It’s funny how medium or mediocre DPs are always talking about cameras capabilities, it’s so frustrating. Basically they are saying that you are not a real cinematographer if you can’t afford Sony Venus, Sony Burano, alexa mini or LF… don’t listen to them fellows, the only ones who are talking us cam specs are youtubers and influencers! What grown up cinematographers are teaching us is to focus on the story, camera specs are only one step in telling visuals history, storytelling is a universe not a camera brand or specs. I encourage you all whom aspire to be a cinematographer to listen to Roger Deakins
I don't aspire to be a filmmaker, I just want to make my humble RUclips 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!
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!
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
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.
An expensive lens can’t compensate for the poor choice of an image capturing device. It’s like a new paint job on a broken down car. It looks great, but you’re not going anywhere.
I’m not at the highest levels on set yet, but my honest opinion for why “cheap cameras” aren’t used on set is simple. Reliability. The Alexa series in particular is reliable, strong, built to take a beating, and always works. Also, when it comes to professional filmmaking, it’s less about “expensive” and more about “the standard” or “the best.” When you’re spending 100s of 1000s or millions of dollars on a project, you damn well better film it on the best system you can. That comes down to the camera, the lenses, the monitors, the focus system, the wireless video, the tripod, the dolly, the jib, the lights, the stands, the audio gear, the memory cards, the laptop(s), the headphones, the walkie talkies, the carts…….at every step of the process, producers want to know that they made sure that everything works and it won’t be a problem on set. It’s not just about the image, it’s also about the workflow. Knowing it’s going to work every single time.
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. The problem is that cheap cameras will not allow you to access the raw unprocessed sensor bayer data before it reaches the image processor. Even blackmagic RAW, Canon RAW and Prores RAW wont allow you to do that. The only cheap camera's that I'm aware of being able to reproduce rich tonal gradations with the same level of quality as the RED DSMC 1/2 and the ARRI are the Canon cameras that can run Magic Lantern. They won't reach anywhere above 12 stops of DR but within those 12 stops you'll be blown away by the way the sensor captured and reproduces light
@@wakkowarner8810 yeah but i dont usually count them since they're 2-3MP sensors and have a color resolution of 25% of that in the reds and blues and 50% in greens. That's way too low in my book. Minimum for me is 8MP aka 4K and it must downsampled if it's 1080p
Tonal range has nothing to do with Dynamic range. I'm speaking about color gradations. Older Film stock, which had 12 stops of DR or lower, has better tonal range than any 13+ stops or whatever low budget camera today.
@@wolfcrow You didn't even try understand what I said... Dynamic range has a lot to do with tonal range. If you've ever worked with HDR post production, you'll quickly realise how your camera actually sees the world and what dynamic range actually is. The two are intertwined. The thing about rec.709 is that it easily gives you false assumptions about the way see light. If you ever grade a video which has 9 stops of DR and one that has 12, you'll notice it in HDR. It's like looking at the sky and your eye being unable to tell that the sky is brighter where the sun is that where the clouds are. I technically disagree with you on film. Digital has far surpassed film. The only place it still lacks is color resolution. If 35mm film has 6K worth of color resolution, you'd need a 12K CMOS sensor to capture the same color information. 8K is close but not there yet. And this is all assuming you capture the unaltered and unprocessed raw bayer signal. This has nothing to do with budget cameras. It's a flaw within the bayer filter design itself. The solutions to this have been sensors such as the foveon sensor. All it takes is a 12k sensor with raw output and computer resources that can handle it to come along to wipe the floor with 35mm 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.
It can be done but I don't think you understood what he said. The higher end cameras have the capability of capturing light linearly and letting you access the result as raw bayer data that is unbelievably rich in gradations. A measly 1080p signal from a camera like that will blow the socks off any 4K/6K prosumer camera today
@@shueibdahiryou should ask before you assume. Let me take this back to the 19th Century. The Daguerreotype has the highest resolution of any still-photograph & that process was made in the 19th Century. You are talking about the technical specifications that someone could enjoy but it is not necessary to make a motion-picture. I have been a still-photographer for 25 years & I know that someone could make a camera out of a shoe box & get a photograph just as someone could purchase a Leica & take a photograph. Perhaps you are confusing high-tech with availability? A lot of cinematographers would want the latest high-tech gear but a seasoned cinematographer could use whatever is available & make an image; especially if they understand how they want to use Light. Every kind of camera relies on Light.
@@dangerrayy, if that is the case, would that not be adding to the discussion & opinion of Wolf Crow? Thank you for sharing your opinion. Enjoy your day & new week.
@@shaunlaisfilm Facts! I shoot with a 11 year old consumer camera EOS 700D) and manage to get RAW video toe to toe with todays best mirrorless cameras but in terms of tonal range and gradations far surpassing them apart from 8K ones. The old Canon Sensors pre 77D era with the Off-Die Analog to Digital Converters are amazing even with their low dynamic range
"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.
The results in The Creator are obvious to see, especially when you watch it in theaters. The FX3 doesn't make sense in this film's case. But it's their prerogative to do whatever they please.
A lot of critics saw Oppenheimer trailer before The Creator. They said the color reproduction and resolution stood out so much over The Creator. There is definitely visible quality difference in those sensors. Thank you for actually showing the artifacts in that film.
@@wolfcrow Ah, they didn't use film in the making of the creator. Remember film is a long plastic strip with holes and emulsion, a totally different medium to digital photography/videography, which uses zeros and ones.
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.
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.
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. Please know there are a lot of us who appreciate you.
There is an obsessive fascination with cameras and image quality due to the rise of digital technology, but the truth shows us that great cameras don't make great films. Some of greatest films in history were filmed on equipment far less capable than what's available today on the high street. To quote arguably one of the greatest directors of all time: "I think that those that are emerging are so incredibly talented. These young…directors…know the job well. But it’s not so often that they really have anything to say." -Ingmar Bergman, (2002)
While there is certainly a difference, I think that a lot of your claims are drastically overstated and perpetuate the mindset that causes indie filmmakers to spend far too much of their budgets trying to get an Alexa over things that make a much bigger difference in the image quality such as lighting, production design, and number of shooting days. I’ve seen many lower budget films shot on cheaper cameras that looked amazing (yes, in a theater), because they didn’t blow their whole budget on an Alexa. I’ve also seen SO MANY films, made on similar budgets and shot on an Alexa, that looked very cheap because they didn’t have the money for more important things. I remember a friend who worked on a horror film with a 500k budget. The director/producer wanted to shoot Alexa and, to accommodate that, scheduled the shoot for 8 pages a day. When the DP pointed out that this wouldn’t give him enough time to light, the director just told him, “but that’s why we paid for the Alexa; so it will look professional!” In contrast, I know another friend who directed a feature shot on a mirrorless camera for less than 100K and it looked BETTER on the big screen because they had more time to light and shoot. I myself produced another film in which the director also really wanted an Alexa even though it meant camera was almost 1/3rd of our whole budget. I told him (and the other producer) that we could potentially get 50% more shooting days if we went with a cheaper camera package (and by that I meant a RED Dragon-X or maybe an Ursa-Mini Pro). They felt the Alexa was worth the sacrifice. I transcoded the footage myself and worked with the colorist myself. I loved the look of the film but it wasn’t a large increase over what we would have gotten with the other two cameras (I’d used them on previous commercials I’d directed and seen the raw footage as well). More importantly, I believe that many scenes would have looked BETTER if we’d saved that money for more shooting days because it would have meant we could have shot certain outdoor scenes at a better time of day AND had more time to light on indoor scenes. I also KNOW that it would have meant we would have gotten more coverage AND better performances of our actors who needed a few more takes and a bit more time to get into the scene.
I agree with everything you said here, but I think you left out one more key reason that Hollywood studios use the cameras they do, and that is reliability. If you ever work in the camera department on a Hollywood project, you aren't likely to be using some new sleek camera just purchased. You are going to be using rented gear, or something pulled from a studio warehouse shelf, that has been around for a few years and been used on several productions. It is going to be beat up, have dings and scratches, and almost certainly there will be a few things that don't work quite right on it. I've worked on a few productions that used big, $100,000+ camera rigs, but these cameras always came with issues. When the cameras were checked out, there would be a "discrepancy report." This was basically a list of what didn't work right or was damaged on that camera- Things like certain ports that had been damaged and no longer worked, or the battery latch didn't latch any longer, so you'd have to use gaff tape to help secure the battery. But the cameras themselves would hold up to this kind of abuse. So they could keep going out on production after production for years. And it is not abnormal for these cameras to be kept around for 5, 10, even 15 years sometimes. A more affordable cinema camera, I don't think, would survive the kind of abuse that typical Hollywood studio equipment endures. Over ten years, that $30,000 Alexa is only $3,000 a year. So that is in the range of something like an FX3 or Pocket 6K, which probably wouldn't survive the abuse of large productions for much longer than a year anyway.
Great point. Some of the high-end video cameras are pretty reliable too. You could always just buy a new one when it breaks, and it's still cheaper than an Alexa!
@@andersistbesser Go work at a Hollywood rental house, or the equipment room at a studio, and then come back here and tell us how there is no gear abuse.
Also, Hollywood doesn't own cameras, they rent cameras. They have to because if something goes wrong, they need a replacement camera immediately. They can't wait to buy another camera or something like that. Any "budgeted" movie, would always rent, even if the filmmaker owns equipment simply due to this factor. The insurance policy also doesn't cover personal equipment and sure you can always rent your camera to the show for an extra buck, why would you do that on a low budget production? In the end, you'll always want to rent and currently, cameras like the Venice 1 and Alexa Mini's, can be rented for not much money and they're both excellent cameras.
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.
What? 😅 everything that he said is absolutely true. I m a filmmaker with bmpcc4k...and yes my camera can't beat arri Alexa or red or any Hollywood cinema camera...he never said that is not enough to create a beautiful film or I can't be pro...he said that it's ok to work around with the limitations and not fool our selfs. The creator is an a good example . It's not the first movie that was filmed with low budget camera... they did it for the promotion... every RUclipsr promote the movie because of the fx3 . It was a clever move to advertise the movie without spending money....but a bad move to make that kind of movie with this camera. The image they produce was mehhh ... Another example...There's a reason that the movie Blair witch project used a VHS camera... Any way. you misunderstood what he was saying. He says the truth. Like it or not. That doesn't mean that you can't create a Great movie with a cheap camera. Your canvas has alot of stuff to keep in order to produce something wonderful. And the first step is to understand your limitations and use them as opportunities. 😊 Or to understand what is the "character" of your film and choose the right equipment.
The Creator is a great showcase. It was graded by Fotokem and ILM - if they couldn't fix the problems then you and I have no chance. Also, the hours they would have spent fixing things that we can't see would have easily paid for the Sony Venice - with better colors while retaining the same look.
Not forgetting the $70,000 Kowa anamorphic lenses, large lighting team used in the dome production and heavy grading to get the exactlook they wanted @wolfcrow
Someone sent me this video, and I think this take is really off the mark, this narrator does not understanding Hollywood production. The expense of renting pro gear is a drop in the bucket compared to crew and talent cost and since they are spending millions on their production, they might as well spend thousands on their camera gear. Pros use professional cameras for their robust features, high end lenses, timecode, connectivity. But the truth is, when It comes to sensor image quality, there is very little different between the high end pro and the prosumer level.
I was curious about the color bit rate of a Alexa 35. I absolutely loved how it looked in Alien Romulus and Aquiet place day one. Black magic raw is 12 bit. Arri raw on the alexa 35 is 13.
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
When we talk about color grading and image motion, the differences are significant. Let's not kid ourselves! Try to pan with different cameras and you will see the judder difference.
Any camera can give you a good footage, when you're filming static subject on a sunny day. What he's talking about, is the limitations you may face, and the cost of overcoming them.
@@barmalini its the opposite. Its mainly during the sunny mid day light that you understand the importance of the 3 more stops that have the lf or venice because the contrazt and highlights are higher. During a overcast day any 10bit camera would do the job
@@viorelrosca4091 yes the jelly effect will be higher with cheap cams but a real life shooting is not about just that. I bet 90% of people working in the industry would have never said anything in the theater watching the creator. Im saying mirroless are as good but its far from being night and day like before. I’ve shot projects with both, i’m not a spécialist but its not that much better. Its more reliable, better overall, but its also by pretension and to justify a big fee and budget that some teams are working with red or arri. It makes the client happy and feel like his money is well spent.
@@hadrienpicard6554 a bride in a white dress on sunny day will have less contrast than a train station at night. So let's simply say contrast when we mean contrast. While I was referring mainly to high ISO noise, unlikely to be faced on sunny day.
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.
I love how you mentioned color tonality rather than color science as the latter is down to how the raw data is processed and encoded (also related to aesthetics), not because of the camera sensor. Cameras should be chosen for how much information it captures, not how filmic or video-like the color science looks as that can be manipulated with a mathematical transform/LUT.
Honestly I think if there are really obvious differences between the visual image quality between prosumer cameras and Cinema cameras, that's just as much of a benefit as a downside. Having unpredictable quirks in the image isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it was there wouldn't be apps to replicate the look of disposable film cameras of VHS cameras you could download, but there are. And in the cinema world, people use anamorphic or vintage lens not because it makes their films look more accurate to how they looked in person, but to make the film look more visually interesting. At the end of the day, while saying something like 'this camera is more true to life' might be objective, saying 'this camera looks the best' is just a mater of opinion.
I can’t tell for sure, but I see “qualitative” differences between cameras. As an example, I shoot underwater documentaries, and have used Sony Mirrorless and Canon Cinema more recently. I am a one man crew… color grading has been really hard for me through the years - water can be nasty on colors. However, since I started working with the Canon C300 MIII my life got easier, and I was able to focus more on the story. Even when shooting under conditions that are supposed to be identical, the Canon grades almost perfect with one minute of work, but the same with the Sony used to take me 2-3 hours to do. I have no agenda, I am a one man shop, and all I will say is that there is a difference between my $15k Canon and my $3k Sony that makes a difference to my story.
I don’t think the sensor is the only factor. But rather…the entire circuitry and cooling system. They do make a difference in many sense, yet story is above all. The smaller mirrorless cameras have a certain look to them that can be used for certain things.
It would be great if you can give us a contrast between the quality side by side with real examples, you used some terms that are hard to understand without watching a sample footage/clip.
"The right tool for the (specific) job" .. Good thing is that technology advances: Take the FUJIFILM GFX 100 II (with an Pl-mount adapter, a V-mount power setup and the usual other bits and pieces. Result? You spend less than 20k (without lens) and you are a visibly huge step closer to the "this cam is worth a house" look. Love it for that reason (And it takes great Photographs as well ) ...
Youve skipped on 2 major contributors: Lemses and Lighting. The sensor can only puckup what the lens sees. There's a heck of a difference between a $1000 lens and $100k PL lens.
The best camera is the one you have. Filmmaking is the most expensive artform in the world. These sorts of critiques in a way are meant to break the spirit of those coming up and learning the craft of cinematography. Cameras don't define your worth, nor abilities. They are tools, period. Technology has made the entry into filmmaking more accessible to the masses, but certain RUclipsrs have found ways of trying to separate themselves from the rest of us with a brand of camera. Cameras don't make you better. Intentionality, practice of the craft is what makes us better. Elitism is not it.
A Canon R5 C (has a fan and Netflix approved) along with a Ninja V+ using 8K ProRes RAW HQ (you get Canon Log2) … processed/graded and presented in HDR can absolutely handle the necessary tonal gradations and dynamic range to look great on a 4K movie screen or large OLED television. Not knowing how each step in the process could potentially add compression to your footage is very important. I record everything in ProRes. I stay in that format throughout editing in FCPX and final output file is ProRes. Yes, it takes up a lot of drive space, but it’s also pristine quality with nearly imperceivable compression artifacts. You don’t want those on a big screen, they are amplified exponentially. If it has to be compressed after that (delivery to RUclips or Netflix, or … anything else) it will hold up well.
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'.
As this video states, know the limitations of your camera and make the best film you can within those limitations. When I saw "The Creator" in a cinema, it was so muddy and dark I walked out before the denouement (not to mention the derivative story-line). Yet, two of the most visually interesting films I have seen are Sean Baker’s breakout indie “Tangerine” and Steven Soderbergh's "HIgh Flying Bird", both shot on an iPhone. Tangerine was shot on an iPhone 5 and High Flying Bird on iPhone 8, believe it or not! The image quality of these two films are nowhere near cinema quality, but it doesn't matter because both films used lighting, set design, frame composition and actor blocking in highly creative ways to tell engaging stories (unlike The Creator). Soderbergh in particular composed his shots with graphic architectural lines in his background, and he built depth with prop placement in his mid and foregrounds because he knew these compositions would be enhanced on the iPhone 8 inherent wide angle lens. Understanding your camera limitations is one thing, but understanding how to be a creative within the confines of those limitations separates the men from the boys.
David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” was filmed with a Sony camcorder. Visual aspect doesn’t matter if the film has an interesting story to tell. If I want visuals then I watch something of Ron Fricke.
A good story, progressing at the right pace, with good audio - these are enough to keep the audience hooked. No one is going to notice the technical subtleties mentioned in this video.
lol I agree! Audio and story are king. You can have the greatest video quality in the world with a million dollar budget but if the audio and story are crap the audience will check out. However if you are paying Nicholas Cage $25 million dollars you can bet they won't shoot it on a $3,000 consumer camera they will shoot it on a $100,000 movie camera.
@@Drrezzina used Arri Alexa, in good working condition, can now run $6,000. Or rent one. Or hire a cinematographer who owns one. I shot my short Amy's Baby on a Alexa mini...by hiring a guy who owned one. When I saw the raw footage, I almost cried at the superb image. Wow.
If you want examples of overheating as a problem, look up the difference between everyday use cameras and cameras used for astrophotography (since those kinds of photography take dozens or even hundreds of long exposures, the heat starts to be visible and that's why astro cameras have an in built cooling system)
Love the video on Spielberg's technique shooting movies. Today the word 'film' is used too often when you talk 'digital.' It can be confusing. Are you talking about using film or are you talking about using a digital camera??????? What you can do if you haven't is to explore the difference between using film vs. a digital sensor. They are so different that going into depth would be great. Film uses grain and it looks much different than a 'movie' (not a film) using a digital sensor. I've seen the difference as I have been shooting stills since 1972. Today I use a digital camera mainly because of the expense of film and the poor processing by labs. Cost too much. Yet, even pictures of people I have taken years ago using a film camera, make doesn't matter, using Tri-X and making an 11x14 print. The grain gives it a unique texture. Digital won't do it. It's just different. So, when using words, and words are ultimately important, use the correct term. Filmmaking uses film. You are making a movie (moving pictures). Digital is in a league of its own. You are a journalist. Accuracy is important if you are trying to get your message out.
By no objective measure does the Venice 2 look twice as good as the FX3. By no objective measure does Arri ever look like the most detailed image. I really enjoy a lot of your essays, but you veered into hand-waving voodoo on this one.
@@wolfcrow RUclips comments are not a very good place to hold a conversation, but don't you think such bold claims deserve at least a little evidence? Had you said the Arri Alexa 35 has superior dynamic range, I'd nod my head. But when you say "expensive cameras look better for reasons I can't show" I scratch my head.
Being able to easily grade an image from a higher quality camera makes life easier. Trying to learn how to grade on a low quality camera is like trying to learn how to become a racecar driver in a model T car - You might be a very good driver, but never know because you can't get your hands on race car.
Little mention here of the value of 'production tools' - you need to show the image to the director, the producters, art department, make up, a solid SDI is going to make this happen. Any lens thats not a PL will have backlash from the focus motor which will jerk the image. Most cheap cameras are not solid enough to pull focus. Then those cine lenses.. sure they look OK.. but its all about fast lens changes that work with the remote focus for the 1st a/c. Now be in namibia and drop your alexa.. you can get one on a bike from Joburg. You keep shooting. .. its nothing about image and all about keeping every department in the production fully in motion. Jam synch time code.. that will be a few $$$ saved in post. its all about production tools
Way more goes into a professional image than the camera body. Lenses, light, production design, wardrobe, sound are all way more important than the body you are shooting on. That's why the Creator looks so good.
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.
I have made a few short films and a micro budget film with my son. While good equipment helps I think the most important part of any filmmaking kit is the nut behind the camera. If you have a big entourage of DPs, grips etc, then you can probably afford to buy or rent an expensive camera and lenses but for micro budgets, where you are the camrea, sound, lighting, DP, director etc rolled into one then I feel most canon dslr cameras and mirrorless cameras that can do at least 1080p are sufficient for a film festival. A great filmmaker/director could make a classic with an inexpensive dslr or mirrorless camera or even an iphone while an inexperienced filmmaker will make sh$t regardless of the camera they use. Thats what I think and for a while I was obsessed with getting a great camera but realise that what the main factor in the final output of my film is my own ability behind the camera nd recording good audio as well as good editing and a good script to film a story. I hope that one day I will be at a level to fully utilise an expensive camera but at the moment what holds my films back is not so much the camera but my own inexperience and I find it a challenge to make a great film with what I have and no longer am obsessed with having a high priced cinematic camera which I can't afford. My Lumix G85 M43 camera is plenty camera for my current ability.
I agree with you. But I have a question? A couple of Hollywood directors shot entire films on a cell phone. How does that fit in with what you just said? By the way, you're by far my most favorite cinematography channel.
No one stops anyone from filming with whatever they want, as long as the budget permits. If you watch Soderbergh's films shot on the iPhone, there are terrible motion artifacts even visible on small screens. I would pick a $1,000 mirrorless camera over a $1,500 iPhone.
I remember using my Fujifilm 0.8 megapixel camera years ago when I took a picture of my fx lightsaber. They way in which it picked up the color, made it look exactly like how the lightsabers looked in the movies. But then, years later, a had a higher definition megapixel camera, about 16 megapixels, and made by Sony, and when I shot the same lightsaber, it just didn't look the same. Each camera has its own look and feel, and so producers make their projects with that in mind usually..
The video is not saying a person can’t make a “good film” using inexpensive equipment. It’s saying try making a good LOOKING film projected on a huge cinema screen. That’s the point. If your target presentation is a smartphone or computer screen, then plenty of cameras will do. But if you want professional results on a cinema screen, then the poor choice of equipment will show.
Thank you for explaining why the Alexa picture has always looked like a film-era Hasselblad to me - in other words, top-class. You went so much farther, though, and it was a revelation.
I would sort of maybe disagree. The biggest reason for me is post flexibility, reliability/ low likelihood of unexpected failure and speed/ease of use on set. Visible image quality is part of that, but I think of it more as "lack of image problems that cannot be easily fixed in post". I would also say having tested both that a Komodo X is more than good enough (and looks almost the same - like maybe even the same - as a Raptor). Heck, even an Epic X will get you there. Older expensive cameras (now cheaper used) had much better quality control and didn't have skimp on components and careful manufacturing. They will still give you amazing results now, at an affordable price. A DSLR or BM camera? No.
given that some Star Wars Movie were made on half the size sensor of a micro 4/3 camera, I beg to differ. Lots of blockbuster movies have technical defaults but guess what, nobody cares, as long as it's barely noticeable. You only see it because you graded your movies, while the public barely noticed it.
An asterisk that comes with the Arri footage is that the people doing the lighting are professionals who only do lighting and have done lighting full time for a long time, compared to the indie people. Also, because of the film's bigger budgets with an Arri the lighting crew has more resources with which to make the best lighting. More experience, more full-time professional big budget experience, and more resources. Add to this, highly paid full-time professional colorists with much more experience than indie colorists who have another full-time job to pay the bills. These things will make the footage from an Arri look better than a low budget camera. Around 2011 I read of a big time, Hollywood Director who had a number of his Director friends over. In his home screening room he showed them 4 film clips. Afterwards, he then told them that one of the clips was shot on a Canon 5D MK IV. NONE of the professional Hollywood Directors could pick out which clip it was. That was then. I agree when zooming in to finished footage that you can see artifacts with the cheaper cameras, but we don't watch films in theaters "zoomed in." I understand a large screen will reveal more, but I don't remember any average movie goer complaining about the quality of The Creator footage when it was showing in theaters. My contention is that we can analyze and compare side by side footage shot on a $4K camera and a $300K camera and see the differences.....but the audience never sees movies this way, and thus the difference is not revealed to them, and they know no difference. It would be interesting to see the same lighting crew, using the same equipment, and the same colorists, all used on big budget Hollywood movies shoot a scene with a $4,000 camera, and THEN compare the footage to an ARRI camera. This would be an apples to apples comparison. However, it is possible that if this were done, and the difference in footage was negligible, the budget for future film could be negatively impacted.
@@wolfcrow - I would imagine it is difficult to get funding for a film project if a person says "Yeah, we're going to shoot this on a Sony FX3," and that this is a big part why we haven't seen more films in theaters shot on such cameras. Also, if more films in theaters were shot on such cheaper cameras...imagine the threat to Arri. It's possible this engrained part of Hollywood may be protected as well. I appreciate all the points made in this video. Yes, of course the Arri has abilities a $4,000 camera does not. My contention is that the "regular" people who go to watch movies in theaters, not filmmakers, won't notice the difference when the same people who work on Arri shot projects are also working on the FX3 projects. It's the same thing like with the original Top Gun movie. "Regular" people were blown away by the flying fighter jet shots. However, my close friend who was in the Air Force at the time the movie was released said "No, it's nothing like that," and he hated the film. I believe this is the same situation with the "cheap" camera and Arri comparison. Filmmakers know the difference. "Regular" people who go to the movies don't have that knowledge, and therefore don't see anything different or "wrong."
@@wolfcrow - I just learned a 2018 Hollywood movie titled "The Possession of Hannah Grace" was shot entirely on the Sony A7S II. I also just remembered that "cheap" cameras have been used in tandem with Arri cameras on a number of Hollywood film projects due to the much smaller form factor and and ease of movement in tight places. The footage was intermixed in the released film, and the audience never knew. Here is a link to the video I saw that covers the use of the Sony A7s II in The Possession of Hannah Grace. It is very well done. ruclips.net/video/gjIyUoq0xRY/видео.htmlsi=mUWHUTLFrIm9v0w-
Parts of "Crank: High Voltage" were filmed with a consumer grade Canon VIXIA HF-10 and XH-A1 that you could pick up at your local big box store for a song.
He had super valid points here... Of course you can use whatever camera to make a movie no doubt but executing a movie at a high level is expensive and time is money so having a camera system that doesn't easily fall apart when subjected to the elements and allows you to work through the day hassle free is definitely key.
I'm not sure a GH5 or R5 are a good reference here. They lack in dynamic range and reliability, with the R5 having a record limit and obvious overheating problems and 15ms rolling shutter. FX3 is on par with RED Raptor's rolling shutter speed, same with Alexa. Only Venice 2 has the fastest rolling shutter which is less than 3ms. The A9III is being used on a new film as well, and The Creator had the most organic looking night scenes vs any film so far and one of the best looking VFX.
I agree with you to a point. Today, streaming is just about taking over from theater screenings! More people in the U.S. are staying home and watching movies that way. While it's true that Netflix has an approved list of specific cameras for their own productions, many films have been sold to them that used cameras NOT on their list. The average movie goer isn't all that concerned with what camera was used on a film. Of course Hollyweird is, because many times, the actors' contract even stipulates that a certain type of camera be used. I just think that there are way too many filmmakers out there and a lot of them and their audiences don't honestly care about what a film is shot on. If the budget is there, great...shoot on an Arri or Red, but how many can really afford that? I sure can't. I have invested a ton of money in BMPCC4 and 6K equipment and I think I get really good images out of those. My audience never questions what my films get shot on. I guess if we all owned a 7-11, we could afford an Arri. lol
Re-watched with equal pleasure. Questions: (1) Why are so many feature films still shot with Panavision gear and converted to digital? How does the quality compare? (2) Has anyone shot a beautiful small-scale passion project (small fixed set, few actors; I'm thinking of the scale of the Midnight Diner Japanese TV series) using an Alexa or equal? (3) Is it possible to manipulate the image from RED or Sony cameras, et al., to equal the Arri look? (4) What about purchasing an older, used Arri camera? (Potato Jet did this, but I haven't seen a followup report about what he did and how it worked.)
Yup, The Potato did purchase an old Arri. I will tell you the reputation is they are "built like a tank." Arri color science is unsurpassed. Potato makes his living posting RUclips, so he's got to have you click that video. New gets clicks. That said, he's posted a couple of videos about the camera, one of which was replacing the PL mount with a Canon EF mount. Not for the faint of heart.
Steven Soderbergh would disagree because he made many feature-length films with mobile phones, especially with the iPhone. Sometimes it’s style that matters. You can have the best gear and turn in a crappy feature no matter how sharp or precise the image may be; sometimes, the imperfection is what makes the film iconic.
You can get a sigma fp shoot uncompressed raw and use slim raw . One extra step but I have been using past few months and the quality of color is really good
in my deluded fantasies of being a film director, I recall that I really liked the film quality of All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), generally it was made with an Alexa 65 (+3 other cams), but I read that a cheaper alternative for the same look is a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera for around $2000 - which is affordable
@@ytubeanon Are you really comparing an alev 65mm sensor to any bmpcc super35 or full frame sensor? Totally different sensors, no cinemaDNG or Braw is going to look as good as an image from an Alexa 65, never
@@nonameexpdng am I saying that's what I read? yes, obviously, feel free to suggest a cheaper alternative: "Blackmagic Design offers several cameras that could be considered as alternatives to the Arri Alexa 65. Here are a few notable ones: 1. **Blackmagic URSA Cine 17K**: This camera is still in development and is expected to be available by the end of 2024¹. It features a large-format image sensor (50.8 x 23.3mm) and can capture up to 17K resolution¹. The sensor size is very similar to the Arri Alexa 65¹. While it's expected to be expensive, it's likely to be more affordable than the Alexa 65¹. 2. **Blackmagic URSA Cine 12K**: This camera can shoot at 12K resolution and has a dynamic range of 16 stops¹. It's currently priced at $14,995¹. 3. **Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K (BMPCC 6K)**: This camera is a more budget-friendly option. It can shoot up to 6K resolution and has been compared favorably to the Arri Alexa in terms of image quality³⁴. Source: Conversation with Bing, 5/2/2024 (1) Blackmagic Teases Groundbreaking 17K Large-Format Cinema Camera. petapixel.com/2024/04/16/blackmagic-teases-groundbreaking-17k-large-format-cinema-camera/. (2) BMPCC 6K VS Alexa Mini: Blackmagic Camera Comparison. filmjams.com/2020/05/17/bmpcc-6k-vs-alexa-mini-blackmagic-camera-comparison/. (3) Looking For An Alternative To The Arri Alexa? These 3 Cinema Cameras .... noamkroll.com/looking-for-an-alternative-to-the-arri-alexa-these-3-cinema-cameras-have-you-covered-at-a-lower-pricepoint/. (4) Thoughts on the Blackmagic Design URSA Cine 17K 65mm Camera. wolfcrow.com/thoughts-on-the-blackmagic-design-ursa-cine-17k-65mm-camera/.
Are the high end cameras measurably better than affordable cameras? Obviously. Are there valid reasons for choosing a high end camera for a bigger production? Also, obviously. Is the difference in image quality really noticeable, or even visible to an average viewer? I'd argue no, in most cases it is not, based on my own experience (assuming everyone involved knows their job). The most important thing really is what is in front of the camera, that is the deciding factor that makes a visible difference between high end productions and low budget ones. Again, this is based on my own experience, which is admittedly limited - i have worked in projects that use high end gear, as well as in projects that use lower end gear. But rarely on projects where these are used side by side, where these can be compared in the exact same circumstances. The only case this was done through the whole project was a commercial I directed about a decade ago. The main camera was Alexa Mini, the 2nd was Blackmagic Cinema Camera (the original 2,5 K one). At least in this case, though there were visible differences in the ungraded footage, it was no problem to match the two together in the grade well enough to intercut seamlessly. I've also shot some test clips with humble A6300 side by side with Venice, and while there indeed were differences, they were not nearly as big as i anticipated - especially considering A6300 is 8 bit 4:2:0. I'd argue that if the A6300 footage was intercut with the Venice material from that shoot, it is unlikely anyone would have noticed. As a side note, in a few weeks, i will be working on an interesting case - i'm woking on the VFX for a feature film shot with Arri, where we will create a composite shot that has Arri footage of the actor comped in with A6700 footage of the background element(s). It will not be side by side, but a split screen. Both will be on the silver screen at the same time. I'm rather confident that the choice for the 2nd camera will not draw attention from the viewers.
I can agree on this for the most part. I think a more primary reason for expensive cameras is exclusivity and, on the practical side, multi-team use. If the budget is high enough, why not use the most expensive. When it camera the department, a lager camera requires a whole department to operate it, creating more jobs on set. Oh and you forgot to mention film cameras, which is all the expensive camera try to replicate. What all filmmakers try to replicate. Good video overall tho 👍
So the motion judder is just "feature" of consumer cameras. I was going crazy trying minimize that effect, but only solution I came up with was to just shoot 30 or higher frames per second.
You have some fair points. I also understand why many people disagree with you. You broadly define cheap cameras with a list of qualities only you deem valid. The Creator is a perfect example of why your personal qualifications for a good vs cheap camera is invalid. Ironically enough, you even conclude with your use of the R5 that a cinematographer really should consider the limits of the tool rather than the tool being too cheap to be capable to produce quality. I highly recommend you check out a video Potato Jet made with an older Arri digital camera. In summary, the camera still produced gorgeous color rendition but lacked in other areas. If I remember the video correctly, he compared it to a Canon C300 MK3 or a Sony A7S MK3. I forget. But ultimately the newer camera was better overall. I believe the fairest point you made is how a better camera is akin to a better tool to get the job done faster and cheaper. You could consider a multi million dollar project using a $100k camera to avoid spending millions in post to correct noise in footage. Though I would argue that argument is blown out of proportion with The Creator. The VFX cost the most in that movie and it wasn't to correct footage. It's a Sci-Fi movie with tons of add-in post assets. If they toned down the add-ins, such as removing the transparent wheel like things on the androids in the movie, the movie would have cost significantly less.
I definitely agree with your points here. I’m just a bit more on the side of knowing that although cameras like the Alexa mini are fantastic nearly unmatched workhorses they are still overpriced from what they should be. Not talking about mirrorless here. The best case I think on that is that I know of a handful of cinematographers who wouldn’t dare touch digital and rather use film, but they loved the URSA 12k classic which was originally released at $10k. Granted it’s still more than $2k but I don’t think the Alexa 35 is really worth its asking price. It’s definitely worth a ton don’t get me wrong but we all kinda know we’re getting up-charged for a name. But if you got the Arri name go for it I guess right?
The camera companies that produce cheap cinema cameras are not doing well, business-wise. If it were so easy and cheap many manufacturers would have matched a 14-year old ALEV sensor by now.
@@wolfcrow no I agree from a business perspective. As much as I love Blackmagic their URSA line isn’t used that much even though I hear a lot of good things from dp’s like its use on “Rise” But I do wonder sometimes if the price inflation is what makes a dp think of its value rather than how it performs in the real world. Case in point the burano with its rough ir pollution and only shooting RAW LT for 30k I’m disappointed and agree that it’s a fantastic camera and whoops the pants off of their cheap cameras like the fx9 but for 30k I mean come on guys.
This video sets a lot of the points I argue with my friend who rents film equipment. I see he is right in many things and I am also right in a few... Ive seen so many movies shot with arri looking bad and others shot with BMCC4K looking good that I keep thinking that lights and lenses are 90% of the magic. But so many other things come from the body. So Yeah I guess you and him may have a few good valid points.
Agree 100% Recently directed a 5 part series which premiered at IMAX here. Shot it on Komodos with DZO glass. Fantastic results. I knew it was gonna look good but damn. While not a low light camera the Komodo does pretty well as long as you know what you’re doing.
What about cameras like the Netflix approved Sony fx3? That costs a few thousand. I know the point is on the big screen and they’re primarily streaming but they do have movies that go to theatres
Well… that’s debatable! Let’s go back in time, and remember the 2008-2012 when the cinema cameras such as Red One and the Alexa were almost the only choice when choosing to shoot digital, and none of them come close to the FX3. Remember the days when you hated to use DOF adapters to get shallow depth of field??? Come on man, I can use any blackmagic camera and get great quality, good enough to be projected.
The cameras that will be coming out in the next few years will be rivalling the Alexa in many ways. We will be getting global shutter, 14 stops of DR and full frame open gate. In the end the only limitation of making a good film is not going to be down to the cameras used, it will come down to anything but that.
Bad puns and dad jokes aside I love this video. I might have phrased certain things a little bit differently or used different examples. But on balance his thesis is 100% correct, and I will unapologetically using the bullet points from this video to make the case for not shooting on a cheap camera when other options are available. Sometimes people just need to be made aware that they have more options than they realized. Thanks for putting this together.
On the technical side, your claims just don’t bear out what I’ve seen with my own lying eyes. There are plenty of cameras under 10k that produce amazing results when shooting RAW. Does a Venice or Alexa look BETTER than cheaper cameras? Of course! Do they look drastically better to the extent that the average person will notice? Not in most situations. It’s odd you keep bringing up The Creator because I certainly didn’t see people leaving the theater saying, “that movie looked like it was shot on a cheap camera!” I wasn’t aware they used an FX3 until recently and I wouldn’t have been surprised had someone told me it was shot on a Venice, Alexa, or Red Raptor VV (and I’m definitely pickier than the average cinema-goer). I’m not a DP but I’ve been in the business for a while and, though I tend to work in the lower-budget range, I’ve had the privilege of knowing a lot of people on big budget shoots. You’ve shot some lovely work and I’m happy some of it has gotten a theatrical release in India. But you haven’t shot big budget films either. The camera package is an incredibly small part of the overall budget so there really isn’t a reason for them to try to save money on a cheaper package. When I’ve talked to bigger DPs about cameras these days, they spend a lot more time discussing features, workflow, and IO instead of image quality. This wasn’t always the case. When the original Alexa was released it was heads and shoulders above other digital cameras in many respects. But the difference is FAR LESS drastic today. The vast majority of DPs I know have told me that, when it comes to image quality, things have never been closer (though they still obviously have their preferences). One of the best looking shows I’ve seen is Better Call Saul (and I’ve watched it on a 65 inch OLED). The first three seasons were shot on a Red Dragon 6k which you can now find for a few thousand online; season 4 used an Varicam 35, and the last two seasons were Alexa LF. The whole shoot, they also used a BMPCC4k and later BMPCC6k for certain shots and the DP raved about both of them. I couldn’t tell the difference between cameras/seasons nor could the average person. I certainly don’t think seasons shot with an Alexa LF look any better than those shot with the cheaper Red Dragon.
Machine learning and AI might not take away jobs, but all the issues you have mentioned above is where Machine learning can easily be implemented. Sures its gonna need a large amount of training data but once someone has decided to fix it, that would be really interesting.
Awesome video man! I was totally unaware of what you say about the differences being even greater when you project on the big screen, and that no content creator notices exaggerated differences between, for example, an ARRI and an A7, because they do not reproduce it in media that allows them to observe the difference in image quality. However, I think it would have been good to mention for all the filmmakers who are starting out, that movies that use "cheap" cameras (assuming that any of us ever achieve a Hollywood budget) will probably never have to worry about that, because our movies will be exhibited in rooms that do not have such detailed screens, or will be seen from the gaming monitors and cell phone screens of someone at home through a streaming service. As a lover of cinema (yes, including blockbusters) I must say that anyone who wants to dedicate to this has to do it for the love of the expression and the art of the image, and not for the pretensions of being famous and seeing their movie projected in an imax theater or something like that. We have to aim towards the audience that our pocket allows, and there is nothing wrong with our movies being watched from cell phones or a normal tv. In fact, it is a help for us because we will not have to worry about the "limitations" of our "cheap" cameras
Thank you! You never know where your movie might land up. Even if you get selected in a good festival with a decent DCP playback it will be watched on a cinema screen.
It’s for the same reason F1 is driven with expensive race cars and not the Toyotas pickups. Sure, an FX3 can shoot an amazing image, but an Arri will give you a better image, along with way more other features. You always want to use the best possible thing your budget can afford you, and big productions have big budgets.
Yet The Creator looks better then every frame of footage I’ve seen you show in all the years I’ve been subbed to your channel. You put out fantastic quality essays, and presumably from all the footage you recycle on your channel of you on set are successful in the film industry… video scopes are great… but a technically rich image is just that… technically rich or accurate. Ironically you seem to be falling into the same YT meta you are criticizing… specs. I have almost exclusively used a 130” projector screen for almost 2 decades, the difference between 4K and 1080 is night and day, the difference between 8bit and 10bit is noticeable… something that is capable of actually showing 24fps is noticeable… beyond that it becomes exponentially more difficult… 10bit and 12bit in certain circumstances is noticeable to the trained eye, beyond that you are fooling yourself what is discernible.
@@Bigcookfilms the creator had a great DP who found the right tool for the job and understood the tools. Compared to most films they used minimal lighting… so arguing they had an infinite budget for lighting isn’t the reason, and they moved very fast during production, so it’s not that they labored infinitely on set ups either. With the democratization of color correction and the shifting from the limited photo chemical process to DI… you don’t need access to a handful of locations with a select amount of professionals who can practice their craft of grading, you need tastes and can learn and practice yourself or collaborate with someone who’s passion is grading. Their is no excuse for professional work to look cheap, and it’s especially galling when it was shot on a high end camera, and even more so if someone is going to stump for the benefits of high end equipment… I’m sorry the only reason to turn out cheap looking footage these days is taste, ego or budget (and if you are shooting on high end cameras… it should be budget… unless ego drove the choice to dump more into rental budget). I’m well aware that fans will blindly disagree, I’m a fan. Wolfcrow has in fact put out some of my most replayed videos on YT… but this level of cork sniffing from someone who shows his own work that isn’t comparable to the lead example is simply misguided arrogance or coming from a strange misplaced defensiveness. I think there are great arguments to be made as to why professional productions use the same brands and cameras some of which he touched on… and even valid reasons why to use a Alexa over a fx3, I even would grant the raw coming out of the the fx3 into an atomos isn’t r3d… but neither is ARRIRAW, but the superior dynamic range (especially with highlight roll off being more like film) makes the flexibility of ARRIRAW less relevant. Bottom line is, isn’t the tools, and like it or not… virtually all cameras above a certain level offer a fantastic image, a dop who knows the tools can shoot circles around someone with a high end camera.
I'm sorry, I disagree. I saw The Creator on IMAX and the image was blurry as heck despite using expensive lenses that cost around $50k plus a ton of image processing
@@Mr_Kenneth that’s because they used vintage Kowa anamorphic 2x lenses. Both the fact that they are vintage (modern tends to be more clinical and sharp) and the 2x anamorphic squeeze rates is “blurry” or filled with “character” depending on the camp you are in.
Thought provoking. I bought a Red Komodo (OG) with some retirement money - of course, you then have to “build it up”. That said, the Komodo (OG) does tick “quite a few boxes” as regards the criteria mentioned in this video. It’s not perfect (it wouldn’t have quite the dynamic range of the much more expensive Red Raptor for example) - nevertheless - if you “absolutely feel you need” 16 bit colour, 6 k acquisition for under $10, 000, the Komodo delivers (and, in fairness, the Black Magic 6k Pros - whilst maybe not as good when it comes to colour depth - tick a fair few boxes, too). But - here’s the “bottom line” - I also have a second hand Panasonic GH 5 - and for RUclips stuff - it’s perfectly capable of delivering very pleasing results - and the files are nothing like the Gargantuan Red Raw files which “hog” most of my hard drive - and that’s just with 20 mins or so of footage ! I suspect, in turn, Arri Raw files are “super-Gargantuan” in size !!!
Another thing you need to learn is "field of view" and the trick theaters play on you. Believe it or not, your home TV may actually have a wider field of view than most seats in a cinema. I've had many films I've worked on, shown in cinemas and they're always MUCH softer than the home video release. In fact, over-all, outside of Dolby Vision and IMAX HDR released, I'd say generic theaters have little to offer compared to OLED HDR TV's at home and UHD BluRay. The concept that you're making something to be seen in the theater and that the quality of the camera is related to that, is a bogus and completely disproven theory. A film maybe shown in the theater for a few months, but it lives on home video for decades. What it looks like at home, is what you should be focused on. If it looks good on your home 4k TV and iPhone/iPad, then it'll look totally fine in the theater when you're dealing with REFLECTED LIGHT against a screen! The losses in that presentation format are tremendous. That's why even the highest resolution digital cinema, doesn't hold a candle to a good HDR OLED display, it really can't unless you use some magic like IMAX and Dolby Vision do. None of that tech is available at home and probably never will be.
I'm a fairly new Alexa mini owner/operator, and I totally experience what you're saying about the color gradation. I've been getting my feet wet with the the Alexa on corporate projects, with sony FX3 as a b cam. I can match most shots to an extent, but when it comes to those skin tones, I just can't get it to perfectly match the Alexa. As you said, it literally won't capture those "in between" colors (that skin tones are FULL of), nothing like what that the Alexa captures. I never knew what true skin tones were until I started filming with the Alexa. Sadly, my eyes are ruined to other cameras now lol
I tried to find the video in your uploads but couldn't. I do remember when Nikon Z9 was launched you tried to convince us that it was far better than Sony Venice. I may be wrong but my consciousness says it was you.
It is not better than a Venice for commercial films, but it's a capable camera for low budget films, just as the FX3 is, or any camera is. It's not the point of the video.
While all true, don't forget the real reason for the insane (for most) cost: Gatekeeping. They don't want competition. If more people could afford excellent equipment, the ones who are lucky enough to have the best jobs in the industry would feel some real threat to their job security.
Cheap as in MSRP cheap for those confused lol, former $30k+ cameras still have elite sensors. Varicam 35, Red Dragons, Sony F55 etc are definitely “cheap” right now but will outperform any current cameras in their price range.
I think you missed more than half the problem with low end cameras. Cameras are vastly improved... a BlackMagic Pocket Cinema or a new iPhone can make images that would far outstrip what was possible with older "budget solutions" like Super8 & 16mm ... or worse video system like the F900 HDCAM cameras used on Star Wars prequels. The people who can only shoot on low end cameras often have the LEAST EXPERTISE AND EXPEREIENCE needed to create a lighting and shooting plan to overcome their limitations. New film makers most often, right? I shot a feature on a Canon 7D in 2009. That routinely gets praised for its images, but what viewers do not know is how I had to compromise lighting, motion, depth of focus, color palettes, and production design in order to work within the limitations of the camera. Viewers don't see the many hours of pre-production tests we went through to expose issues and build solutions. Viewers rarely understand the limitations we faced in post-production. In other words I had to build my entire shoot around solving camera problems, rather than around my story and setting. For me it was an experimental film - I wanted to try shooting on a DSLR, and it worked. I learned a lot, AND we got a decent picture done. However, the process would be entirely unacceptable for a studio production. You mentioned The Creator - the camera, a much newer and more capable camera than my antique 7D, was in the hands of an expert team. They understood the limitations and the techniques to get around the camera limitations - and they could use those techniques on their film. They remained fairly free to use the camera, and they had the expertise, and time, to get around the limits it did present. 99.9999% of people using low end gear do not have the knowledge and experience to achieve that. Even worse they do not have the time to solve any unexpected issue. When you shoot on a Red, Alexa, or Venice ... those limitations disappear. You are freer to shoot as you see fit for the benefit of your story and vision. You are rarely, if ever, at risk of running into "strange problems," and having to stall production to solve for issues.
What you're saying may have some merit and truth to it, but I guarantee you if it's well shot and lit, not a single soul on this earth would question what camera it was shot on- and if that's what the viewer is thinking about then you've done it wrong. Especially with the post workflows that have developed over the past half decade. The pocket 4K is old news at this point there are plenty of newer and better cameras that are much more comparable to high-end cinema cameras in terms of their image. As a DP, I've found that the biggest weakness of most digital cameras these days is moire. Most mirrorless and prosumer, digital cinema cameras exclude an OLPF. Why?? who the hell knows- some say it's to maximize resolution it's really just a mistake in my opinion though. The reason that Hollywood still leans towards more expensive cameras, such as the Alexa or Venice is because they are reliable and there are lots of input output options. These days it's extremely diminishing returns when it comes to image quality when comparing prosumer versus high-end cinema cameras.
Cinematography isn't about the camera. It's about the vision of the cinematographer. All artistic mediums have limitations. The limitations of film and video and digital video technology are what define the masterpieces of each era. They are like fingerprints, and the way in which the cinematographer works with them separate geniuses from mediocrities. Shoot what moves you with the camera you have at hand, and tell your story. let lesser lights geek-out and pine for better cameras hoping to fix their lack of skill and vision. You have a film to make!
The only people who are really paying attention to most of this stuff are us the people behind the cameras and the editors. The people who actually watch the movies for enjoyment don’t care and not paying attention to the small amount of noise in the shadows or color science etc. Yes we want great quality shown in our work but only the filmmakers care about the small nuances of the final project. IMO
@wolfcrew Here’s what I mean. Yes the Alexa sensor captures more raw info than just about any other sensor, but that doesn’t make some kind of space magic it’s just a well designed sensor. I’ve got a buddy who’s working as dp for a series on prime and I tried to get him to check into the URSA 12k cause after working with the footage myself and blown on to the big screen, cause I have a theatre system for editing, the difference from the Alexa classic and in some areas the 35,(again some not all I still have some issues with the 12k classic) is I think in the URSA’s favor. in fact it’s why the commercial opening at the emmie’s for, if I remember right, 2022, was filmed on the 12k classic and not the Alexa because I and other dp’s find it’s closer to film due to it’s symmetrical color patter rather than a bayer and resolutions closer to theoretical film resolutions. But my friend was convinced that arri has specs that aren’t listed like 19stops of dr. And I’m just saying this view of cinema as needing to be $30k+ and being magical is dumb because all you need to do it look at the factories for production and R&D and it should not be $75k I’m not saying it should be even$12k and I’m not saying your wrong that real cinema is expensive and thinking otherwise it’s unhealthy. I’m just saying when RED is charging over $800 for one 500gb memory card and blackmagic’s new m.2 drives are $1700 for 16TB included with the camera mind you, they’re really just charging extra because they can. Not to say it’s not better than the cheap stuff but it’s still overpriced from what it should be.
I have a 97" OLED. I sit 7' away and find DVD and low bitrate content unacceptable. I bought expensive AI software to remove MPEG-2 artifacts as best I could. I totally understand having expensive cameras.
Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/free-ebook/
NAH YOU CAN'T BE MAKING AN EBOOK ABOUT THAT AFTER SHITTING ON BUDGET CAMS
It’s funny how medium or mediocre DPs are always talking about cameras capabilities, it’s so frustrating. Basically they are saying that you are not a real cinematographer if you can’t afford Sony Venus, Sony Burano, alexa mini or LF… don’t listen to them fellows, the only ones who are talking us cam specs are youtubers and influencers! What grown up cinematographers are teaching us is to focus on the story, camera specs are only one step in telling visuals history, storytelling is a universe not a camera brand or specs. I encourage you all whom aspire to be a cinematographer to listen to Roger Deakins
I don't aspire to be a filmmaker, I just want to make my humble RUclips 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!
You’re welcome!
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!
Voce então discorda com o cara?
Excellent thank you for defending the GH5 which guy this grossly misrepresented by showing terrible footage to critique
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
Facts
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.
Exactly. I had a cinematographer with an Arri Alexa Mini. No better image than that.
You did no mention a thing about the lenses.
That's too much of information to just put in 1 video
A Lens is just as important or more than the camera and will directly affect the look of a film on the screen.@@NicoTomatala
Keep things constant, and the differences still stand.
An expensive lens can’t compensate for the poor choice of an image capturing device. It’s like a new paint job on a broken down car. It looks great, but you’re not going anywhere.
@glennac a good lens will greatly increase image quality in any camera
I’m not at the highest levels on set yet, but my honest opinion for why “cheap cameras” aren’t used on set is simple. Reliability.
The Alexa series in particular is reliable, strong, built to take a beating, and always works. Also, when it comes to professional filmmaking, it’s less about “expensive” and more about “the standard” or “the best.”
When you’re spending 100s of 1000s or millions of dollars on a project, you damn well better film it on the best system you can. That comes down to the camera, the lenses, the monitors, the focus system, the wireless video, the tripod, the dolly, the jib, the lights, the stands, the audio gear, the memory cards, the laptop(s), the headphones, the walkie talkies, the carts…….at every step of the process, producers want to know that they made sure that everything works and it won’t be a problem on set.
It’s not just about the image, it’s also about the workflow. Knowing it’s going to work every single time.
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.
The problem is that cheap cameras will not allow you to access the raw unprocessed sensor bayer data before it reaches the image processor. Even blackmagic RAW, Canon RAW and Prores RAW wont allow you to do that.
The only cheap camera's that I'm aware of being able to reproduce rich tonal gradations with the same level of quality as the RED DSMC 1/2 and the ARRI are the Canon cameras that can run Magic Lantern.
They won't reach anywhere above 12 stops of DR but within those 12 stops you'll be blown away by the way the sensor captured and reproduces light
The original blackmagics that recorded cinemaDNG could also do it.
@@wakkowarner8810 yeah but i dont usually count them since they're 2-3MP sensors and have a color resolution of 25% of that in the reds and blues and 50% in greens. That's way too low in my book. Minimum for me is 8MP aka 4K and it must downsampled if it's 1080p
Tonal range has nothing to do with Dynamic range. I'm speaking about color gradations. Older Film stock, which had 12 stops of DR or lower, has better tonal range than any 13+ stops or whatever low budget camera today.
@@wolfcrow You didn't even try understand what I said...
Dynamic range has a lot to do with tonal range. If you've ever worked with HDR post production, you'll quickly realise how your camera actually sees the world and what dynamic range actually is. The two are intertwined. The thing about rec.709 is that it easily gives you false assumptions about the way see light. If you ever grade a video which has 9 stops of DR and one that has 12, you'll notice it in HDR. It's like looking at the sky and your eye being unable to tell that the sky is brighter where the sun is that where the clouds are.
I technically disagree with you on film. Digital has far surpassed film. The only place it still lacks is color resolution. If 35mm film has 6K worth of color resolution, you'd need a 12K CMOS sensor to capture the same color information. 8K is close but not there yet. And this is all assuming you capture the unaltered and unprocessed raw bayer signal.
This has nothing to do with budget cameras. It's a flaw within the bayer filter design itself. The solutions to this have been sensors such as the foveon sensor.
All it takes is a 12k sensor with raw output and computer resources that can handle it to come along to wipe the floor with 35mm film.
@@wakkowarner8810 Sigma fp does CDNG too. It's also 4k .
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.
It can be done but I don't think you understood what he said. The higher end cameras have the capability of capturing light linearly and letting you access the result as raw bayer data that is unbelievably rich in gradations. A measly 1080p signal from a camera like that will blow the socks off any 4K/6K prosumer camera today
@@shueibdahiryou should ask before you assume.
Let me take this back to the 19th Century. The Daguerreotype has the highest resolution of any still-photograph & that process was made in the 19th Century.
You are talking about the technical specifications that someone could enjoy but it is not necessary to make a motion-picture.
I have been a still-photographer for 25 years & I know that someone could make a camera out of a shoe box & get a photograph just as someone could purchase a Leica & take a photograph.
Perhaps you are confusing high-tech with availability?
A lot of cinematographers would want the latest high-tech gear but a seasoned cinematographer could use whatever is available & make an image; especially if they understand how they want to use Light. Every kind of camera relies on Light.
@@shaunlaisfilmyou are not saying anything contrary to the video
@@dangerrayy, if that is the case, would that not be adding to the discussion & opinion of Wolf Crow?
Thank you for sharing your opinion. Enjoy your day & new week.
@@shaunlaisfilm Facts!
I shoot with a 11 year old consumer camera EOS 700D) and manage to get RAW video toe to toe with todays best mirrorless cameras but in terms of tonal range and gradations far surpassing them apart from 8K ones.
The old Canon Sensors pre 77D era with the Off-Die Analog to Digital Converters are amazing even with their low dynamic range
"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.
The results in The Creator are obvious to see, especially when you watch it in theaters. The FX3 doesn't make sense in this film's case. But it's their prerogative to do whatever they please.
A lot of critics saw Oppenheimer trailer before The Creator. They said the color reproduction and resolution stood out so much over The Creator. There is definitely visible quality difference in those sensors. Thank you for actually showing the artifacts in that film.
@@wolfcrow Ah, they didn't use film in the making of the creator. Remember film is a long plastic strip with holes and emulsion, a totally different medium to digital photography/videography, which uses zeros and ones.
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.
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.
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.
Please know there are a lot of us who appreciate you.
I appreciate that!
There is an obsessive fascination with cameras and image quality due to the rise of digital technology, but the truth shows us that great cameras don't make great films. Some of greatest films in history were filmed on equipment far less capable than what's available today on the high street. To quote arguably one of the greatest directors of all time: "I think that those that are emerging are so incredibly talented. These young…directors…know the job well. But it’s not so often that they really have anything to say." -Ingmar Bergman, (2002)
While there is certainly a difference, I think that a lot of your claims are drastically overstated and perpetuate the mindset that causes indie filmmakers to spend far too much of their budgets trying to get an Alexa over things that make a much bigger difference in the image quality such as lighting, production design, and number of shooting days. I’ve seen many lower budget films shot on cheaper cameras that looked amazing (yes, in a theater), because they didn’t blow their whole budget on an Alexa. I’ve also seen SO MANY films, made on similar budgets and shot on an Alexa, that looked very cheap because they didn’t have the money for more important things.
I remember a friend who worked on a horror film with a 500k budget. The director/producer wanted to shoot Alexa and, to accommodate that, scheduled the shoot for 8 pages a day. When the DP pointed out that this wouldn’t give him enough time to light, the director just told him, “but that’s why we paid for the Alexa; so it will look professional!” In contrast, I know another friend who directed a feature shot on a mirrorless camera for less than 100K and it looked BETTER on the big screen because they had more time to light and shoot.
I myself produced another film in which the director also really wanted an Alexa even though it meant camera was almost 1/3rd of our whole budget. I told him (and the other producer) that we could potentially get 50% more shooting days if we went with a cheaper camera package (and by that I meant a RED Dragon-X or maybe an Ursa-Mini Pro). They felt the Alexa was worth the sacrifice. I transcoded the footage myself and worked with the colorist myself. I loved the look of the film but it wasn’t a large increase over what we would have gotten with the other two cameras (I’d used them on previous commercials I’d directed and seen the raw footage as well). More importantly, I believe that many scenes would have looked BETTER if we’d saved that money for more shooting days because it would have meant we could have shot certain outdoor scenes at a better time of day AND had more time to light on indoor scenes. I also KNOW that it would have meant we would have gotten more coverage AND better performances of our actors who needed a few more takes and a bit more time to get into the scene.
As is everything in life, it's all a balancing act.
In a $100 million film, the cost to rent an Alexa LF is nothing.
I agree with everything you said here, but I think you left out one more key reason that Hollywood studios use the cameras they do, and that is reliability. If you ever work in the camera department on a Hollywood project, you aren't likely to be using some new sleek camera just purchased. You are going to be using rented gear, or something pulled from a studio warehouse shelf, that has been around for a few years and been used on several productions. It is going to be beat up, have dings and scratches, and almost certainly there will be a few things that don't work quite right on it.
I've worked on a few productions that used big, $100,000+ camera rigs, but these cameras always came with issues. When the cameras were checked out, there would be a "discrepancy report." This was basically a list of what didn't work right or was damaged on that camera- Things like certain ports that had been damaged and no longer worked, or the battery latch didn't latch any longer, so you'd have to use gaff tape to help secure the battery.
But the cameras themselves would hold up to this kind of abuse. So they could keep going out on production after production for years. And it is not abnormal for these cameras to be kept around for 5, 10, even 15 years sometimes. A more affordable cinema camera, I don't think, would survive the kind of abuse that typical Hollywood studio equipment endures. Over ten years, that $30,000 Alexa is only $3,000 a year. So that is in the range of something like an FX3 or Pocket 6K, which probably wouldn't survive the abuse of large productions for much longer than a year anyway.
Great point. Some of the high-end video cameras are pretty reliable too. You could always just buy a new one when it breaks, and it's still cheaper than an Alexa!
There is no gear abuse. Pros treat their ools well
@@andersistbesser Go work at a Hollywood rental house, or the equipment room at a studio, and then come back here and tell us how there is no gear abuse.
Also, Hollywood doesn't own cameras, they rent cameras. They have to because if something goes wrong, they need a replacement camera immediately. They can't wait to buy another camera or something like that. Any "budgeted" movie, would always rent, even if the filmmaker owns equipment simply due to this factor. The insurance policy also doesn't cover personal equipment and sure you can always rent your camera to the show for an extra buck, why would you do that on a low budget production? In the end, you'll always want to rent and currently, cameras like the Venice 1 and Alexa Mini's, can be rented for not much money and they're both excellent cameras.
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.
What? 😅 everything that he said is absolutely true. I m a filmmaker with bmpcc4k...and yes my camera can't beat arri Alexa or red or any Hollywood cinema camera...he never said that is not enough to create a beautiful film or I can't be pro...he said that it's ok to work around with the limitations and not fool our selfs. The creator is an a good example . It's not the first movie that was filmed with low budget camera... they did it for the promotion... every RUclipsr promote the movie because of the fx3 . It was a clever move to advertise the movie without spending money....but a bad move to make that kind of movie with this camera. The image they produce was mehhh ... Another example...There's a reason that the movie Blair witch project used a VHS camera...
Any way.
you misunderstood what he was saying. He says the truth. Like it or not. That doesn't mean that you can't create a Great movie with a cheap camera. Your canvas has alot of stuff to keep in order to produce something wonderful. And the first step is to understand your limitations and use them as opportunities. 😊 Or to understand what is the "character" of your film and choose the right equipment.
Thank you!
The Creator is a great showcase. It was graded by Fotokem and ILM - if they couldn't fix the problems then you and I have no chance. Also, the hours they would have spent fixing things that we can't see would have easily paid for the Sony Venice - with better colors while retaining the same look.
Not forgetting the $70,000 Kowa anamorphic lenses, large lighting team used in the dome production and heavy grading to get the exactlook they wanted @wolfcrow
in what document it says that vfx is used for cameras flaw... in creator
Someone sent me this video, and I think this take is really off the mark, this narrator does not understanding Hollywood production. The expense of renting pro gear is a drop in the bucket compared to crew and talent cost and since they are spending millions on their production, they might as well spend thousands on their camera gear. Pros use professional cameras for their robust features, high end lenses, timecode, connectivity. But the truth is, when It comes to sensor image quality, there is very little different between the high end pro and the prosumer level.
Reliability, familiarity, and workflow of established cinema cameras can also save a lot of time for productions.
I was curious about the color bit rate of a Alexa 35. I absolutely loved how it looked in Alien Romulus and Aquiet place day one.
Black magic raw is 12 bit. Arri raw on the alexa 35 is 13.
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
When we talk about color grading and image motion, the differences are significant. Let's not kid ourselves! Try to pan with different cameras and you will see the judder difference.
Any camera can give you a good footage, when you're filming static subject on a sunny day. What he's talking about, is the limitations you may face, and the cost of overcoming them.
@@barmalini its the opposite. Its mainly during the sunny mid day light that you understand the importance of the 3 more stops that have the lf or venice because the contrazt and highlights are higher. During a overcast day any 10bit camera would do the job
@@viorelrosca4091 yes the jelly effect will be higher with cheap cams but a real life shooting is not about just that. I bet 90% of people working in the industry would have never said anything in the theater watching the creator.
Im saying mirroless are as good but its far from being night and day like before.
I’ve shot projects with both, i’m not a spécialist but its not that much better.
Its more reliable, better overall, but its also by pretension and to justify a big fee and budget that some teams are working with red or arri. It makes the client happy and feel like his money is well spent.
@@hadrienpicard6554 a bride in a white dress on sunny day will have less contrast than a train station at night. So let's simply say contrast when we mean contrast. While I was referring mainly to high ISO noise, unlikely to be faced on sunny day.
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.
It always seems so until you get there.
You do great content. Just my 2 cents. Thanks you for your work.
This isn’t about gatekeeping 😂 it’s about image quality
Why not just make a team that way you're not competing? Hell, I'd love to find a team that is knowledgeable and can make filming fun.
I love how you mentioned color tonality rather than color science as the latter is down to how the raw data is processed and encoded (also related to aesthetics), not because of the camera sensor. Cameras should be chosen for how much information it captures, not how filmic or video-like the color science looks as that can be manipulated with a mathematical transform/LUT.
Honestly I think if there are really obvious differences between the visual image quality between prosumer cameras and Cinema cameras, that's just as much of a benefit as a downside. Having unpredictable quirks in the image isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it was there wouldn't be apps to replicate the look of disposable film cameras of VHS cameras you could download, but there are. And in the cinema world, people use anamorphic or vintage lens not because it makes their films look more accurate to how they looked in person, but to make the film look more visually interesting. At the end of the day, while saying something like 'this camera is more true to life' might be objective, saying 'this camera looks the best' is just a mater of opinion.
I can’t tell for sure, but I see “qualitative” differences between cameras. As an example, I shoot underwater documentaries, and have used Sony Mirrorless and Canon Cinema more recently. I am a one man crew… color grading has been really hard for me through the years - water can be nasty on colors. However, since I started working with the Canon C300 MIII my life got easier, and I was able to focus more on the story. Even when shooting under conditions that are supposed to be identical, the Canon grades almost perfect with one minute of work, but the same with the Sony used to take me 2-3 hours to do. I have no agenda, I am a one man shop, and all I will say is that there is a difference between my $15k Canon and my $3k Sony that makes a difference to my story.
I don’t think the sensor is the only factor. But rather…the entire circuitry and cooling system. They do make a difference in many sense, yet story is above all. The smaller mirrorless cameras have a certain look to them that can be used for certain things.
It would be great if you can give us a contrast between the quality side by side with real examples,
you used some terms that are hard to understand without watching a sample footage/clip.
"The right tool for the (specific) job" .. Good thing is that technology advances: Take the FUJIFILM GFX 100 II (with an Pl-mount adapter, a V-mount power setup and the usual other bits and pieces. Result? You spend less than 20k (without lens) and you are a visibly huge step closer to the "this cam is worth a house" look. Love it for that reason (And it takes great Photographs as well ) ...
Youve skipped on 2 major contributors: Lemses and Lighting. The sensor can only puckup what the lens sees. There's a heck of a difference between a $1000 lens and $100k PL lens.
Keep all things constant, and the differences are still obvious. That was the point I was making.
I thought hollywood had used the Canon 5D MKii in some instances(?)..
The best camera is the one you have. Filmmaking is the most expensive artform in the world. These sorts of critiques in a way are meant to break the spirit of those coming up and learning the craft of cinematography. Cameras don't define your worth, nor abilities. They are tools, period. Technology has made the entry into filmmaking more accessible to the masses, but certain RUclipsrs have found ways of trying to separate themselves from the rest of us with a brand of camera. Cameras don't make you better. Intentionality, practice of the craft is what makes us better. Elitism is not it.
Facts he wants to reduce the competition
A Canon R5 C (has a fan and Netflix approved) along with a Ninja V+ using 8K ProRes RAW HQ (you get Canon Log2) … processed/graded and presented in HDR can absolutely handle the necessary tonal gradations and dynamic range to look great on a 4K movie screen or large OLED television. Not knowing how each step in the process could potentially add compression to your footage is very important. I record everything in ProRes. I stay in that format throughout editing in FCPX and final output file is ProRes. Yes, it takes up a lot of drive space, but it’s also pristine quality with nearly imperceivable compression artifacts. You don’t want those on a big screen, they are amplified exponentially. If it has to be compressed after that (delivery to RUclips or Netflix, or … anything else) it will hold up well.
The rolling shutter makes the R5 a tough sell for camera movements. I love the image, which is why I used the R5 (The R5C wasn't available).
@@wolfcrow But do you know that there is open gate and global shutter dslr for 2k$. You definitely sound not up to date regarding camera technology.
@@monsterandmasterLOL.
The Red Komodo has a global shutter for under $10k.
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'.
By the time you fix issues in grading (even if that's possible, which it isn't) you've already paid for the Alexa in hours anyway.
As this video states, know the limitations of your camera and make the best film you can within those limitations. When I saw "The Creator" in a cinema, it was so muddy and dark I walked out before the denouement (not to mention the derivative story-line). Yet, two of the most visually interesting films I have seen are Sean Baker’s breakout indie “Tangerine” and Steven Soderbergh's "HIgh Flying Bird", both shot on an iPhone. Tangerine was shot on an iPhone 5 and High Flying Bird on iPhone 8, believe it or not! The image quality of these two films are nowhere near cinema quality, but it doesn't matter because both films used lighting, set design, frame composition and actor blocking in highly creative ways to tell engaging stories (unlike The Creator). Soderbergh in particular composed his shots with graphic architectural lines in his background, and he built depth with prop placement in his mid and foregrounds because he knew these compositions would be enhanced on the iPhone 8 inherent wide angle lens. Understanding your camera limitations is one thing, but understanding how to be a creative within the confines of those limitations separates the men from the boys.
Same with "Unsane" which was shot on iPhone and released in cinemas (at least in US)
David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” was filmed with a Sony camcorder. Visual aspect doesn’t matter if the film has an interesting story to tell. If I want visuals then I watch something of Ron Fricke.
A good story, progressing at the right pace, with good audio - these are enough to keep the audience hooked. No one is going to notice the technical subtleties mentioned in this video.
lol I agree! Audio and story are king. You can have the greatest video quality in the world with a million dollar budget but if the audio and story are crap the audience will check out. However if you are paying Nicholas Cage $25 million dollars you can bet they won't shoot it on a $3,000 consumer camera they will shoot it on a $100,000 movie camera.
I agree...to a point. No one can touch that Arri color science.
@@TeddyRumble and that's great, IF you can afford one!
@@Drrezzina used Arri Alexa, in good working condition, can now run $6,000. Or rent one. Or hire a cinematographer who owns one. I shot my short Amy's Baby on a Alexa mini...by hiring a guy who owned one. When I saw the raw footage, I almost cried at the superb image. Wow.
I agree with everything. I’m a dslr BMPCC shooter and I have to agree with everything said.
I agree- I think we need a follow up video showing that degradation and showing a camera getting worse with overheating .
If you want examples of overheating as a problem, look up the difference between everyday use cameras and cameras used for astrophotography (since those kinds of photography take dozens or even hundreds of long exposures, the heat starts to be visible and that's why astro cameras have an in built cooling system)
Love the video on Spielberg's technique shooting movies. Today the word 'film' is used too often when you talk 'digital.' It can be confusing. Are you talking about using film or are you talking about using a digital camera???????
What you can do if you haven't is to explore the difference between using film vs. a digital sensor. They are so different that going into depth would be great. Film uses grain and it looks much different than a 'movie' (not a film) using a digital sensor. I've seen the difference as I have been shooting stills since 1972. Today I use a digital camera mainly because of the expense of film and the poor processing by labs. Cost too much. Yet, even pictures of people I have taken years ago using a film camera, make doesn't matter, using Tri-X and making an 11x14 print. The grain gives it a unique texture. Digital won't do it. It's just different. So, when using words, and words are ultimately important, use the correct term. Filmmaking uses film. You are making a movie (moving pictures). Digital is in a league of its own. You are a journalist. Accuracy is important if you are trying to get your message out.
By no objective measure does the Venice 2 look twice as good as the FX3. By no objective measure does Arri ever look like the most detailed image. I really enjoy a lot of your essays, but you veered into hand-waving voodoo on this one.
It does, when you consider all the factors that make up an image. But if you don't believe it, walk the path!
@@wolfcrow RUclips comments are not a very good place to hold a conversation, but don't you think such bold claims deserve at least a little evidence? Had you said the Arri Alexa 35 has superior dynamic range, I'd nod my head. But when you say "expensive cameras look better for reasons I can't show" I scratch my head.
You. Are. Wrong.
Arri is the best looking image, bar none.
Being able to easily grade an image from a higher quality camera makes life easier. Trying to learn how to grade on a low quality camera is like trying to learn how to become a racecar driver in a model T car - You might be a very good driver, but never know because you can't get your hands on race car.
Little mention here of the value of 'production tools' - you need to show the image to the director, the producters, art department, make up, a solid SDI is going to make this happen. Any lens thats not a PL will have backlash from the focus motor which will jerk the image. Most cheap cameras are not solid enough to pull focus. Then those cine lenses.. sure they look OK.. but its all about fast lens changes that work with the remote focus for the 1st a/c. Now be in namibia and drop your alexa.. you can get one on a bike from Joburg. You keep shooting. .. its nothing about image and all about keeping every department in the production fully in motion. Jam synch time code.. that will be a few $$$ saved in post. its all about production tools
Way more goes into a professional image than the camera body. Lenses, light, production design, wardrobe, sound are all way more important than the body you are shooting on. That's why the Creator looks so good.
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.
No one has surpassed Arri color science
I have made a few short films and a micro budget film with my son. While good equipment helps I think the most important part of any filmmaking kit is the nut behind the camera. If you have a big entourage of DPs, grips etc, then you can probably afford to buy or rent an expensive camera and lenses but for micro budgets, where you are the camrea, sound, lighting, DP, director etc rolled into one then I feel most canon dslr cameras and mirrorless cameras that can do at least 1080p are sufficient for a film festival. A great filmmaker/director could make a classic with an inexpensive dslr or mirrorless camera or even an iphone while an inexperienced filmmaker will make sh$t regardless of the camera they use. Thats what I think and for a while I was obsessed with getting a great camera but realise that what the main factor in the final output of my film is my own ability behind the camera nd recording good audio as well as good editing and a good script to film a story. I hope that one day I will be at a level to fully utilise an expensive camera but at the moment what holds my films back is not so much the camera but my own inexperience and I find it a challenge to make a great film with what I have and no longer am obsessed with having a high priced cinematic camera which I can't afford. My Lumix G85 M43 camera is plenty camera for my current ability.
What do you think of the Blackmagic cameras then?
I agree with you. But I have a question? A couple of Hollywood directors shot entire films on a cell phone. How does that fit in with what you just said?
By the way, you're by far my most favorite cinematography channel.
No one stops anyone from filming with whatever they want, as long as the budget permits. If you watch Soderbergh's films shot on the iPhone, there are terrible motion artifacts even visible on small screens. I would pick a $1,000 mirrorless camera over a $1,500 iPhone.
I never saw it. I knew he did the film on an iPhone. But your observation is exactly what I thought what happened. Take care.
I remember using my Fujifilm 0.8 megapixel camera years ago when I took a picture of my fx lightsaber. They way in which it picked up the color, made it look exactly like how the lightsabers looked in the movies. But then, years later, a had a higher definition megapixel camera, about 16 megapixels, and made by Sony, and when I shot the same lightsaber, it just didn't look the same. Each camera has its own look and feel, and so producers make their projects with that in mind usually..
ARRI is the industry standard but by no means required to make a good film.
The video is not saying a person can’t make a “good film” using inexpensive equipment. It’s saying try making a good LOOKING film projected on a huge cinema screen. That’s the point. If your target presentation is a smartphone or computer screen, then plenty of cameras will do. But if you want professional results on a cinema screen, then the poor choice of equipment will show.
@@glennac no it won’t. I have screened films and seen many screened films on non arri or red cams and they looked fine. This is all weird.
Hey, what about the Venice and Reds?
I agree 100% with on everything you are saying it here, you get what you pay for it, no $5k camera can come close to Arri Alexa that cost $40-65k 👍🏻
Or more
Thank you for explaining why the Alexa picture has always looked like a film-era Hasselblad to me - in other words, top-class. You went so much farther, though, and it was a revelation.
You’re welcome!
I guess I'm shelling out for the C400 instead of the R5C then. I mean if Philip Bloom uses it...
I would sort of maybe disagree. The biggest reason for me is post flexibility, reliability/ low likelihood of unexpected failure and speed/ease of use on set. Visible image quality is part of that, but I think of it more as "lack of image problems that cannot be easily fixed in post". I would also say having tested both that a Komodo X is more than good enough (and looks almost the same - like maybe even the same - as a Raptor). Heck, even an Epic X will get you there. Older expensive cameras (now cheaper used) had much better quality control and didn't have skimp on components and careful manufacturing. They will still give you amazing results now, at an affordable price. A DSLR or BM camera? No.
given that some Star Wars Movie were made on half the size sensor of a micro 4/3 camera, I beg to differ. Lots of blockbuster movies have technical defaults but guess what, nobody cares, as long as it's barely noticeable. You only see it because you graded your movies, while the public barely noticed it.
An asterisk that comes with the Arri footage is that the people doing the lighting are professionals who only do lighting and have done lighting full time for a long time, compared to the indie people. Also, because of the film's bigger budgets with an Arri the lighting crew has more resources with which to make the best lighting. More experience, more full-time professional big budget experience, and more resources. Add to this, highly paid full-time professional colorists with much more experience than indie colorists who have another full-time job to pay the bills. These things will make the footage from an Arri look better than a low budget camera.
Around 2011 I read of a big time, Hollywood Director who had a number of his Director friends over. In his home screening room he showed them 4 film clips. Afterwards, he then told them that one of the clips was shot on a Canon 5D MK IV. NONE of the professional Hollywood Directors could pick out which clip it was. That was then.
I agree when zooming in to finished footage that you can see artifacts with the cheaper cameras, but we don't watch films in theaters "zoomed in." I understand a large screen will reveal more, but I don't remember any average movie goer complaining about the quality of The Creator footage when it was showing in theaters. My contention is that we can analyze and compare side by side footage shot on a $4K camera and a $300K camera and see the differences.....but the audience never sees movies this way, and thus the difference is not revealed to them, and they know no difference.
It would be interesting to see the same lighting crew, using the same equipment, and the same colorists, all used on big budget Hollywood movies shoot a scene with a $4,000 camera, and THEN compare the footage to an ARRI camera. This would be an apples to apples comparison. However, it is possible that if this were done, and the difference in footage was negligible, the budget for future film could be negatively impacted.
I could be wrong, but I don't think much of the ARRI footage shown in this video was from a big-budget Hollywood film with a team of union colorists.
Except for Blade Runner 2049 and The Creator, none! Having said that, a good crew and production budget can make a big difference.
@@wolfcrow - I would imagine it is difficult to get funding for a film project if a person says "Yeah, we're going to shoot this on a Sony FX3," and that this is a big part why we haven't seen more films in theaters shot on such cameras. Also, if more films in theaters were shot on such cheaper cameras...imagine the threat to Arri. It's possible this engrained part of Hollywood may be protected as well.
I appreciate all the points made in this video. Yes, of course the Arri has abilities a $4,000 camera does not. My contention is that the "regular" people who go to watch movies in theaters, not filmmakers, won't notice the difference when the same people who work on Arri shot projects are also working on the FX3 projects. It's the same thing like with the original Top Gun movie. "Regular" people were blown away by the flying fighter jet shots. However, my close friend who was in the Air Force at the time the movie was released said "No, it's nothing like that," and he hated the film. I believe this is the same situation with the "cheap" camera and Arri comparison. Filmmakers know the difference. "Regular" people who go to the movies don't have that knowledge, and therefore don't see anything different or "wrong."
@@wolfcrow - I just learned a 2018 Hollywood movie titled "The Possession of Hannah Grace" was shot entirely on the Sony A7S II.
I also just remembered that "cheap" cameras have been used in tandem with Arri cameras on a number of Hollywood film projects due to the much smaller form factor and and ease of movement in tight places. The footage was intermixed in the released film, and the audience never knew.
Here is a link to the video I saw that covers the use of the Sony A7s II in The Possession of Hannah Grace. It is very well done.
ruclips.net/video/gjIyUoq0xRY/видео.htmlsi=mUWHUTLFrIm9v0w-
Arri still wins, all things being equal. Sorry, it's true
Parts of "Crank: High Voltage" were filmed with a consumer grade Canon VIXIA HF-10 and XH-A1 that you could pick up at your local big box store for a song.
He had super valid points here... Of course you can use whatever camera to make a movie no doubt but executing a movie at a high level is expensive and time is money so having a camera system that doesn't easily fall apart when subjected to the elements and allows you to work through the day hassle free is definitely key.
I'm not sure a GH5 or R5 are a good reference here. They lack in dynamic range and reliability, with the R5 having a record limit and obvious overheating problems and 15ms rolling shutter. FX3 is on par with RED Raptor's rolling shutter speed, same with Alexa. Only Venice 2 has the fastest rolling shutter which is less than 3ms. The A9III is being used on a new film as well, and The Creator had the most organic looking night scenes vs any film so far and one of the best looking VFX.
It's interesting. I thought the night scenes looked sub par.
@@wolfcrow Probably you have a different taste or more into full cinematic-looking lighting. I liked it because it was the most believeable.
I agree with you to a point. Today, streaming is just about taking over from theater screenings! More people in the U.S. are staying home and watching movies that way. While it's true that Netflix has an approved list of specific cameras for their own productions, many films have been sold to them that used cameras NOT on their list. The average movie goer isn't all that concerned with what camera was used on a film. Of course Hollyweird is, because many times, the actors' contract even stipulates that a certain type of camera be used. I just think that there are way too many filmmakers out there and a lot of them and their audiences don't honestly care about what a film is shot on. If the budget is there, great...shoot on an Arri or Red, but how many can really afford that? I sure can't. I have invested a ton of money in BMPCC4 and 6K equipment and I think I get really good images out of those. My audience never questions what my films get shot on. I guess if we all owned a 7-11, we could afford an Arri. lol
> I guess if we all owned a 7-11
Wait why did you say that is it because the channel's narrator is Indian?
I am going to get the popcorn out for this one. I think you may have just opened a can of worms dude.
Re-watched with equal pleasure. Questions: (1) Why are so many feature films still shot with Panavision gear and converted to digital? How does the quality compare? (2) Has anyone shot a beautiful small-scale passion project (small fixed set, few actors; I'm thinking of the scale of the Midnight Diner Japanese TV series) using an Alexa or equal? (3) Is it possible to manipulate the image from RED or Sony cameras, et al., to equal the Arri look? (4) What about purchasing an older, used Arri camera? (Potato Jet did this, but I haven't seen a followup report about what he did and how it worked.)
Yup, The Potato did purchase an old Arri. I will tell you the reputation is they are "built like a tank." Arri color science is unsurpassed.
Potato makes his living posting RUclips, so he's got to have you click that video. New gets clicks.
That said, he's posted a couple of videos about the camera, one of which was replacing the PL mount with a Canon EF mount.
Not for the faint of heart.
Steven Soderbergh would disagree because he made many feature-length films with mobile phones, especially with the iPhone. Sometimes it’s style that matters. You can have the best gear and turn in a crappy feature no matter how sharp or precise the image may be; sometimes, the imperfection is what makes the film iconic.
You can get a sigma fp shoot uncompressed raw and use slim raw . One extra step but I have been using past few months and the quality of color is really good
in my deluded fantasies of being a film director, I recall that I really liked the film quality of All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), generally it was made with an Alexa 65 (+3 other cams), but I read that a cheaper alternative for the same look is a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera for around $2000 - which is affordable
Don't fall into that trap.
@@wolfcrow the trap of my delusions or the BlackMagic? lol
@@ytubeanon Are you really comparing an alev 65mm sensor to any bmpcc super35 or full frame sensor? Totally different sensors, no cinemaDNG or Braw is going to look as good as an image from an Alexa 65, never
@@nonameexpdng am I saying that's what I read? yes, obviously, feel free to suggest a cheaper alternative:
"Blackmagic Design offers several cameras that could be considered as alternatives to the Arri Alexa 65. Here are a few notable ones:
1. **Blackmagic URSA Cine 17K**: This camera is still in development and is expected to be available by the end of 2024¹. It features a large-format image sensor (50.8 x 23.3mm) and can capture up to 17K resolution¹. The sensor size is very similar to the Arri Alexa 65¹. While it's expected to be expensive, it's likely to be more affordable than the Alexa 65¹.
2. **Blackmagic URSA Cine 12K**: This camera can shoot at 12K resolution and has a dynamic range of 16 stops¹. It's currently priced at $14,995¹.
3. **Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K (BMPCC 6K)**: This camera is a more budget-friendly option. It can shoot up to 6K resolution and has been compared favorably to the Arri Alexa in terms of image quality³⁴.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 5/2/2024
(1) Blackmagic Teases Groundbreaking 17K Large-Format Cinema Camera. petapixel.com/2024/04/16/blackmagic-teases-groundbreaking-17k-large-format-cinema-camera/.
(2) BMPCC 6K VS Alexa Mini: Blackmagic Camera Comparison. filmjams.com/2020/05/17/bmpcc-6k-vs-alexa-mini-blackmagic-camera-comparison/.
(3) Looking For An Alternative To The Arri Alexa? These 3 Cinema Cameras .... noamkroll.com/looking-for-an-alternative-to-the-arri-alexa-these-3-cinema-cameras-have-you-covered-at-a-lower-pricepoint/.
(4) Thoughts on the Blackmagic Design URSA Cine 17K 65mm Camera. wolfcrow.com/thoughts-on-the-blackmagic-design-ursa-cine-17k-65mm-camera/.
@@nonameexpdng65mm, what the fck are you talking about.. who shoots on these? Are you Nolan?? Gtfo
Are the high end cameras measurably better than affordable cameras? Obviously. Are there valid reasons for choosing a high end camera for a bigger production? Also, obviously.
Is the difference in image quality really noticeable, or even visible to an average viewer? I'd argue no, in most cases it is not, based on my own experience (assuming everyone involved knows their job).
The most important thing really is what is in front of the camera, that is the deciding factor that makes a visible difference between high end productions and low budget ones. Again, this is based on my own experience, which is admittedly limited - i have worked in projects that use high end gear, as well as in projects that use lower end gear. But rarely on projects where these are used side by side, where these can be compared in the exact same circumstances.
The only case this was done through the whole project was a commercial I directed about a decade ago. The main camera was Alexa Mini, the 2nd was Blackmagic Cinema Camera (the original 2,5 K one). At least in this case, though there were visible differences in the ungraded footage, it was no problem to match the two together in the grade well enough to intercut seamlessly.
I've also shot some test clips with humble A6300 side by side with Venice, and while there indeed were differences, they were not nearly as big as i anticipated - especially considering A6300 is 8 bit 4:2:0. I'd argue that if the A6300 footage was intercut with the Venice material from that shoot, it is unlikely anyone would have noticed.
As a side note, in a few weeks, i will be working on an interesting case - i'm woking on the VFX for a feature film shot with Arri, where we will create a composite shot that has Arri footage of the actor comped in with A6700 footage of the background element(s). It will not be side by side, but a split screen. Both will be on the silver screen at the same time. I'm rather confident that the choice for the 2nd camera will not draw attention from the viewers.
I can agree on this for the most part. I think a more primary reason for expensive cameras is exclusivity and, on the practical side, multi-team use. If the budget is high enough, why not use the most expensive. When it camera the department, a lager camera requires a whole department to operate it, creating more jobs on set. Oh and you forgot to mention film cameras, which is all the expensive camera try to replicate. What all filmmakers try to replicate. Good video overall tho 👍
I've seen juddering in plenty of movies, and I've read that it happens when you pan faster than the image width every so many seconds.
So the motion judder is just "feature" of consumer cameras. I was going crazy trying minimize that effect, but only solution I came up with was to just shoot 30 or higher frames per second.
You have some fair points. I also understand why many people disagree with you. You broadly define cheap cameras with a list of qualities only you deem valid. The Creator is a perfect example of why your personal qualifications for a good vs cheap camera is invalid. Ironically enough, you even conclude with your use of the R5 that a cinematographer really should consider the limits of the tool rather than the tool being too cheap to be capable to produce quality.
I highly recommend you check out a video Potato Jet made with an older Arri digital camera. In summary, the camera still produced gorgeous color rendition but lacked in other areas. If I remember the video correctly, he compared it to a Canon C300 MK3 or a Sony A7S MK3. I forget. But ultimately the newer camera was better overall.
I believe the fairest point you made is how a better camera is akin to a better tool to get the job done faster and cheaper. You could consider a multi million dollar project using a $100k camera to avoid spending millions in post to correct noise in footage. Though I would argue that argument is blown out of proportion with The Creator. The VFX cost the most in that movie and it wasn't to correct footage. It's a Sci-Fi movie with tons of add-in post assets. If they toned down the add-ins, such as removing the transparent wheel like things on the androids in the movie, the movie would have cost significantly less.
where can i watch your movies?
I definitely agree with your points here. I’m just a bit more on the side of knowing that although cameras like the Alexa mini are fantastic nearly unmatched workhorses they are still overpriced from what they should be. Not talking about mirrorless here. The best case I think on that is that I know of a handful of cinematographers who wouldn’t dare touch digital and rather use film, but they loved the URSA 12k classic which was originally released at $10k. Granted it’s still more than $2k but I don’t think the Alexa 35 is really worth its asking price. It’s definitely worth a ton don’t get me wrong but we all kinda know we’re getting up-charged for a name. But if you got the Arri name go for it I guess right?
The camera companies that produce cheap cinema cameras are not doing well, business-wise. If it were so easy and cheap many manufacturers would have matched a 14-year old ALEV sensor by now.
@@wolfcrow no I agree from a business perspective. As much as I love Blackmagic their URSA line isn’t used that much even though I hear a lot of good things from dp’s like its use on “Rise” But I do wonder sometimes if the price inflation is what makes a dp think of its value rather than how it performs in the real world. Case in point the burano with its rough ir pollution and only shooting RAW LT for 30k I’m disappointed and agree that it’s a fantastic camera and whoops the pants off of their cheap cameras like the fx9 but for 30k I mean come on guys.
This video sets a lot of the points I argue with my friend who rents film equipment. I see he is right in many things and I am also right in a few... Ive seen so many movies shot with arri looking bad and others shot with BMCC4K looking good that I keep thinking that lights and lenses are 90% of the magic. But so many other things come from the body. So Yeah I guess you and him may have a few good valid points.
🙌🙌
Agree 100%
Recently directed a 5 part series which premiered at IMAX here.
Shot it on Komodos with DZO glass. Fantastic results. I knew it was gonna look good but damn. While not a low light camera the Komodo does pretty well as long as you know what you’re doing.
Totally agree 👍🏻amazing video and aloot ot non professional videographer don't understand coz they don't have experience.
What about cameras like the Netflix approved Sony fx3? That costs a few thousand. I know the point is on the big screen and they’re primarily streaming but they do have movies that go to theatres
Well… that’s debatable! Let’s go back in time, and remember the 2008-2012 when the cinema cameras such as Red One and the Alexa were almost the only choice when choosing to shoot digital, and none of them come close to the FX3. Remember the days when you hated to use DOF adapters to get shallow depth of field??? Come on man, I can use any blackmagic camera and get great quality, good enough to be projected.
The cameras that will be coming out in the next few years will be rivalling the Alexa in many ways. We will be getting global shutter, 14 stops of DR and full frame open gate. In the end the only limitation of making a good film is not going to be down to the cameras used, it will come down to anything but that.
Fingers crossed.
Bad puns and dad jokes aside I love this video. I might have phrased certain things a little bit differently or used different examples. But on balance his thesis is 100% correct, and I will unapologetically using the bullet points from this video to make the case for not shooting on a cheap camera when other options are available. Sometimes people just need to be made aware that they have more options than they realized. Thanks for putting this together.
On the technical side, your claims just don’t bear out what I’ve seen with my own lying eyes. There are plenty of cameras under 10k that produce amazing results when shooting RAW. Does a Venice or Alexa look BETTER than cheaper cameras? Of course! Do they look drastically better to the extent that the average person will notice? Not in most situations. It’s odd you keep bringing up The Creator because I certainly didn’t see people leaving the theater saying, “that movie looked like it was shot on a cheap camera!” I wasn’t aware they used an FX3 until recently and I wouldn’t have been surprised had someone told me it was shot on a Venice, Alexa, or Red Raptor VV (and I’m definitely pickier than the average cinema-goer).
I’m not a DP but I’ve been in the business for a while and, though I tend to work in the lower-budget range, I’ve had the privilege of knowing a lot of people on big budget shoots. You’ve shot some lovely work and I’m happy some of it has gotten a theatrical release in India. But you haven’t shot big budget films either. The camera package is an incredibly small part of the overall budget so there really isn’t a reason for them to try to save money on a cheaper package. When I’ve talked to bigger DPs about cameras these days, they spend a lot more time discussing features, workflow, and IO instead of image quality. This wasn’t always the case. When the original Alexa was released it was heads and shoulders above other digital cameras in many respects. But the difference is FAR LESS drastic today. The vast majority of DPs I know have told me that, when it comes to image quality, things have never been closer (though they still obviously have their preferences).
One of the best looking shows I’ve seen is Better Call Saul (and I’ve watched it on a 65 inch OLED). The first three seasons were shot on a Red Dragon 6k which you can now find for a few thousand online; season 4 used an Varicam 35, and the last two seasons were Alexa LF. The whole shoot, they also used a BMPCC4k and later BMPCC6k for certain shots and the DP raved about both of them. I couldn’t tell the difference between cameras/seasons nor could the average person. I certainly don’t think seasons shot with an Alexa LF look any better than those shot with the cheaper Red Dragon.
Machine learning and AI might not take away jobs, but all the issues you have mentioned above is where Machine learning can easily be implemented. Sures its gonna need a large amount of training data but once someone has decided to fix it, that would be really interesting.
Awesome video man! I was totally unaware of what you say about the differences being even greater when you project on the big screen, and that no content creator notices exaggerated differences between, for example, an ARRI and an A7, because they do not reproduce it in media that allows them to observe the difference in image quality.
However, I think it would have been good to mention for all the filmmakers who are starting out, that movies that use "cheap" cameras (assuming that any of us ever achieve a Hollywood budget) will probably never have to worry about that, because our movies will be exhibited in rooms that do not have such detailed screens, or will be seen from the gaming monitors and cell phone screens of someone at home through a streaming service. As a lover of cinema (yes, including blockbusters) I must say that anyone who wants to dedicate to this has to do it for the love of the expression and the art of the image, and not for the pretensions of being famous and seeing their movie projected in an imax theater or something like that. We have to aim towards the audience that our pocket allows, and there is nothing wrong with our movies being watched from cell phones or a normal tv. In fact, it is a help for us because we will not have to worry about the "limitations" of our "cheap" cameras
Thank you! You never know where your movie might land up. Even if you get selected in a good festival with a decent DCP playback it will be watched on a cinema screen.
It’s for the same reason F1 is driven with expensive race cars and not the Toyotas pickups.
Sure, an FX3 can shoot an amazing image, but an Arri will give you a better image, along with way more other features.
You always want to use the best possible thing your budget can afford you, and big productions have big budgets.
Yet The Creator looks better then every frame of footage I’ve seen you show in all the years I’ve been subbed to your channel.
You put out fantastic quality essays, and presumably from all the footage you recycle on your channel of you on set are successful in the film industry… video scopes are great… but a technically rich image is just that… technically rich or accurate.
Ironically you seem to be falling into the same YT meta you are criticizing… specs. I have almost exclusively used a 130” projector screen for almost 2 decades, the difference between 4K and 1080 is night and day, the difference between 8bit and 10bit is noticeable… something that is capable of actually showing 24fps is noticeable… beyond that it becomes exponentially more difficult… 10bit and 12bit in certain circumstances is noticeable to the trained eye, beyond that you are fooling yourself what is discernible.
Creator had an 80 million dollar budget
@@Bigcookfilms the creator had a great DP who found the right tool for the job and understood the tools. Compared to most films they used minimal lighting… so arguing they had an infinite budget for lighting isn’t the reason, and they moved very fast during production, so it’s not that they labored infinitely on set ups either.
With the democratization of color correction and the shifting from the limited photo chemical process to DI… you don’t need access to a handful of locations with a select amount of professionals who can practice their craft of grading, you need tastes and can learn and practice yourself or collaborate with someone who’s passion is grading.
Their is no excuse for professional work to look cheap, and it’s especially galling when it was shot on a high end camera, and even more so if someone is going to stump for the benefits of high end equipment… I’m sorry the only reason to turn out cheap looking footage these days is taste, ego or budget (and if you are shooting on high end cameras… it should be budget… unless ego drove the choice to dump more into rental budget).
I’m well aware that fans will blindly disagree, I’m a fan. Wolfcrow has in fact put out some of my most replayed videos on YT… but this level of cork sniffing from someone who shows his own work that isn’t comparable to the lead example is simply misguided arrogance or coming from a strange misplaced defensiveness.
I think there are great arguments to be made as to why professional productions use the same brands and cameras some of which he touched on… and even valid reasons why to use a Alexa over a fx3, I even would grant the raw coming out of the the fx3 into an atomos isn’t r3d… but neither is ARRIRAW, but the superior dynamic range (especially with highlight roll off being more like film) makes the flexibility of ARRIRAW less relevant.
Bottom line is, isn’t the tools, and like it or not… virtually all cameras above a certain level offer a fantastic image, a dop who knows the tools can shoot circles around someone with a high end camera.
I'm sorry, I disagree. I saw The Creator on IMAX and the image was blurry as heck despite using expensive lenses that cost around $50k plus a ton of image processing
@@Mr_Kenneth that’s because they used vintage Kowa anamorphic 2x lenses. Both the fact that they are vintage (modern tends to be more clinical and sharp) and the 2x anamorphic squeeze rates is “blurry” or filled with “character” depending on the camp you are in.
Thought provoking. I bought a Red Komodo (OG) with some retirement money - of course, you then have to “build it up”. That said, the Komodo (OG) does tick “quite a few boxes” as regards the criteria mentioned in this video. It’s not perfect (it wouldn’t have quite the dynamic range of the much more expensive Red Raptor for example) - nevertheless - if you “absolutely feel you need” 16 bit colour, 6 k acquisition for under $10, 000, the Komodo delivers (and, in fairness, the Black Magic 6k Pros - whilst maybe not as good when it comes to colour depth - tick a fair few boxes, too). But - here’s the “bottom line” - I also have a second hand Panasonic GH 5 - and for RUclips stuff - it’s perfectly capable of delivering very pleasing results - and the files are nothing like the Gargantuan Red Raw files which “hog” most of my hard drive - and that’s just with 20 mins or so of footage ! I suspect, in turn, Arri Raw files are “super-Gargantuan” in size !!!
had to laugh when he deliberately chose lower quality GH5 footage to make his point
Another thing you need to learn is "field of view" and the trick theaters play on you. Believe it or not, your home TV may actually have a wider field of view than most seats in a cinema. I've had many films I've worked on, shown in cinemas and they're always MUCH softer than the home video release. In fact, over-all, outside of Dolby Vision and IMAX HDR released, I'd say generic theaters have little to offer compared to OLED HDR TV's at home and UHD BluRay. The concept that you're making something to be seen in the theater and that the quality of the camera is related to that, is a bogus and completely disproven theory. A film maybe shown in the theater for a few months, but it lives on home video for decades. What it looks like at home, is what you should be focused on. If it looks good on your home 4k TV and iPhone/iPad, then it'll look totally fine in the theater when you're dealing with REFLECTED LIGHT against a screen! The losses in that presentation format are tremendous. That's why even the highest resolution digital cinema, doesn't hold a candle to a good HDR OLED display, it really can't unless you use some magic like IMAX and Dolby Vision do. None of that tech is available at home and probably never will be.
I'm a fairly new Alexa mini owner/operator, and I totally experience what you're saying about the color gradation. I've been getting my feet wet with the the Alexa on corporate projects, with sony FX3 as a b cam. I can match most shots to an extent, but when it comes to those skin tones, I just can't get it to perfectly match the Alexa. As you said, it literally won't capture those "in between" colors (that skin tones are FULL of), nothing like what that the Alexa captures. I never knew what true skin tones were until I started filming with the Alexa. Sadly, my eyes are ruined to other cameras now lol
100%
What camera did you use in Man may love..?
I tried to find the video in your uploads but couldn't.
I do remember when Nikon Z9 was launched you tried to convince us that it was far better than Sony Venice.
I may be wrong but my consciousness says it was you.
It is not better than a Venice for commercial films, but it's a capable camera for low budget films, just as the FX3 is, or any camera is. It's not the point of the video.
What do you think about Canon R5C?
While all true, don't forget the real reason for the insane (for most) cost: Gatekeeping.
They don't want competition. If more people could afford excellent equipment, the ones who are lucky enough to have the best jobs in the industry would feel some real threat to their job security.
I love your tutorials and explanations, so dang good, thank you
You’re welcome!
Cheap as in MSRP cheap for those confused lol, former $30k+ cameras still have elite sensors. Varicam 35, Red Dragons, Sony F55 etc are definitely “cheap” right now but will outperform any current cameras in their price range.
I think you missed more than half the problem with low end cameras. Cameras are vastly improved... a BlackMagic Pocket Cinema or a new iPhone can make images that would far outstrip what was possible with older "budget solutions" like Super8 & 16mm ... or worse video system like the F900 HDCAM cameras used on Star Wars prequels.
The people who can only shoot on low end cameras often have the LEAST EXPERTISE AND EXPEREIENCE needed to create a lighting and shooting plan to overcome their limitations. New film makers most often, right?
I shot a feature on a Canon 7D in 2009. That routinely gets praised for its images, but what viewers do not know is how I had to compromise lighting, motion, depth of focus, color palettes, and production design in order to work within the limitations of the camera. Viewers don't see the many hours of pre-production tests we went through to expose issues and build solutions. Viewers rarely understand the limitations we faced in post-production.
In other words I had to build my entire shoot around solving camera problems, rather than around my story and setting.
For me it was an experimental film - I wanted to try shooting on a DSLR, and it worked. I learned a lot, AND we got a decent picture done. However, the process would be entirely unacceptable for a studio production.
You mentioned The Creator - the camera, a much newer and more capable camera than my antique 7D, was in the hands of an expert team. They understood the limitations and the techniques to get around the camera limitations - and they could use those techniques on their film. They remained fairly free to use the camera, and they had the expertise, and time, to get around the limits it did present.
99.9999% of people using low end gear do not have the knowledge and experience to achieve that.
Even worse they do not have the time to solve any unexpected issue.
When you shoot on a Red, Alexa, or Venice ... those limitations disappear. You are freer to shoot as you see fit for the benefit of your story and vision.
You are rarely, if ever, at risk of running into "strange problems," and having to stall production to solve for issues.
What you're saying may have some merit and truth to it, but I guarantee you if it's well shot and lit, not a single soul on this earth would question what camera it was shot on-
and if that's what the viewer is thinking about then you've done it wrong. Especially with the post workflows that have developed over the past half decade.
The pocket 4K is old news at this point there are plenty of newer and better cameras that are much more comparable to high-end cinema cameras in terms of their image.
As a DP, I've found that the biggest weakness of most digital cameras these days is moire. Most mirrorless and prosumer, digital cinema cameras exclude an OLPF. Why?? who the hell knows- some say it's to maximize resolution it's really just a mistake in my opinion though.
The reason that Hollywood still leans towards more expensive cameras, such as the Alexa or Venice is because they are reliable and there are lots of input output options. These days it's extremely diminishing returns when it comes to image quality when comparing prosumer versus high-end cinema cameras.
People never question the camera. This channel is for cinematographers and filmmakers, though!
Cinematography isn't about the camera. It's about the vision of the cinematographer. All artistic mediums have limitations. The limitations of film and video and digital video technology are what define the masterpieces of each era. They are like fingerprints, and the way in which the cinematographer works with them separate geniuses from mediocrities.
Shoot what moves you with the camera you have at hand, and tell your story. let lesser lights geek-out and pine for better cameras hoping to fix their lack of skill and vision.
You have a film to make!
Why would a cinema add extra compression to the image? 🤔
I had to grade Ursa footage with an iPhone 14 pro max. Let me tell you, there is a difference! Anyone who says "It's just as good bro" is lying.
The only people who are really paying attention to most of this stuff are us the people behind the cameras and the editors. The people who actually watch the movies for enjoyment don’t care and not paying attention to the small amount of noise in the shadows or color science etc. Yes we want great quality shown in our work but only the filmmakers care about the small nuances of the final project. IMO
@wolfcrew
Here’s what I mean. Yes the Alexa sensor captures more raw info than just about any other sensor, but that doesn’t make some kind of space magic it’s just a well designed sensor. I’ve got a buddy who’s working as dp for a series on prime and I tried to get him to check into the URSA 12k cause after working with the footage myself and blown on to the big screen, cause I have a theatre system for editing, the difference from the Alexa classic and in some areas the 35,(again some not all I still have some issues with the 12k classic) is I think in the URSA’s favor. in fact it’s why the commercial opening at the emmie’s for, if I remember right, 2022, was filmed on the 12k classic and not the Alexa because I and other dp’s find it’s closer to film due to it’s symmetrical color patter rather than a bayer and resolutions closer to theoretical film resolutions. But my friend was convinced that arri has specs that aren’t listed like 19stops of dr. And I’m just saying this view of cinema as needing to be $30k+ and being magical is dumb because all you need to do it look at the factories for production and R&D and it should not be $75k I’m not saying it should be even$12k and I’m not saying your wrong that real cinema is expensive and thinking otherwise it’s unhealthy. I’m just saying when RED is charging over $800 for one 500gb memory card and blackmagic’s new m.2 drives are $1700 for 16TB included with the camera mind you, they’re really just charging extra because they can. Not to say it’s not better than the cheap stuff but it’s still overpriced from what it should be.
I have a 97" OLED. I sit 7' away and find DVD and low bitrate content unacceptable. I bought expensive AI software to remove MPEG-2 artifacts as best I could. I totally understand having expensive cameras.
It's also obvious when there's DNR or AI upscaling. Very smeary and waxy.