camera it’s about the execution
For sure! Although, for those movies it was primarily specialty shots. Black swan for instance was mostly shot on 16 mm film. But I totally agree that a tool is only as good as its artist.
@@ScottJeschke Yes you are correct, the subway shots, some of the tracking shots, and some of the shots that included green screen work in “Black Swan” was shot in the Canon 7D and the post production team literally had to degrade the 7D footage to match 16mm, then send it into a 2k master.
With Cap America a lot of the motorcycle scenes in the forest fight were on the 5D Mark II but unless you’re a trained professional most audiences cannot actually tell which shot was from the Alexa and which was the 5D.
If your post processing execution is good enough, and with the correct lighting you can do wonders with cameras that you can go out and buy at Best Buy.
Production setup is more important than camera sensor and most of ALL prosumer available cameras in the $800-$2000 range are more powerful than what pros had to use up to the year 2010
Keep up the good work I like your videos a lot 👍👍👍
@@robvision3888 Love this. And thank you so much! I appreciate the kind words
Greig Fraser used Sony cameras on another movie being filmed in Thailand, not this one.
The slate at the beginning of the video for True Love, says Sony under "camera". True Love was the working title of The Creator. One of the viewers here said they DM'ed the gaffer, who said the film was 100% FX3 🤷♂. All remains to be seen, but all the indicators would point to it being this film, which was in fact shot in Thailand.
@@ScottJeschke Wonderful thank you for clarification mate!
@@AbubakarFilms sure thing!
I Knew My S5 Was a Beast!!!
This just goes to show that camera choice is virtually pointless compared to a good story, good acting, good art direction and lighting.
How aweful. I can’t watch anything not shot on an Alexa or Red otherwise I feel dirty.
IT HAS NOT YET BEEN 100% CONFIRMED THAT THE FILM WAS SHOT ON THE FX3
I mentioned this in the video.
@@ScottJeschke Ok, sorry!
@@Whaever_1981 all good! 🙏
Well, it’s been confirmed now. ;-)
you have a camera now get a few millions and do a movie XDXD jokes aside, i for example have a komodo and i am trying to shoot good stuff. we dont need an arri alexa or whatever to create good stuff. the rest you need is a pain, lighting, wireless stuff for your first ac, story, talent. the kamera is not the biggest point .... its just the canvas and the rest is the color
yes but if you do all this effort the camera is most of the times the smallest position so why not using the best camera / color science, arri amira roughly about 15.000 used + 3-4 Leica R Lenses so 20000 in total and it does not get much better. would be my recommendation
@@frankbregulla564 love the global shutter on the komodo for handheld shots + tokina 11-20 atx cine lens and the dzo 20-55 zoom. Its a bombshell setup. I decided to put more into lights and diffusers as light is the key in my opinion. Cameras are all pretty great these days
@@PARISONFIRE yes very nice setup as well. i prefer older lenses even if mechanically not very good they deliver more texture. digital sensors in general too clean looking, old lenses like Leica R´s can add some feeling . for me the arri sensor even the older one like in alexa and amira is still the best sensor if you don´t need to shoot low light.
Is the right Keynote from Gareth
czcams.com/video/nxezdDwFdGI/video.html
The real Creator is the Lord Jesus Christ. And the only way to Heaven is by faith in the blood that he shed for the forgiveness of your sins on the cross of Calvary.
"For by him were all things created..." - Colossians 1:16 KJV
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" - Ephesians 1:7 KJV
The Holy Bible says that you are a sinner, and without Jesus Christ, you will die in your sins and spend eternity burning in Hell. There is no sin that can enter Heaven. You must have your sins washed in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ; he shed his blood for you on the cross of Calvary. Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven - you must turn to him, trust him, believe on him and him alone for the salvation of your soul.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." - Romans 3:23-28 KJV
I'm not sure I'm going to support a movie that use human tragedy of stock footage.
Edwards the complete opposite of Nolan
How so? They're definitely very different, but some overlap w big scale through lensing, large formats, use of handheld, etc. Curious your thoughts though.
No it wasn't - only a couple of shots in very specific situations. C'mon man.
Source?
ARRI came out and said no ARRI camera was used on this film (probably because they don’t want people thinking this footage / content was from an Alexa… not to say it looks bad or anything; but they’re going to protect their brand / image if people think it was shot on an ARRI). It was shot entirely using the FX3.
misinformation is an art form!
Everything in the video accurately represents the information at hand, including the quote from Freiser indicating "shooting an entire film in Thailand" on the FX3. He's on Dune 2, so another film in Thailand seems unlikely. The slate for True Love (the former title of The Creator) says "Sony" under camera. And the video addresses the changing nature of IMDB and what was reflected at the time, so I'm not sure what the misinformation is.
🫡💪🏿
Black magic pocket folks should hide.
BM looks better than the Sony, got em all including Arri, Varicam...FX3 the worst out of the bunch but obviously still fantastic for such a small digital camera. No one shots on fx3 a movie by choice, might be marketing or sponsoring
@@frankbregulla564 your opinion is not a fact. Stop presenting it as such.
it is dear sony fanboy, working since 20 years in the industry... as I said I got the fx3 as well for certain scenarios but BM looks better.
@@frankbregulla564 i am not sony fanboy at all. I work 14 years in the industry and i have eyes. I have tested all populair cameras and there is nothing that objectively indicats that bm is better. It is personal preference. Bm has better raw codec, everything else is worse. Also if you have worked as long in the industry as you claim, you would have known that you could match fx3 to look identical to bm pocket in post. Most people have harder time grading sony, because it requires actual knowledge of grading that goes beyond basics. While bm cameras are very easy to grade.
@@Yodd color science, sensor better, organic looking in BM in my opinion, I own all Sony´s FX9, FX6, FX3,. The FX9 best looking out of the three and I use these cameras a lot for documentary etc...but for B-Roll for my Arri Amira or Mini when I shoot Commercials I always use BM 6K. Anyway, maybe personal taste but I would never use FX3 for a movie, If I would have to go cheap then BM6K, picture more pleasing to the eye.
So what’s the big deal? No aspiring filmmaker can blame the camera anymore when his or her movie looks like shit… 🤷♂️
Haha 😂 very true.
Greig does like sucking all the life out of the actors in the grade so it makes sense that he'd go with Sony mirrorless to get it half way there in-camera. (only half joking)
First comment!
Welcome 😎😁
It's all about lighting....forget the camera...worry about the lighting
You seem like a nice guy, but dude, enough with the nonsense! No bloody way the whole of "The Creator" was shot on the FX3. It looks like the Alexa 65 and it was shot on such. Some crash cam / tight-spot shots on the FX3, sure. If anyone thinks the FX3 and the Alexa 65 (or Sony Venice, for that matter, which is what would have used to get the best "Sony" look) have the same highlight rolloff and colour tonality, I don't know what else to say. Other than consider taking up another hobby that doesn't involve eyesight.
I'm going off what the DP said. And the information at hand is now saying the movie was shot entirely on the FX3. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I even say in the video that if the information presents itself otherwise, I will mention it as a pinned comment. IMDb even only says FX3 now. Which I know IMDB changes and can be modified. But I'm presenting the information in its current public state, while making allowance that it may change as we learn more. I can absolutely tell the difference between those cameras. That's not the point of the video. I'm also not a hobbyist. I've DP'ed a distributed feature film and am a repped director.
Oof this didn’t age well.
Imagine taking some sort of high ground and being condescending someone else that they have bad eyesight only to be super wrong by their own eyes! Fx3 was pretty much confirmed to be the main camera by DP for this project. Maybe someone else needs to get their eyes checked 😂
This Video looks very cinematic. Did you use a7 iii or fx3?
Thank you! FX3. Graded using Dehancer
@@ScottJeschke great footage and colorgrading. looks super cinematic. i also like the good placed teal (window) and orange (lamp) look. and you didnt cranked up the whole sprectrum of the darkest and the lightes spot. thank you. very inspiring.
@@BlenderUnreal So glad to hear! Thanks for this kind feedback. I'm always chasing that film look so I'm glad it paid off here :)
We love the idea of a Big budget film being shot on prosumer cameras! It's simply brilliant!!