Why aren't Cheap Cameras Used for Big Films?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 04. 2024
- Download Free Blueprint on Making a Movie: mailchi.mp/wolfcrow/blueprint...
Dive into the world of professional filmmaking. We explore why Hollywood prefers splurging on high-end cameras over more budget-friendly options.
Despite impressive specs claimed by cheaper cameras, the difference in image quality, durability, and performance is substantial. Join us as we break down the real differences and benefits of using premium cameras in major film productions.
From sensor size and image processing to real-world applications on tough film sets, understand why investing in top-tier equipment often means better outcomes in the competitive cinema industry. Watch now to see why the pros often choose quality over cost!
The stylistic, filmic, and punchy color grading used in "The Creator" isn't a good showcase of your points and there are few to no other examples shown. You're using vague descriptions and giving excuses as to why you can't show us the difference without even attempting to. All this video does is instill FOMO and GAS into the audience. I would recommend doing a side by side comparison so we can actually see what you're talking about. Show us the limits of cheap sensors' color reproduction. Show us how motion apparently looks different (If you're talking about 23.98 vs 24 fps or shutter angle, those are issues that HAVE been fixed in some cameras). Show us how a hot sensor has lower quality (BTW heat has nothing to do with the Alexa's dynamic range). My point is, this video should have more evidence and less hearsay. It also throws a blanket statement across all "cheap" cameras while ignoring the many exceptions. I'm not trying to hate, I just think that this is a harmful mindset to teach. Even if you say there is no shame in using a "cheap" $4,000 camera, you are reinforcing the idea that you'll never be pro until you have an ARRI throughout the rest of the video.
I don't aspire to be a filmmaker, I just want to make my humble CZcams videos to the best of my ability. The more I get into this world, the more respect I have for everyone in the film industry esp lighting crew, cinematographers, and editors. Thanks for sharing again!
The difference is real. I have a tiny sony a6400. that use for photography & cinematography practice. but when i go on a film set, the image quality of an alexa is just mind blowing. you point the camera anywhere. it's produce an amazing image. combine that will goo lighting, you have yourself a painting.
You did no mention a thing about the lenses.
I have been watching your videos for 7 years now. I love how you never pander to the viewers or the algorithm. And try to teach things that some people may not want to hear. It is an incredibly rare quality in social media.
The stuff you said about the color but especially the tonal gradations is absolutely TRUE. But what's not true is that it has anything to do with the camera being cheap. Cheap sensors are fully capable of reproducing those tonal ranges up to their dynamic range limit.
"Don't throw the creator as a example" you said. But why not . They did that . And because you used gh5 and some other cameras and couldn't get best results means there might be some problem back then . But now a days smaller cameras are also much better . When one have low budget instead of renting a crew for arri or red it is better to go with smaller camera . Iam not talking about big budget movies here . If one have budget then they will go for arri or red . But the main thing also to consider here is the right tool for right job. THE CREATOR dop said that he choose fx3 for its smaller size and low light capability and If they want he can choose arri but instead he opted to go with the right tool in his mind.
I mostly disagree. Nowadays An Alexa LF or Venice would be lets say 20% better than a A7S3. The dynamic range & skin tones are better but if you control the lighting & have good lens the difference is really small. The logic behind using a 60K camera is that the camera cost is negligable in the overall budget of a film. So they better have the best of the best quality. It's more the lenses used & the lighting that will change the quality of the footage
ARRI is the industry standard but by no means required to make a good film.
Any camera could be used to make a movie: it depends on the ambitions of the cinematographer, the cast & crew. Now, this does not mean a cinematographer wants to use the cheapest camera ever made, but if someone really wanted to make a movie, Hollywood or Independent, if they have a camera, cast & crew, it could be done. The entire basis behind Italian Neorealism was that their filmmaking industry was eradicated during & after World War II & filmmakers such as Vittorio De Sica found a way to make films from whatever was in their reach.
Weird the fact that you mentioned the creator as if it looked bad. i saw it on a big ass cinema theater and thought it looked much better than most movies shot on Alexa
While all true, don't forget the real reason for the insane (for most) cost: Gatekeeping.
I am going to get the popcorn out for this one. I think you may have just opened a can of worms dude.
The moment you get a little bit of recognition for your work the ego starts to inflate and the tendency to start gatekeeping must be overwhelming. I've made it, now I want to minimize competition because competing on an even playing field is hard.
Mostly because they can afford it and the tech exists. Generally a studio doesn't mind paying a premium for an image that is 15-20% better. It gives them piece of mind and also workflows are established around industry standard gear.
It's about risk. It's pro ecosystem, reliability, familiarity, workflow, skill sets, depth and breadth of capability etc. 'You don't get fired for using an Alexa, but you will using a cheap camera if anything goes wrong' or 'you control the expensive equipment, the cheap equipment controls you' or 'a pro camera works around you, you have to work around a cheap camera'.
Sorry i believe majority of the cameras available are sufficient enough to make amazing images. The real reason for Arri and other cameras being used in big budget films is that they're battle tested and reliable on top of their great image. Plus they're widely used making it easy to work with others. However, i believe most cameras out now is more than enough to make a film.
Last year I had my first short doc projected in a movie theater (Cinema São Jorge, in Portugal). My shots were filmed using a GH5, vLog, and my Sigma lenses (17-50 f2.8, 10-20 f3.5) and Canon lenses (50 f1.8 and 70-200 f4), all with speedbooster, with natural light. The image hold its quality even in that big screen. I shot everything in UHD and delivered in FHD, the specs which I had to export the file were given by the film festival, and prepared the DCP. It looked great, I was a bit scared of that screen size for projection. After that first projection, It ran four cities, with different projection screen sizes, all held up. Of course, a 50000 dollars camera is better, but it will depend on the project. Much more important for me is the quality of the glass used. Oh, and the sound. You can get away with worse image quality, but low quality sound will destroy your movie!
I am a stills shooter. I recently moved from Leica to Hasselblad, X2D. Same story. There is that image difference in color, tonality and just honest re-creation of what it saw.
Whats your opinion on the Sony A1?