Nice one, Palfers. An under appreciated aspect that defines the look of a film, and gives it a Hollywood feel, is camera movement. Whilst everyone has a gimbal, there is something about a jib, crane or technocrane move that can’t (easily) be replicated with a one, and the Creator often stuck their gimbals on the end of cranes to get the best of both worlds.
Great video. A lot of people put a lot of credit to the fx3 itself and the camera is great but black magic pocket cameras shoot plenty of information as well. The Sony a7sii captures good enough image that you wouldn’t know it wasn’t shot on an Alexa or red. It’s a lot more important what’s in-front of the cameras. Watch the Scream trailer for the new movies and notice the wardrobe. They ALL wear “none colors” like black or gray or they where pink or blue there isn’t anything else. No orange no green nothing but what fits within the color palette. Then they use tungsten lights for warmth against very blue lights. Color contrast & the limiting of colors. Even the walls fit within the pallet of warms with wood to contrast blue moon light.
My guessing here, having so much very dark areas, how they deal with the cam noise generated by FX3, it is a great cam ( I own one and have shooted extensively with my cam) and on Log noise is always an Issue
Lighting is more important than camera mate. as a student cinematographer, all you need to do in camera is adjust white balance, desired shutter speed and depth of field. all of the other things are determined by lightings, all shadows, highlights and midtones contrast and quality is carefully adjusted individually and add good production designing, sony cameras look hollywood ready
nice video just that cut before the sound portion of the video cmon bro :) Just wanted to compliment your lighting here , at first i thought "too dark" made me look again and its fuckin great very cozy and calming kudos!!! very nice video o9verall keep i t up !
If it wasn’t the fuss over what camera the creator used I think more people would notice the massive holes in the plot, poor script and bad casting. I think making the technical side the talking point actually did a ton of good for the movie.
100% agree. I actually walked out of the movie with about 30 minutes left, and I wasn’t the only one that bailed on it before it was over. I watched several groups leave before I decided to do the same. I just couldn’t take it anymore. The script and acting was sooo bad for much of it. Also, I’m just gonna say it, the movie looked nice but there was definitely a lot of it that looked like it was shot on a prosumer camera. Much of it had that very digital look that felt like a really well lit home video movie. I couldn’t help but think, this would’ve looked even better with a nicer camera. Ha.
@@TheJ_G I'm disappointed in the movie that it created an intriguing world for a sci-fi but left a lot of potential on the table and didn't dare go into the places it can and should have. But never once thought it doesn't look good or it was shot on a prosumer camera. And I watched it on an IMAX screen. Despite knowing it is shot on FX3, I totally forgot that 10 minutes into the movie. It looked beautiful and apt for the movie. In fact, it isn't halfway the cleanest image an FX3 can produce but thats not the intention of the cinematographer. If anything, they muddy the image to make it less clean and more gritty to get the look they were going for. Technical circles aside, traditional movie reviewers across the world praised the movie for its visuals while criticizing it for its other issues.
@@BalaKrishna-bq5iz I’m glad you liked the visuals, I liked them too mostly, but I’ve owned and worked with an Fx3 (and nicer cameras), and there were plenty of moments I could definitely tell it was an fx3. If they hadn’t told the world it was an FX3 I probably wouldn’t have noticed as quickly, but I knew what to look for in the type of image it produces. I also saw it on a smaller theater screen so maybe it was easier to spot. A bunch of people/critics praising it’s visuals doesn’t change what my eyes can see. Don’t get me wrong, they definitely squeezed a lot out of the fx3, and I have nothing but respect for the cinematographers, but I can’t just pretend that it wouldn’t have looked better on a nicer camera. Of course it sounds like it wouldn’t have gotten made on a nicer camera because they specifically needed a smaller setup for most of the shoot and something that allowed greater flexibility in their budget, so I commend them for making some bold choices with their gear.
You're welcome to your views, but I think you're being unfair. It may be a British thing, but I thought the film/script etc was better than 90% of Hollywood movies and it was a stunning piece of 'lived in' world building. GE should be really proud of what he's achieved with this mini-epic.
😊Thank you Jonathan, I just subscribed to your very interesting channel. In your story, you put the “camera settings” as an understandable very important chapter. What camera setting do you think they have used? Naturally I am referring to Sony File Format. I have just purchased an FX30, which I am still studying and still never used, because I am still wondering on what file format I should use. Having the FX3 and the FX30 the same file format, your appreciated comment, would be for me the final decision to start working with it. Thank you.
Thanks. I kept that quite small but regardless of the camera it’s just about understanding how to maximise what you capture. With the FX30 that’s sticking to the native iso, white balancing correctly etc. All the file formats are good on the FX30, just go with the XAVC S format for now. I’ve done a video on that actually
@@RenatoCalo They shot in ProRes RAW using Atomos recorders. Since it is such a huge film and requires extensive color grading flexibility, they chose it. Depending on your needs, you might find going with ProRes RAW vastly useful OR little to no improvement over XAVC-SI for a lot of added complexity. But avoid non 'I' formats as they won't record each frame individually, instead records difference between frame to reconstruct the image, which is fine for 99% of the situations but for visually critical work, the small compression artifacts it might result in is a good enough reason to go with S-I
There’s definitely been tweaks to the noise reduction. That said the grain at 12800 is still pretty nice and gives you a lot of options. I’ve been shooting interiors of a resort all week on the FX3 at 12800 as it allows me to shoot at F7 and 100fps
@@JonathanPalfrey the problem with 12800 iso is the heavy noise reduction applied in camera. I wish we could have the options to turn it off and do it in postproduction
To be honest yes it looks great but when you compared to Dune Part two, you can clearly see the difference in image quality. In The Creator I found the image lacking of dynamic range. If you grab a still from the movie and check the waveform, you will see how the blacks are clipped so hard and everything is really dark (even during the day shots). I love contrast but here it's too contrasty to my taste, it lacks details in the shadows. And I also noticed that even in 4k (full quality), it was really soft compared to Dune wich in comparaison has an organic image with a lot of details (not sharpness). But I really liked the lighting, the color grading, the vfx, the costume design, the set design,..
I was a little disappointed in the cinema when I saw The Creator because I'm a terrible pixel counter and had previously seen Oppenheimer and various other films shot on Alexa. I think a big decision to get the most out of the technical setup was to emulate a grainy 35mm film look. In my FX3 tests I was able to see that if you adapt the Sony image heavily to previous 80 years of film looks - in areas of grain, chroma shift etc. - there is almost no significant difference to, for example, an Alexa if you emulate it in a similar way. Because so many details etc are lost that it doesn't really matter which camera you shoot on. Also in terms of look development. Your example with Dune was perfect. A modern high-end HDR look of this kind would not have been possible with FX3. There would have been too big differences compared to big blockbusters.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Believability of the actors is also huge, even in just a still frame. It makes a massive difference in the perceived quality
Very true.
Nice one, Palfers. An under appreciated aspect that defines the look of a film, and gives it a Hollywood feel, is camera movement. Whilst everyone has a gimbal, there is something about a jib, crane or technocrane move that can’t (easily) be replicated with a one, and the Creator often stuck their gimbals on the end of cranes to get the best of both worlds.
Great video. A lot of people put a lot of credit to the fx3 itself and the camera is great but black magic pocket cameras shoot plenty of information as well. The Sony a7sii captures good enough image that you wouldn’t know it wasn’t shot on an Alexa or red. It’s a lot more important what’s in-front of the cameras. Watch the Scream trailer for the new movies and notice the wardrobe. They ALL wear “none colors” like black or gray or they where pink or blue there isn’t anything else. No orange no green nothing but what fits within the color palette. Then they use tungsten lights for warmth against very blue lights. Color contrast & the limiting of colors. Even the walls fit within the pallet of warms with wood to contrast blue moon light.
Yeah the advice in this video is really good but it's basic cinematography principles that apply to virtually any camera.
I didn't know that Hans Zimmer's cousin, Hans Zimmermen did the music. That's awesome!
Where can I watch this film looks good
My guessing here, having so much very dark areas, how they deal with the cam noise generated by FX3, it is a great cam ( I own one and have shooted extensively with my cam) and on Log noise is always an Issue
Lighting is more important than camera mate.
as a student cinematographer, all you need to do in camera is adjust white balance, desired shutter speed and depth of field.
all of the other things are determined by lightings, all shadows, highlights and midtones contrast and quality is carefully adjusted individually and add good production designing, sony cameras look hollywood ready
nice video just that cut before the sound portion of the video cmon bro :) Just wanted to compliment your lighting here , at first i thought "too dark" made me look again and its fuckin great very cozy and calming kudos!!! very nice video o9verall keep i t up !
Great info, thanks!
What's the name of the lenses they used for the movie ?
75mm Kowa anamorphic
I do believe they also used the P+S TECHNIK Evo 2x 75mm
If it wasn’t the fuss over what camera the creator used I think more people would notice the massive holes in the plot, poor script and bad casting. I think making the technical side the talking point actually did a ton of good for the movie.
100% agree. I actually walked out of the movie with about 30 minutes left, and I wasn’t the only one that bailed on it before it was over. I watched several groups leave before I decided to do the same. I just couldn’t take it anymore. The script and acting was sooo bad for much of it.
Also, I’m just gonna say it, the movie looked nice but there was definitely a lot of it that looked like it was shot on a prosumer camera. Much of it had that very digital look that felt like a really well lit home video movie. I couldn’t help but think, this would’ve looked even better with a nicer camera. Ha.
@@TheJ_G I'm disappointed in the movie that it created an intriguing world for a sci-fi but left a lot of potential on the table and didn't dare go into the places it can and should have. But never once thought it doesn't look good or it was shot on a prosumer camera. And I watched it on an IMAX screen. Despite knowing it is shot on FX3, I totally forgot that 10 minutes into the movie. It looked beautiful and apt for the movie. In fact, it isn't halfway the cleanest image an FX3 can produce but thats not the intention of the cinematographer. If anything, they muddy the image to make it less clean and more gritty to get the look they were going for. Technical circles aside, traditional movie reviewers across the world praised the movie for its visuals while criticizing it for its other issues.
@@BalaKrishna-bq5iz I’m glad you liked the visuals, I liked them too mostly, but I’ve owned and worked with an Fx3 (and nicer cameras), and there were plenty of moments I could definitely tell it was an fx3. If they hadn’t told the world it was an FX3 I probably wouldn’t have noticed as quickly, but I knew what to look for in the type of image it produces. I also saw it on a smaller theater screen so maybe it was easier to spot. A bunch of people/critics praising it’s visuals doesn’t change what my eyes can see.
Don’t get me wrong, they definitely squeezed a lot out of the fx3, and I have nothing but respect for the cinematographers, but I can’t just pretend that it wouldn’t have looked better on a nicer camera. Of course it sounds like it wouldn’t have gotten made on a nicer camera because they specifically needed a smaller setup for most of the shoot and something that allowed greater flexibility in their budget, so I commend them for making some bold choices with their gear.
You're welcome to your views, but I think you're being unfair. It may be a British thing, but I thought the film/script etc was better than 90% of Hollywood movies and it was a stunning piece of 'lived in' world building. GE should be really proud of what he's achieved with this mini-epic.
Watched it today. Impressive images and well done, ILM! Plot was crap, though.
Everyone's full of it. It's not about what you use.It's about how you use it.
Great video
😊Thank you Jonathan, I just subscribed to your very interesting channel. In your story, you put the “camera settings” as an understandable very important chapter. What camera setting do you think they have used? Naturally I am referring to Sony File Format. I have just purchased an FX30, which I am still studying and still never used, because I am still wondering on what file format I should use. Having the FX3 and the FX30 the same file format, your appreciated comment, would be for me the final decision to start working with it. Thank you.
Thanks.
I kept that quite small but regardless of the camera it’s just about understanding how to maximise what you capture. With the FX30 that’s sticking to the native iso, white balancing correctly etc.
All the file formats are good on the FX30, just go with the XAVC S format for now. I’ve done a video on that actually
Thank you Jonathan. What about XAVC-S-I DCI ?
@@RenatoCalo They shot in ProRes RAW using Atomos recorders. Since it is such a huge film and requires extensive color grading flexibility, they chose it. Depending on your needs, you might find going with ProRes RAW vastly useful OR little to no improvement over XAVC-SI for a lot of added complexity. But avoid non 'I' formats as they won't record each frame individually, instead records difference between frame to reconstruct the image, which is fine for 99% of the situations but for visually critical work, the small compression artifacts it might result in is a good enough reason to go with S-I
Does anyone know with certainty what Sony picture style (I.e. S-log3)was used on the movie? I can’t seem to find it anywhere.
Slog 3 although it was shot raw on the atomos as well
Yes we did use SLOG 3 I worked on this film. We had a amazing staff to complete this film
@@DMRCapitalHill I loved the film.I had no idea til after researching what camera was used. Brilliant. Great job to u all.
people keep saying that the 800 and 12800 is the cleanest iso but i found that 12800 has more noise then even 1600 iso, so i dont understand ?
There’s definitely been tweaks to the noise reduction. That said the grain at 12800 is still pretty nice and gives you a lot of options.
I’ve been shooting interiors of a resort all week on the FX3 at 12800 as it allows me to shoot at F7 and 100fps
@@JonathanPalfrey the problem with 12800 iso is the heavy noise reduction applied in camera. I wish we could have the options to turn it off and do it in postproduction
did you spell Audio wrong ?
No audiio are the name of the sponsor. Great company for totality free music. Much more interesting than the competition
@JonathanPalfrey oh lol
Very disappointed to learn that Hans Zimmer isn't featured on Audiio. Nice breakdown!
Haha but they have got some pretty good other music on there. Thanks for watching
This is answering none of my questions.
Who cares tough guy. Enjoy the video and be quiet.
To be honest yes it looks great but when you compared to Dune Part two, you can clearly see the difference in image quality. In The Creator I found the image lacking of dynamic range. If you grab a still from the movie and check the waveform, you will see how the blacks are clipped so hard and everything is really dark (even during the day shots). I love contrast but here it's too contrasty to my taste, it lacks details in the shadows. And I also noticed that even in 4k (full quality), it was really soft compared to Dune wich in comparaison has an organic image with a lot of details (not sharpness).
But I really liked the lighting, the color grading, the vfx, the costume design, the set design,..
I was a little disappointed in the cinema when I saw The Creator because I'm a terrible pixel counter and had previously seen Oppenheimer and various other films shot on Alexa. I think a big decision to get the most out of the technical setup was to emulate a grainy 35mm film look. In my FX3 tests I was able to see that if you adapt the Sony image heavily to previous 80 years of film looks - in areas of grain, chroma shift etc. - there is almost no significant difference to, for example, an Alexa if you emulate it in a similar way. Because so many details etc are lost that it doesn't really matter which camera you shoot on. Also in terms of look development. Your example with Dune was perfect. A modern high-end HDR look of this kind would not have been possible with FX3. There would have been too big differences compared to big blockbusters.
You only wrote this after you knew it was shot on the FX3.
🙌 P r o m o S M
Real shame that the creator is such a mediocre movie despite looking so good