Why 2023 Changed Filmmaking Forever
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лют 2024
- 2023 changed everything for filmmaking.
Click betterhelp.com/zachramelan for 10% off your first month of therapy with my sponsor BetterHelp. Join over 4 million people who’ve met with a therapist on BetterHelp and started living a healthier, happier life.
Master your filmmaking skills with 4-week filmmaker:
www.zachramelan.com/filmmaker
Music featured in this video:
www.epidemicsound.com/campaig...
📲 Follow me: / zachramelan
💪 Interested in Digital Mentorship? superpeer.com/zachramelan
🎥 My work: www.zachramelan.com
🎵 Best Music on a Budget (GET 2 EXTRA MONTHS FREE) Artlist - bit.ly/3XVnCs2
🎵 Cinematic Music (THAT TAKES NO TIME TO FIND) MusicBed - fm.pxf.io/Vy1eJA
🎵 Customize Dope Music for ANY Project - trackclub.com/referral-landin...
🎨 Luts - www.bouncecolor.com/?ref=ramelan
📹 Gear List
MY MAIN CAMERA: amzn.to/31lJfF5
MY MAIN LENS (B-CAM) :amzn.to/3fpnNUQ
MY TALK TO CAMERA LENS (A-CAM): amzn.to/3cqERK4
MY LIGHT: amzn.to/2RTDyKv
MY C - STAND YOU NEED: amzn.to/3kMPb2i
MY MICROPHONE: amzn.to/37NKAqj
MY LAV MICS: amzn.to/2S9RijE
MY SLIDER: amzn.to/2PDNuGV
MY DRONE: amzn.to/3ib8lxs
MY LANTERN: amzn.to/2HkRZVE
MY SMALL LED: amzn.to/2FZNAH7
As an Amazon Associate, I earn when you purchase from the links. - Розваги
Nolan or Edwards?
Nolan. Edwards has a great flair for cinematography.
Edward
Nolan all the way
N O L A N
I haven’t seen the Creator. I liked Oppenheimer a lot and am a fanboy of its technical production. But the Creator looks cool frommthe clips in this video, so I might well check it out sometime!
we are in the era where technicality isnt what holds us from making films,. its about how creative we create something
I feel like at this point it should all come down to vision and concept. We've pretty much reached the limit of resolutions, formats, etc. Now I think filmmakers need to choose what works best for what. I still have thoughts of projects using Mini DV, Hi8, VHS, specifically for what they could bring to them. They're outdated, but they have different strengths, weaknesses, and quirks that fit each one. It shouldn't be about "new" or "best quality", it should be an extension of the idea. But that's just me.
2022-2023 has been transcendental for film. I'm glad you made a video going into the technical side of the phenomenon.
The Creator fell flat for me as the story was just a bit meh. Saying that, it looks amazing and I'm fully on board with the run n gun style, shot in real world locations. Just wish it was a better film.
I felt the same way. Technically it’s nothing short of incredible, but movies are a storytelling medium above all. I could make a movie look like a million bucks, but if there isn’t a good story attached then what’s the point
Agreed. The story just felt empty
Nolan for sure! Love your informative videos.
I remember a lot of these same comments were spoken of when Peter Jackson did The Hobbit and released the film in 3 different versions. These were if you don't remember a 3D version, a 48fps version, and a standard 24 fps version of which a prominent UA-camr at the time Vincent Laforet watched all 3 in the opening weekend. He released his thoughts on them and said that from what he heard from audiences leaving the films, from the 3-D one they spoke only of the 3-D scenes, the 48 FPS version about how clean and almost like HD Sports of the time were like, but how from those who watched the regular film they spoke of the characters and the story. I like what I have heard Mark Bone say in the past and that is to chase story not cool. We shall see.
Well said. Photo technology is generally way ahead of screenplay quality today!
I loved how they shot a big budget movie on FX3 but, I found the night scenes to be a little too noisy.I don't know if that was a creative choice or not but personally I felt like if it were a little more cleaner I could have enjoyed it way more. Still an amazing feat.
great video :) BTW FX3 Dual Iso is from 800 - 12800 not 128000
My bad, typo😅
No it's definitely my bad haha
Lol yep I was gonna comment this. I had to second guess and google it. But at first I was like “wait, is it one hundred twenty eight thousand?” That’s like alien level technology.
@@CritterElectronics Triple Native Iso
Oppenheimer was shot on Kodak Vision3 stocks and Double-X film stocks. With 65mm film stock there is infinitely more DR, resolution and latitude than FX3 could ever achieve. Then again, Nolan is a master of his craft and there is a reason he chooses film as his medium. I just don't understand the choice of FX3 if one could rent an ARRI or RED. In the end it comes down to story telling. I could only compare Nolan to Deakins to Cameron to Spielberg. No other directors come close in terms of story telling.
Very interesting video! I still think Oppenheimer was such a smash hit in the box office because they created something was meant and created to be seen in theaters with IMAX. The Creator sadly didn't even break even, despite it also being an exciting film. For me I felt Edwards almost found out a cheat code for getting a movie to look like it does for as cheaply as possible, where with Nolan I know he puts money where it matters, the image, story and the best actors.
this vid was super informative i need to start watching you more 🙏🏽🙏🏽🔥
8:50 Crazy because I was literally going to leave a comment saying damn this looks like a movie!! 😂😂
If Zach give heart to my comment I will going to make a film "festival worthy" very soon ✌️💯
I'm waiting....
Don’t let someone else’s approval be the reason you make art! Just make art my dude 🤘🏻
Great Video. Thanks for this.👌
Nope by Jordan Peele did both of these “unique” filming methods last in 2022… but yeah UA-cam confidence make money machine go brrrr
Zach❤
I feel the budget difference isn’t huge. Considering one was IMAX film and the other is digital. One has a lot more VFX and a lot more location to travel to. I feel if Oppenheimer had less A-list actors the budget would probably end up being the same. Showing not a huge difference shooting between digital or film in these cases
However one was a relatively dry period piece with essentially one big effects spectacle at the center of it, the other was laden with effects and spectacle in a dystopian cybernetic future, and which had the bigger budget is inverse to what you'd expect with that description.
I agree that The Creator, while visually stunning, suffered from poor character development due to the focus on spectacle. At the same time, the fact that it was shot with the FX3 shows that we don't need a Sony Venice to make a good movie. Too many filmmakers, imho, focus too much on form factor. If the camera isn't shaped like a box, they don't want it. Yet, here we have the FX3, shaped like a DSLR, that was easily rigged to work for a feature film. What it all speaks to is the amazing improvements in technology with prosumer cameras. I shot a feature film with the Panasonic GH5 and it won awards at various film festivals. Now, I have the Sony FX30, which could easily work for a feature film as well. These are exciting times for filmmaking in general. As time goes on, we are getting access to more amazing cameras than ever before. Thanks for making this video.
Technically FX3 is just a differently proportioned box. Not a DSLR shape as it's a mirrorless camera. There I go being pointless about camera formats. 😁
Cool idea for a video. I’m not really sure there’s any philosophy to be learned here though other than to just use what you’ve been using. Nolan has been on that IMAX ish since he basically started it, so it’s pretty ingrained for his process. And Gareth has always been a tinkerer. Interesting you suggest that this signals a shift, because even though it seems like Gareths FX3 is the real game changer, the movie still cost 80 million 😂. If a movie came out that cost 10 million and was shot with the FX3, I’d hear you. But I think the real lesson is that Nolan would’ve still broke box office records if he shot it on a Logitech webcam and Gareth probably should’ve just asked for IMAX cameras lol
I watched Galaxy Quest yersterday... and it had this mid 90s Feel. Just the Way It looked. I miss that. I dont know if it was the Production Value... or that it was shot on REAL FILM and not Digital.
Art direction. And lighting. Both always far more more important than any camera format BS.
@@robertdouble559I believe that.
I'm confused as to why they still have a ronin as a shoulder rig... isn't having the cam on a shoulder rig without a gimbal enough? The idea is to have a handheld vbie right? Wouldn't the ronin be counter-productive in this case?
The beauty of a rig like that is that you can turn the gimbal off and have a classic handheld/shoulder feel, or turn them back on when using a longer lens or when you want a smoother feel. I've been using a similar rig for a few years now. Best of both worlds.
From one DP to another, great video. Shooting on smaller cameras (like the a7s ii or a6300 and now the fx30 or even the fx6) for many films I have loved the ability to detach a camera from its rig and back a full frame sensor all the into a corner. Or put it in a cabinet for a shot. For independent filmmakers the greatest hurdle is locations, which you often cannot modify and these small cameras allow you to make the best use of them.
I think cameras are now becoming like paint brushes in a set, you want different ones for different situations. I think this is why The Creator had about 4 - 7 fx30s they had on different rigs. The question now, for directing and cinematography, is with the more time and flexibility this more efficient gear gives, will we actually see a return to form in the golden age and before of Hollywood where many shots were blocked extensively, as opposed to the single medium shot cutting between the single medium shot cutting between the single medium shot ad nauseam.
correct - let's force the issue - Who needs 2.7 sec cuts when we could have 1.7 cuts - keep characters on a clothesline and blur the set.
@@destinypirate Well said. To add to the that also light all flat so you don't have to make any choice on which direction you are shooting from, then wash it all out in post with the grade.
@@JakeHGuy True - VFX bros love that and no worries about depth of field because we could also block all of the actors on a clothesline, depth and perspective would only distractt the actors themselves - who use two expressions across all emotions 'Dumbfounded' and 'Stubbed toe'.
XD hahahaha@@destinypirate
5:10 - That's funny. I thought the opposite. The timeline of Oppenhiemer to me made the movie hard to follow. The Creator I never had an issue knowing where and when I was in the story.. but to each his own which is why movies are so great. My big takeaway from the movies is that you don't need outrageous budgets to make a theatrical worthy movie. Oppenhiemer was a courtroom drama and The Creator was a "low-budget" gurilla style Sci-Fi. Take their approaches without the budget and you can tell a great story.
The Creator is the prettiest "how to make cinematic videos" youtube tutorial i have ever seen. Every shot is created with the intent of maximizing visual impact. Every background is full of movement, flickering lights, television screens, laser beams, explosions, fire, water reflections, mirrors, high contrast ratios, dramatic colors. Gorgeous wide shots full of detail and beautiful, glamorous close-ups. Great set design, loved the futuristic cities and the rural places. And somehow i was extremely uninvested in the story. It had an interesting concept, a detailed world full of people and empathy for its characters, yet i never felt any connection. This is a rare case, where i have to watch it again to understand, what the hell is missing.
I like the documentary analogie, that it felt like shooting as much footage as humanly possible, only to find the story and the rhythm later in the editing room. Maybe it would have worked better as a 6 hour miniseries...
Actually using cheapy cameras costs MORE than using something equally as nimble but easier to grade, with more latitude for error, like a Red Komodo or Komodo X. You have to light perfectly, you have to be careful about fast pans, any effects have less data to use for roto and on and on.
I think Gareth Edwards was simply being open and honest about his methods but the marketing frenzy that is gear youtube really spun out of control. When George Lucas was open about using DV cams on the Star Wars prequels, similar copy was found in the enthusiast digital video press but there was no social media machinery to run with it like we do now.
Totally agree! Marking loves to focus on cameras! can't wait till we go to a cinema to experience the SOUND or the PRODUCTION DESIGN or THE STORY lol
Lucas did not use DV cams on the Star Wars prequels.
greyspaniard probably means DV as in "Digital Video" not MiniDV. A subtle distinction lost to the sands of time for all but the elders of production. And in fact some of the naboo FX elements were shot on consumer MiniDV cameras turned sideways to capture some of the water elements for VFX directly by the FX department guys. It's on the bonus features of the Prequel DVDs. S@@ConsumerDV
Try to get the same kind of shots on an Iphone that you can get on an Imax camera with great lensen. Forget it.
Wont be long. Might be a very big phone, but someone will make it happen! 😁
Nothing in a film matters if nepo-babies, who have the acting range of a goldfish, destroy the ticket sales. Camera wise the FX3 appears to struggle in low light - grainy/depth (I'm not a cameraman, let me know?) yet for the price it is an incredible option for tight indie budgets (think
It's 12,800 ISO not 128,000 lol
I’m a be honest with you I didn’t even really like Oppenheimer like that. However, the camera work was dope I kind of like the grunge of the creator.
No matter what "cinema" camera you use nowadays it's still just a fancy video camera. Our organic brains and psyche need organic colors coming from an organic photochemical medium just like millions of people want to see the real Mona Lisa in Paris. Nolan knows that, most youtubers don't. Also if you are using just the monitor while filming you are not connecting with the actors. You need to use the eye piece to capture face emotions. Go watch what Robert Richardson says about newbie filmmakers and their obsession with monitors.
Today a consumer iPhone Pro can record ProRes videos...
But that is JUST a feature, it doesn't create the short movie for you!
What makes a movie a good one, is the amout of experties putted together to create the best recording and editing environment! That's what makes the movie, not the gear by itself!
It’s not about the OLD, it’s not about the NEW, it's about what serves the story. And some filmmakers know exactly how the story needs to be presented. The Creator shown on IMAX is nothing compared to a true 70mm IMAX screen experience. There was no story in The Creator, no one but filmmakers and film geeks knows that it was shot on the FX3, and the audience surely hasn't a clue.
If the goal was to market that the film was shot on the FX3 to the regular everyday moviegoing audience, then they failed big time. The audience doesn't care. The audience isn't stupid either. They know that just because a film is advertised to be shown in IMAX, most know that it ISN'T true IMAX. They do know that a film shown in a legit IMAX theater with a 70mm IMAX film print is something to see. IMAX has been around for the last 56 years, everybody knows about it.
Comapring The Creator shown in IMAX against the incredible resolution and peak cinema experience of Oppenheimer in IMAX 70mm film, is like comparing The Creator To Oppenheimer.
“Out with the old, in with the new”. That way of thinking really puts a massive limitation on learning the craft and history of filmmaking and begins to limit more and more the way stories are told. That is if the NEW outweighs the old. The future of filmmaking will definitely include digital cameras, options to shoot on 35mm and 16mm film will interest filmmakers more and more, I believe. And IMAX is only just getting started.
Even though. it’s been around since 1968 and it will be around and used for 100 years to come. It’s starting to become more and more significant. Look up the history of the 35mm movie camera and you’ll see in the early 1900s that all the cameras were MASSIVE, and cameramen at one point had to be crammed into a small soundproof booth with the camera inside with them to keep it quiet when rolling.
With breakthroughs in innovation, the size of the movie camera started to become smaller. The most famous of those cameras was the Arriflex 35mm which was introduced in 1927 along with subsequent iterations as the years went by. It was also one of Stanley Kubrick’s favorite film cameras.
Like the innovation of the 35mm film camera over the years, IMAX cameras will also require innovation to make their cameras more ergonomic. Also, IMAX is native 8K resolution.
The story surrounding Oppenheimer is one of the most significant events in modern history. A key element for the Audience was that it was heavily marketed towards experiencing it in glorious 70mm IMAX film. It made sense because the film was about one of the most significant events in modern history, which only added to the hype.
I just gotta say…WHY in Globs name would you shoot a film of that caliber on an FX3? I’m sure Mr. Nolan would agree. It was his artistic choice, and that choice turned out to merit that choice.
Most of the movie-going public doesn’t care what camera the movie they’re watching was shot on, they have no idea about the many many different cameras available, but…Everyone knows about IMAX film, again it’s been around since 1968.
Again, theatrical IMAX 70mm Film Projected (not the fake IMAX, digital blown up to look like IMAX) is a creative decision. The film has a weight on its shoulders to live up to its grandiose presentation. Nolan understands the psychology of the audience (why else would a dialogue-driven drama about creating a nuclear bomb during WWII, with lots of yams courtroom scenes, not to mention a grounded drama) knowing the audience helped that film gross almost 1 billion dollars at the global box office.
Someone more talented and intelligent should hunt down Christopher Nolan to say he was wrong and that IMAX wasn’t the way he should have made his film, he should have shot it on the FX3 because a decision was made that the fictional, AI-generated story of the Creator was more deserving.
Why would he want the historical significance and gravity of this true event through the lens of an Alexa LF, or an Alexa 65? His very thought-out creative choice. He felt the magnitude and significance of this historical event deserved to be captured with the highest-ranking camera out there.
4:35 So, I’m a bit confused by what you mean by “foot print”. It seems like you’re talking about the cameras used. But on the flip side the argument you present seems to be about the way the story was planned and played out and not anything to do with the cameras being used. It’s very confusing the point you’re trying to make.
He meant that the FX3 needs less or smaller support gear when compared to larger cinema cameras. A crane or gimbal for an Alexa or Raptor XL would have to be larger and heavier therefore requiring more people to move and operate. Where the saved the most would have been the lighting department though.
Both films are gorgeous and have very different aesthetics, so it's hard to compare.
Well, the one thing they both have in common are nukes and... The Creator had a way better looking mushroom cloud.
THERE, I SAID IT, IT'S TRUE, YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE!
🎞🎥N O W A R D S 📹🎞
I believe making filmmaking more affordable is destroying the art. If you make the barrier for entry low you also set the bar very low. If you disagree I don’t care I will never be persuaded to change my mind. Seeing all this change in the industry has left a sour taste in my mouth and has pushed me to look for work elsewhere. I’m thinking of going into the STEM field because art is just crap now, filmmaking is no exception.
Honestly the same thing has happened to STEM/Tech. When the narrative became "you only need a bootcamp to break in," the market became filled with people thinking they can just jump in. It takes alot of work, especially now
@@ilovekettlechips but there are just more opportunities to get a stable job in STEM fields vs film.
Fx3 is not that affordable for most enthusiasts lol Maybe I just need to up my grind
In comparison to an IMAX camera it is 😂
@@eyesonren I know 😆
you need to up your grind! they're listing in the $2500's. Thats insane, considering you can pair it with a short set of vintage lens for less than $500.
Having to sit through tv length ads before your video almost made me ditch. Glad I didn’t. Don’t forget the 30k+worth of lenses used on The Creator. Just goes so show now that almost everything nowadays is more important than the camera. On no, it always was.
Well, looking at the reviews and box office Oppenheimer wins BIGTIME over The Creator even though it was rated R.
Not 128000 ISO, "only" 12800.
Honestly though, I have seen any big budget films with bad cinematics. I have seen plenty with horrible scripts. Fix the scripts first.
Always nolan🤫
YEAHHHH!!!
Art direction, composition, performances and editing make for great cinema. And in the case of Nolan, VERY loud music! 😆 Camera format is very low on the list of things that the the general public will actually notice. IMAX have a VERY good marketing department with all for these "you must see it on the biggest screen possible" campaigns they run. Shame their seating is so uncomfortable. I'd rather see a movie on a big "standard" screen in comfortable seat than some in a stupid IMAX cinema with it's steep ass stadium seating. No fun. Last movie I saw in IMAX was the 2009 Star Trek and I have no plan to go back.
funny that everyone jumps on the hypetrain about a movie thats been made with the fx3 while the movie itself literally flopped box offise wise and "classic" films were just overran by the audience.
So in the end you could come up with the conclusion that it is indeed about the camera :P
It didn't chang film making as much as AI will
sony will now sell a lot of cameras! to a lot of people who dont have 80 million dollars to spend on post production.
Being sponsored by better help made me close UA-cam.
The creator was good but you could definitely tell it wasn’t a true cinema camera
First 🥇🎉
second!
Lol 128000 iso.bro dont you have an Fx3?
haha messed that one up lol
All that said (and I bought the FX3 with the expectation that this gets me up where I need to realize my ‘filmmaker’ dreams) I didn’t see “The Creator” because the story didn’t intrigue me… and I saw “Oppenheimer” but I thought it unwieldy - not - being able to decide whether it wants to be an Epic Use of the Bomb - or - a court room conspiracy drama???
Best movie of the year “The Maestro” both cinema and story
I haven't seen The Creator, but from the clips I've seen in your video, it looks cheap.
whose your colorist
The Creator looked great but the script and story had all the complexity of a Bazooka Joe bubble gum pack.
Creator was unique in it's production but was a terrible movie. The real champ in low production costs (assuming people weren't being taken advantage of) was Godzilla Minus One.
blablablavbla blaaaaa
boooring.
Both movies are bad
The creator was forgotten in some days, while Oppenheimer continues to top literary and filmmaking records. Stop overthinking overthinking these tools and focus on actual story. On the other side of the coin, Nolan’s tenet sucked due to their diversity hire choices, and poor storytelling. Substance is everything.