Or, and hear me out, maybe people just want a good tool. And while they can’t afford $80,000,000 budget in camera crew/VFX artist salaries, on-site travel, and magnificent sets…they can pick up a nice camera with potential. That requires a bit more generosity in your take though.
@@gwm-btdbattlesagar.ioandmo9988 we would if someone bothered to make them. the accessibility of technology just highlights the lack of talent and ambition of the world.
Exactly. The story was fairly thin, but the visually beautiful and believable reality of it kept the nose of viewer immersion enough on top of the water to give this rewatchability - which in most modern films is fairly absent. John David Washington fitted the role, and the rest of the cast was well selected as well. Gareth Edwards and Neill Blomkamp should make more films as they seem to handle the immersive future society concepts better than most moviemakers.
To add to this conversation a bit I think the approach Gareth Edwards takes with his VFX is unique when compared to other directors because he was a VFX artist before he was a director. I work in VFX and there has never been a client who actually understood how we did our job. I think most creative people assume VFX artists just push a bunch of buttons and use special software to make the output image. However, like everything there is an art to VFX and the way you approach VFX changes whether the audience buys into it. Gareth fundamentally understands this because on Monsters he literally did all the VFX himself.
Just when I had become convinced that digital cameras have ruined cinematography, The Creator comes out and proves once again that digital is truly a blank slate - it can look completely flat, sterile and generic, or extremely rich, cinematic and gorgeous if you just actually care about achieving that. I've seen a lot of digital movies that claim to be emulating the film look, but few actually achieve it. Here's hoping more filmmakers take notice and go for a more unique, memorable and cinematic look and not that generic flat digital look. As well as studios, who could be making better movies on a fraction of the budget if they just shot them this way instead of on green screens. Seeing The Creator on a 100+ foot screen was a truly special experience, and felt like going back in time to the 20th when all the big movies looked this cinematic. Thank you for making this video, Patrick, I had the same thoughts and feelings when I saw The Creator and this answered most of those questions.
Except many films from ye olde days looked awful. Flat functional lighting/cinematography and crappy film stock. What this video and the film demonstrates is that what is in front of the camera and how you light it, matters enormously. Far more than the film of digital camera used. A lot big films in their time now look really cheap and a bit pants, even when compared to modern low budget TV shows. Heck many UA-cam videos look better. Also if every one makes films look like this, then by definition there's nothing unique about the look. The orange and teal look because a cliche in itself, twenty-ish years back. So thankfully disappeared for a while. I'd also say there's more variety of looks in modern film than when film was the norm, because not only do you have effectively way more film stocks, but far more ability to tweak how images look.
@@JeremyLawrence-imajez I strongly disagree. It's extremely hard to make digital look good, and it's extremely hard to make film look bad. The reason is that digital footage is always color graded, either in-camera or in post, and there's no restrictions on unnatural colors, like skin tones that are impossible in real life, giving you that trademark stale, fake-looking digital look. And studios are constantly reusing stock LUTs, producing endless streams of identical-looking content. Netflix and Marvel have a very narrow house style that they never stray from. Compare that to film, where even low-budget, poorly shot footage has a raw, gritty feel and tone, where colors and exposure degrades in natural, organic ways. It's like the difference between oil paints on a real canvas vs an 8-bit MS paint drawing. I can't think of a great digital grade that wasn't emulating the natural, organic look of film.
@BenjaminWhitley Sigh! You don't actually know very much about film making it would seem and a look not being to your own very specific taste is of zero interest to anyone, bar you. The term 'colour graded' is one that long predates digital. How how you graded film during its development or subsequent transfer meant you could markedly vary the look of the film. The choice of film used in camera also make a big difference. To add context, I used film for a very long time before digital and I'm not a fan of the standard video/TV/JPEG digital look. However my digital output looks very much like my film work. Because I am the one creating the aesthetic, not the camera. I recall similar nonsense being spouted online regarding digital Vs film in stills photography 20 years back. I once posted some stills in one such conversation and all the film evangelists said how these shots showed the soul of film, something that digital could never replicate. And yet they photos were all shot not just on digital, but a small sensor pocket digital camera. There is an awful lot of bad stills and footage shot on film and on digital, because the end result looking good is down the photographer/filmmaker, not the medium. Plus looking pretty is not always the goal, because that may not serve the story being filmed. Open Water was mostly shot on a cheap hi-8 camera because that home video look was more suited to that particular story than using big 35mm cameras. And it worked really well even on a massive cinema screen. Impossible skin tones and non realistic imagery in film also long predates digital. And that's without even mentioning the completely false look of B+W images. All this shows that you really didn't take in the key aspect that the video you are replying to explained. A huge part of the look of a film or indeed photograph has NOTHING to do with the capture medium of camera being used. That is specifically stated by the cinematographer. Not to mention film makers deliberately choose a look for films to better tell a story. Then there's the awkward fact that the look of film is less like how we actually see, when compared to digital. The 'problems' of film not looking realistic is precisely why it can look so nice. Film does not replicate how we see the world which we view in what marketing would call ultra HDR. The limited [and therefore very unrealistic] dynamic range of film is why it can look so good. If film had come after rather than before digital, folk would be moaning about how unrealistic film imagery looked. Film is anything but natural, it's just what we are accustomed to. That's aside from the large variety of very different looks that film can produce. BTW only one such look can be true to life. Marvel having a house style for a series of films that all interweave in same world makes perfect sense and is not an issue. Same reason why episodic TV has a consistent style. As for Netflix having a single style. Um nope. Their broadcast criteria is for high image quality, not how it looks. Though in film and TV, there has always been fashions in how things look which again has nothing with the capture medium. There's a lot of old films on Prime as it happens, shot on film and which clearly demonstrate that there is no image quality threshold too low or a film so dismal to be allowed to be shown on Prime. Another thing reason why digital can look different is that modern lenses are way sharper than say old skool Cooke lenses from last century. Shoot on old lenses and funnily enough you get an older looking style of footage. Something that gets done on period dramas set in say the 70s that are still shot digitally. Another huge benefit of digital is its low light capabilities, this means you can shoot using ambient light without using unnatural film lighting - which is a big reason so many old films look terrible, the very obvious fake lighting from big lights just off screen. The worst example I can recall are the rural Irish scenes in Spielberg's Warhorse that looked like they were shot on a planet with two suns, due to the strange light sources and multiple shadows. Loads of unnatural fill lighting was needed because using film would have meant blowing the skies out otherwise. This made made the film look fake and unreal. Which felt wrong for that grounded in real life story.
@@BenjaminWhitley there’s just as many film movies that look bad as there are digital. Stuff doesn’t look bad now specifically because of digital, if you light and art design like blade runner, you can use an iPhone and it will look phenomenal. Stop talking about cameras. It’s a futile conversation imo.
I just saw the movie two hours ago, still processing the experience. Wonderful Film. BEAUTY!!!! Felt like a dream to me... A transformative dream. Casting is perfect! Locations are visual rocket-ships. So Immersive and textual. Thank You both for making this video about This Film!
Great breakdown Patrick. Just saw the film last night and the visuals were stunning. Its crazy how far camera technology has come in such a short amount of time. However, the reality is the camera doesn't matter and its everything you put in front of the lens. Most creators focus too much on gear but thats not the most important part.
Awesome video Patrick, and congrats to Oren for The Creator, What a beautiful looking film!!! You guys are speaking my language, I work as a lighting artist in animation and VFX, and this is the conversation I am constantly having with my colleagues. There is a tendency to get caught up in the tech used, and its true that having the right tools is important, but there must be a defined vision from the very start. It's great to hear about the early discussions of the orange / blue colour palette and the styleguide references of Alien and Apocalypse Now, sitting in the cinema I could really feel that clear vision through out. I've worked on films that are made in the edit, but also films with a clear vision from day one and latter is always a real treat to be part of and it always shows on the screen in the end.
If the script was better, The Creative would be a new sci-fi classic. But nonetheless, the look, sets, effects and general production are absolutely masterful, and put almost all modern blockbusters to shame. And your video is brilliantly showing why.
@@multiversescriptutes8400 I can dislike something you liked. No need to get rude. If you think the script is great, cool, my opinion won‘t lessen your enjoyment of the film.
Maybe in the future a director’s cut would help? Kinda lost its’ soul in the end sequences... spectacle heavy. Didn’t ruin it for me, I love spectacle vfx, but character resolution rushed, Hollywood kiss, etc.
I write this comment all the time - about lighting. I am a scale model builder and have worked for some of the largest companies in the world building highly detailed intricate scale models. I understand how CGI has replaced much of what scale models used to do. But - I have never seen CGI ever come close to the visuals in "2001 A Space Odyssey" of the space ship being illuminated in space. The depth, the clarity, the detail is unmatchable. Amazing. I have never - never - seen CGI in any film I have ever watched come close to that. And that film, as we all know, was filmed back in the 1960s, using a 'scale model'.....
Really cool, Patrick. Love it. Also, Oren is staggeringly articulate. Just listened to him on a podcast, and the guy just speaks about this stuff with so much clarity and specificity.
Thank you for having this conversation. I just watched the film the other night in and couldn't put my finger on why I enjoyed the visuals so much. Listening to Oren walk through the logistics and rationale was so valuable. And I definitely agree that we gotta stop focusing so much on the gear and just make things with meaning and intentionality.
This is the first of your videos that I have ever seen. By far one of the best videos on UA-cam. So full of great information and inspiration. I love how you challenged us to make our first “Monsters”. Thank you, thank you thank you for such a great vid. You gained a new subscriber!
The Sony FX3 Cinema Line is a fantastic camera that can produce outstanding results. Pairing it with talented filmmakers contributed to the movie’s incredible visuals. It’s a great example of the right tools in skilled hands.
Yeah, small light and capable in the hands of someone who does genius work by operating the camera themselves with relatively less pre-planning is a great combination.
Great points made here! I shot my feature OTHER MADNESSES with a Panasonic DVX-100 because it was the camera I owned at the time and I knew how to light for it. Very happy with the results (the film even won a cinematography award at The Arizona Film Festival) despite the fact that we used "ancient" technology.
This video was one of your best yet! I personally really liked the movie and wanna see it again! I wish it was making more money because it deserves it!
I am a photographer. Taught for 20 years at a film school. You hit the nail on the head. You play with light. You have to understand composition. My gear is a Canon 5D Mark 2. That camera is amazing.
THANK YOU! I Say this to my students all of the time. It’s not about the gear. It’s about your vision, and the story and how you execute those things. Beautiful work!
People please recommend The Creator to your family amd friends! It's a really good movie and it's not doing so well, we need to support original stories!
Nothing at all original in this story. It ironically felt like a bad Chat GPT rehash of every war/action movie out there, with random and pretty much irrelevant scifi bits. Looked nice though.
I shoot Weddings. I had one Sony A7 III and an A6400. Bought a 3rd camera. Considered buy an A7S III, A7 IV, but the thing is, do I need 10-bit? Do I need larger files or 4K60? Are ANY of my clients complaining about video quality? No, no, no. Bought the ZVE10. Perfect fit, amazing image quality on 4K24, great ISO, great price. Thanks for confirming that we must work with what we have, and get better skill before getting better cameras.
This is a great perspective, I have always told my friends while talking about filmmaking that it is more than just the camera and the crazy editing filmmaking is so diverse. Thank you Patrick Tomasso for this video.
That was an awesome interview. Thanks for putting that together. One thing I took away from Oren's words was the point of taking the environment you're shooting in, and base your lighting off of that. Use the queues the environment is giving you to decide how to shape your light. And like you said, use the camera that you already have. With a well thought out plan and direction, you can get what you're looking for.
This is why i love using my OG BMPCC for all film ideas. Its challenging and yet capable of doing all I want and need with such a small package. Great work man!
Great analysis. It's true that digital cameras are just data sensors, and nowadays the only important part in selecting a camera is the ergonomics and workflow of the camera. I think this is also a testament to the power of lens selection. It was a throwaway line, but those Kowa anamorphics are gorgeous, and brings so much character and aesthetic to the film.
One of my fav YT creators right here...vid perfectly captured the magic of cinematography. Use the camera to tell the story, don't tell the story to use the camera. Masterful work brother! That webcam shot tho... 😮😮😮🔥🔥🔥
First video of yours that I've come across and I subscribed straight away. Love your style of interviewing: you ask great questions and then just let them speak, leaving your insightful "take-away analysis" afterwards, which I enjoy too. Thanks!
"Know ur tools" totally agree, as long as the tools are figured out, then you can focus on the story. Tools are just tools, as long as they speak to your vision. Thank you for hosting him.
I consider "The Creator" my top favorite film of 2023 along with "Gran Turismo". The fact that those two film have a budget of 80 and 60 million dollars is an astonishing feat of itself.
THANK YOU for highlighting that the camera doesn't really matter!! God I have genuinely seen over a dozen youtube thumbnails talking about how the FX3 was used for The Creator and it's not that big of a deal, they were limited by the gear they could carry around the world on commercial flights with a small crew, if they could have used the Alexa 65 Gareth used on Rogue One you know they would have, this was a compromise, not a statement. Oren puts it well when he says it's the least interesting part of the film but that he understands why people are interested in it. If you've worked with cameras you know anyone could easily film an entire feature film on a consumer camera, that's not surprising, it's just that this was one of the first times it was proven on a big budget film.
Great video Patrick! Hope more people ( youtubers in filmmaking industry ) will talk and teach more about how to make movies, what’s important in them, techniques, etc rather than another unboxing of new amazing gear that we need to buy
Love this! I'm learning cinematography right now. I'm finding interviews like this and productions like The Creator to be super inspirational! Learning how to play with light and make the most out of a scene/setting are incredible pieces of advice for anyone. Would love to see more interviews like this!
Thanks for showing us the visuals and strategy behind the movie vs. the equipment being center state. I think Luc Forsyth positioned the FX3 importance well by saying it showed that not having "good enough" equipment is no longer a good excuse.
Great video, but I do want to point out that the 160m budget for Rebel Moon is for both 3 hour movies, not just the 2hr of Part 1. Zack also adopted a similar approach to shooting and VFX that led to a low budget and streamlined process. Another impressive example of cost effective sci-fi film making.
I just saw this film and absolutely loved it! Made even more so by the gear choice. I think for me, the way he shot and the equipment used.. offers far more scope for the rest of us (removing the CGI etc). With ‘good enough’ camera gear and some lighting, there will be interesting locations near all of us.. it’s just taking the time to perfect the skills to make those come to life
I know that the fact the creator was shot on an FX3 (a camera that I actually own) means nothing because what matters the most is the story, lighting, actors' performance, locations.... BUT, For some reason that I ignore, this make me very motivated to take my camera and shoot my next short after two years from my first one (which was a one man band low/no budget film with a BMPCC4K and two lenses). I think in this era of perfect digital images, the "perfectly imperfect" is an interesting option to explore. I saw The Creator two successive times in one day, and I can say that this film is positively changing something in me as a filmmaker. Thank you for this video and thanks to The creator creators for such a beautiful, inspiring movie 🙏
I love these kinda videos from you. Inspiring. I find the camera section especially interesting because I'm still using an iPhone 11 Pro Max. While I'm not making films I've learned over the years to make it work through lighting, editing and composition. Same thing applies to my Android devices.
This is like when I see these articles or videos talking about “You can shoot movies on an iPhone” or “Olivia Rodrigo shot her new video on an iPhone” but a lot of times these people have access to full studios, crew and gear most of us don’t. That’s what makes the difference.
@W1||88 “A lot of times these people have access to full studios, crews and gears, that most of us don’t, that makes us different.” Think about how Christopher Nolan made his first film “The Following” with only $6000 of his own budget, the actors are his friends and relatives that have their own full time employment jobs on weekdays, in which they could only film their scenes on weekends as part time, and the whole film was shot on a Super16 camera with black and white film stock with a little crews and budget. In addition that Nolan directed, written, produced(with his wife Emma), Edited and filmed (yes he’s the DP in the making of the film) all by himself. Took him, his crew and casts a year to complete the entire film. At the end, his film received positive reviews and feedbacks from audience and made him and Emma stepped their feet into Hollywood. As Patrick said, that’s talent, makes the difference.
@@alexchrysler2339 I agree it does but what I’m specifically talking about are like these iPhone commercials saying “You can shoot this on iPhone” but they have like car mounts, a full automated dolly, a huge jib, like thousands of dollars worth of lights, etc. I just find commercials/videos like that a bit disingenuous.
@@W1ll88 What Apple showed and tells you that is giving you an idea that you could use a smartphone to make a short film yourself IF you have the budget. How you want the visuals to be looked like, it’s up to your creativity, efforts and your available budget. If you have the budget, you are definitely can access to these services for your production. If not, that’s where guerrilla / run&gun filmmaking come into place.
I saw this baby opening weekend on IMAX and from a visual standpoint-this movie is incredible. And the subject is really great too but I needed more. I felt like they really put a lot of complex ideas into a two hour movie and it easily could’ve gone another 45 minutes and I would’ve loved it. I felt like the story needed more time, more time to play out these scenes for the audience to really emotionally connect to the characters and what was at stake.
This is great, Patrick, Gareth is really a talented director/shooter. And Oren is so spot on with the importance of a color palette. This is true for movies and run n gun corporate video as well.
This movie was stunning! This was a really interesting video thank you Patrick! I think that one other key element of why The creator looked so good with this budget is that Gareth Edward started his career as a VFX artist. He knew exatcly how they worked and what they needed to make everything he wanted in the most efficient way possible!! Nowadays with bigger budjet movies, they don't know how VFX studios work and give them impossible deadlines and changes to make at the last minute resolving in them making acceptable cgi but not good cgi!! That's why marvel and DC movies look bad recently! Gareth knew the importance of their work and their way of working!! I heard VFX artist who really had a great experience working on The Creator, in comparison to other big budjet movie where a lot of artist work crazy hours and end up quitting their job because of the working conditions! The Creator is really the kind of movie that we need support!!!
I also agree entirely with what you say about focusing on the content, not just the gear. When working on my undergraduate, I remember in a mentor meeting with some of my professors, one in particular who worked on the film Forest Gump, said, "It isn't about the camera, it is the person behind the camera and whether they have vision. I know many people with expensive cameras that make crappy stuff and others with inexpensive cameras that make wonderful films." After 16 years of making no-budget to million-dollar-budget films and documentaries, it is the vision and knowledge to know how to use whatever camera and tools you have. Start with what you have and develop your craft because if you can't make something beautiful with the basics, you won't know what to do with the more complex tools. Understand the basics, like color palettes, etc. But having a no-budget, or $10,000.00 budget compared to a half million to a million dollar budget can and often does make a massive difference in the end product. I can only imagine and hope to one day know what it feels like to make a film or documentary with a million-dollar-plus budget.
Yooooooo! Thank you, man for this video, the message in it and the interview with Oren! Fantastic 💥. You’re 100% right, they would’ve done the same (more or less) with an iPhone, so yes, the camera at this point is the least important aspect. Grazie 🙏
Great work! I love your switch in direction. Generally, gear reviews are only helpful if you have a specific use case or need something for a project, and talking about gear in a movie is pointless as those things are readily available. What's hard to find is how the creative is done to achieve the vision or even having the idea in the first place. I want to learn more about how people work and create and why they make.
I'm glad they got into using bounce to making things more organic. Remember...anything that reflects is a lighting source. You don't have to be direct with a key but, in fact, counter-intuitive would be to control what all IS a source. Bouncing that tube should have been a no-brainer. It's like trying to light a table scene for each character vs. setting one light overhead and getting great bounce off the table and then creating motivated light for the back/hair and fill. The way they did this movie pushed them in directions that most don't think to go and for them to explain that and expand on the why, I very much appreciate and applaud them. I applaud the look they achieved. This is why we test. At the end of the day...they passed the test.
From those 20 years spent on film sets (plus my years as a freelance photo-reporter), there is a major lesson I have learnt and that shall be here to stay : them we call "technicians" in the world of imagery actually are artists performing their craft with machines, but they are true artists down to their core.
I'll start by saying that I love watching a good classic, The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Ben-Hur (1959), Shichinin no Samurai (1954), Casablanca (1942) etc. For as long as I can remember, I have always enjoyed collecting the films that left an impression on me. First on VHS, then I renewed my film collection in DVD format, then I loved the increase in quality to the Blu-ray format and finally, I acquired all the movies I got, which have since been re-released in 4K. Over the years I have followed with great pleasure the evolution of film cameras used in cinema. The quality was increasing, the realism was increasing, the resolution was getting closer to reality, IMAX and the sound...The sound! In short, evolution! All this description to see a fiction film arriving in 2023 with an image from the 80's and the typical grain of the 50's... I'm sorry, but enjoying the film's plot, very present/futuristic, with excellent Dolby Atmos sound, I was really shocked by the salty mix of poor image quality and grain! Please, filmmakers, everything in its time, the grain belongs to the 50s and the low quality belongs to the 80s. They can be used in new films that portray these times, but not in those set in the present, much less in films that represent a society in the future. Evolve! PLEASE!!! Ps: Now, if you make a movie with a bright, sharp image and good HDR clean grain version and another with grain, like the "Director's version" it will please Greeks and Trojans 😄
Thanks for the interesting and intellectual discussion on this movie. I've seen it twice and probably a 3rd time tomorrow. Since you used Makeup and Vanity Set music, I had to instantly subscribe. I am also burned out on the vapid gear-lust. So it's refreshing to see a video like this. I feel lucky I found this video. Thank you.
The main reason why everyone focuses on the camera is that while you can buy one, you can't buy creativity.
Or, and hear me out, maybe people just want a good tool. And while they can’t afford $80,000,000 budget in camera crew/VFX artist salaries, on-site travel, and magnificent sets…they can pick up a nice camera with potential. That requires a bit more generosity in your take though.
Who would've thought that shooting on location is better than shooting in a green screen studio. Keep it up Gareth (and Patrick).
You know this guy is good because he’s killing the webcam setup
shot on iPhone. see? Cameras don’t matter.
@@impatrickt if it doesn't matter, we would get oscar winning iphone films no?
@@gwm-btdbattlesagar.ioandmo9988 we would if someone bothered to make them. the accessibility of technology just highlights the lack of talent and ambition of the world.
@@impatrickt💯
Well hey come watch the Frame & Reference podcast, used a C500mkII for the first two years lmao
If you’re ever unhappy with your camera purchase, just remember that Gareth Edwards was able to shoot Monsters in a cave, with a box of scraps.
“Well I’m not Gareth Edwards.”
not everyone is Gareth Edwards and is surrounded by teams of people wanting to work with us
@@GM-dg6mjhe did Monsters almost alone
Dude, everything Greg Fraser touches turns to gold.
DUNE
The Batman
Rogue One
Mandalorian
Need I say more...
Hands down my favorite cinematographer
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 10/10 -OY3AH! “ say no more “
I couldn't agree more!
He is just able to to cut the BS
His name is Greig. Just a simple respect thing.
What he mentions at the end about immersion is exactly what I felt as a viewer. I wanted to physically visit the world of the film.
Exactly. The story was fairly thin, but the visually beautiful and believable reality of it kept the nose of viewer immersion enough on top of the water to give this rewatchability - which in most modern films is fairly absent. John David Washington fitted the role, and the rest of the cast was well selected as well. Gareth Edwards and Neill Blomkamp should make more films as they seem to handle the immersive future society concepts better than most moviemakers.
To add to this conversation a bit I think the approach Gareth Edwards takes with his VFX is unique when compared to other directors because he was a VFX artist before he was a director.
I work in VFX and there has never been a client who actually understood how we did our job. I think most creative people assume VFX artists just push a bunch of buttons and use special software to make the output image. However, like everything there is an art to VFX and the way you approach VFX changes whether the audience buys into it. Gareth fundamentally understands this because on Monsters he literally did all the VFX himself.
I love having to explain the concept of rendering to a neophyte... they think it just comes out “poof” perfect, seamless and ...instantly. 😆😞😤
That’s true bro i understand i Am vfx artist 2
The Creator is one of the most creative and original films I've seen in many years. This was a fantastic analysis. Thanks for sharing your insights!
thanks for watching!
Just when I had become convinced that digital cameras have ruined cinematography, The Creator comes out and proves once again that digital is truly a blank slate - it can look completely flat, sterile and generic, or extremely rich, cinematic and gorgeous if you just actually care about achieving that. I've seen a lot of digital movies that claim to be emulating the film look, but few actually achieve it. Here's hoping more filmmakers take notice and go for a more unique, memorable and cinematic look and not that generic flat digital look. As well as studios, who could be making better movies on a fraction of the budget if they just shot them this way instead of on green screens. Seeing The Creator on a 100+ foot screen was a truly special experience, and felt like going back in time to the 20th when all the big movies looked this cinematic.
Thank you for making this video, Patrick, I had the same thoughts and feelings when I saw The Creator and this answered most of those questions.
Appreciate you watching. Cheers!
Except many films from ye olde days looked awful. Flat functional lighting/cinematography and crappy film stock.
What this video and the film demonstrates is that what is in front of the camera and how you light it, matters enormously. Far more than the film of digital camera used.
A lot big films in their time now look really cheap and a bit pants, even when compared to modern low budget TV shows. Heck many UA-cam videos look better.
Also if every one makes films look like this, then by definition there's nothing unique about the look. The orange and teal look because a cliche in itself, twenty-ish years back. So thankfully disappeared for a while. I'd also say there's more variety of looks in modern film than when film was the norm, because not only do you have effectively way more film stocks, but far more ability to tweak how images look.
@@JeremyLawrence-imajez I strongly disagree. It's extremely hard to make digital look good, and it's extremely hard to make film look bad. The reason is that digital footage is always color graded, either in-camera or in post, and there's no restrictions on unnatural colors, like skin tones that are impossible in real life, giving you that trademark stale, fake-looking digital look. And studios are constantly reusing stock LUTs, producing endless streams of identical-looking content. Netflix and Marvel have a very narrow house style that they never stray from. Compare that to film, where even low-budget, poorly shot footage has a raw, gritty feel and tone, where colors and exposure degrades in natural, organic ways. It's like the difference between oil paints on a real canvas vs an 8-bit MS paint drawing. I can't think of a great digital grade that wasn't emulating the natural, organic look of film.
@BenjaminWhitley Sigh! You don't actually know very much about film making it would seem and a look not being to your own very specific taste is of zero interest to anyone, bar you.
The term 'colour graded' is one that long predates digital. How how you graded film during its development or subsequent transfer meant you could markedly vary the look of the film. The choice of film used in camera also make a big difference. To add context, I used film for a very long time before digital and I'm not a fan of the standard video/TV/JPEG digital look. However my digital output looks very much like my film work. Because I am the one creating the aesthetic, not the camera.
I recall similar nonsense being spouted online regarding digital Vs film in stills photography 20 years back. I once posted some stills in one such conversation and all the film evangelists said how these shots showed the soul of film, something that digital could never replicate. And yet they photos were all shot not just on digital, but a small sensor pocket digital camera.
There is an awful lot of bad stills and footage shot on film and on digital, because the end result looking good is down the photographer/filmmaker, not the medium. Plus looking pretty is not always the goal, because that may not serve the story being filmed. Open Water was mostly shot on a cheap hi-8 camera because that home video look was more suited to that particular story than using big 35mm cameras. And it worked really well even on a massive cinema screen.
Impossible skin tones and non realistic imagery in film also long predates digital. And that's without even mentioning the completely false look of B+W images.
All this shows that you really didn't take in the key aspect that the video you are replying to explained. A huge part of the look of a film or indeed photograph has NOTHING to do with the capture medium of camera being used. That is specifically stated by the cinematographer. Not to mention film makers deliberately choose a look for films to better tell a story. Then there's the awkward fact that the look of film is less like how we actually see, when compared to digital. The 'problems' of film not looking realistic is precisely why it can look so nice. Film does not replicate how we see the world which we view in what marketing would call ultra HDR. The limited [and therefore very unrealistic] dynamic range of film is why it can look so good. If film had come after rather than before digital, folk would be moaning about how unrealistic film imagery looked. Film is anything but natural, it's just what we are accustomed to. That's aside from the large variety of very different looks that film can produce. BTW only one such look can be true to life.
Marvel having a house style for a series of films that all interweave in same world makes perfect sense and is not an issue. Same reason why episodic TV has a consistent style.
As for Netflix having a single style. Um nope. Their broadcast criteria is for high image quality, not how it looks. Though in film and TV, there has always been fashions in how things look which again has nothing with the capture medium.
There's a lot of old films on Prime as it happens, shot on film and which clearly demonstrate that there is no image quality threshold too low or a film so dismal to be allowed to be shown on Prime.
Another thing reason why digital can look different is that modern lenses are way sharper than say old skool Cooke lenses from last century. Shoot on old lenses and funnily enough you get an older looking style of footage. Something that gets done on period dramas set in say the 70s that are still shot digitally.
Another huge benefit of digital is its low light capabilities, this means you can shoot using ambient light without using unnatural film lighting - which is a big reason so many old films look terrible, the very obvious fake lighting from big lights just off screen. The worst example I can recall are the rural Irish scenes in Spielberg's Warhorse that looked like they were shot on a planet with two suns, due to the strange light sources and multiple shadows. Loads of unnatural fill lighting was needed because using film would have meant blowing the skies out otherwise. This made made the film look fake and unreal. Which felt wrong for that grounded in real life story.
@@BenjaminWhitley there’s just as many film movies that look bad as there are digital. Stuff doesn’t look bad now specifically because of digital, if you light and art design like blade runner, you can use an iPhone and it will look phenomenal.
Stop talking about cameras. It’s a futile conversation imo.
Patrick, now this is the “content” that I want to see more of. May the gatekeepers of Hollywood bless you with the keys to the kingdom. 🤙
Haha. Thanks for watching 🤘
^ what he said. I agree with what he said.
This is the content I love. Thanks for having Oren Soffer share his insights. What a great conversation. Looking forward to your next video!
I just saw the movie two hours ago, still processing the experience. Wonderful Film. BEAUTY!!!! Felt like a dream to me... A transformative dream. Casting is perfect! Locations are visual rocket-ships. So Immersive and textual. Thank You both for making this video about This Film!
Great breakdown Patrick. Just saw the film last night and the visuals were stunning. Its crazy how far camera technology has come in such a short amount of time. However, the reality is the camera doesn't matter and its everything you put in front of the lens. Most creators focus too much on gear but thats not the most important part.
thanks Jeven - 100%
Awesome video Patrick, and congrats to Oren for The Creator, What a beautiful looking film!!!
You guys are speaking my language, I work as a lighting artist in animation and VFX, and this is the conversation I am constantly having with my colleagues. There is a tendency to get caught up in the tech used, and its true that having the right tools is important, but there must be a defined vision from the very start.
It's great to hear about the early discussions of the orange / blue colour palette and the styleguide references of Alien and Apocalypse Now, sitting in the cinema I could really feel that clear vision through out.
I've worked on films that are made in the edit, but also films with a clear vision from day one and latter is always a real treat to be part of and it always shows on the screen in the end.
If the script was better, The Creative would be a new sci-fi classic. But nonetheless, the look, sets, effects and general production are absolutely masterful, and put almost all modern blockbusters to shame. And your video is brilliantly showing why.
not a perfect movie but it had so much soul, a flawed masterpiece
@@multiversescriptutes8400 I can dislike something you liked. No need to get rude. If you think the script is great, cool, my opinion won‘t lessen your enjoyment of the film.
@@multiversescriptutes8400 Ok… hope you‘re happy now.
Maybe in the future a director’s cut would help? Kinda lost its’ soul in the end sequences... spectacle heavy. Didn’t ruin it for me, I love spectacle vfx, but character resolution rushed, Hollywood kiss, etc.
@@multiversescriptutes8400 Perhaps you should let the adults have their conversation. 4chan is that way.
I write this comment all the time - about lighting. I am a scale model builder and have worked for some of the largest companies in the world building highly detailed intricate scale models. I understand how CGI has replaced much of what scale models used to do. But - I have never seen CGI ever come close to the visuals in "2001 A Space Odyssey" of the space ship being illuminated in space. The depth, the clarity, the detail is unmatchable. Amazing. I have never - never - seen CGI in any film I have ever watched come close to that. And that film, as we all know, was filmed back in the 1960s, using a 'scale model'.....
Interstellar
Really cool, Patrick. Love it. Also, Oren is staggeringly articulate. Just listened to him on a podcast, and the guy just speaks about this stuff with so much clarity and specificity.
Thank you for having this conversation. I just watched the film the other night in and couldn't put my finger on why I enjoyed the visuals so much. Listening to Oren walk through the logistics and rationale was so valuable. And I definitely agree that we gotta stop focusing so much on the gear and just make things with meaning and intentionality.
This is the first of your videos that I have ever seen. By far one of the best videos on UA-cam. So full of great information and inspiration. I love how you challenged us to make our first “Monsters”. Thank you, thank you thank you for such a great vid. You gained a new subscriber!
Cheers! Thanks for watching.
Great video and insights! Such a stunning film. Thanks both for taking the time to do this!
Cheers!
The Sony FX3 Cinema Line is a fantastic camera that can produce outstanding results.
Pairing it with talented filmmakers contributed to the movie’s incredible visuals. It’s a great example of the right tools in skilled hands.
Yeah, small light and capable in the hands of someone who does genius work by operating the camera themselves with relatively less pre-planning is a great combination.
This movie would have looked great with just about any cinema camera today especially BMD line of cameras and the Zcam.
Great interview! Thank you for making this
cheers! thanks for watching.
Man I love this video. Thank you so much for making it. Cheers from Western Australia
thanks for watching!
This is an amazing perspective and awesome video for any filmmaker looking to improve their skills. Thanks man!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Less buying stuff, more learning stuff. Love it
Great points made here! I shot my feature OTHER MADNESSES with a Panasonic DVX-100 because it was the camera I owned at the time and I knew how to light for it. Very happy with the results (the film even won a cinematography award at The Arizona Film Festival) despite the fact that we used "ancient" technology.
That’s awesome!
Congratulations!
This video was one of your best yet! I personally really liked the movie and wanna see it again! I wish it was making more money because it deserves it!
yeah im excited for round 3 actually
I am a photographer. Taught for 20 years at a film school. You hit the nail on the head. You play with light. You have to understand composition. My gear is a Canon 5D Mark 2. That camera is amazing.
Thank you, Patrick!! This is what the community needs. At least the ones who really wanna do this shit fr
thanks for watching!
This was an absolute joy to watch. Man, what a guy
THANK YOU!
I Say this to my students all of the time. It’s not about the gear. It’s about your vision, and the story and how you execute those things. Beautiful work!
brilliant brilliant brilliant
This is brilliant. Thanks for doing this Patrick
People please recommend The Creator to your family amd friends! It's a really good movie and it's not doing so well, we need to support original stories!
I am waiting for a decent copy to show up on a torrent.
Hack everything
Nothing at all original in this story. It ironically felt like a bad Chat GPT rehash of every war/action movie out there, with random and pretty much irrelevant scifi bits.
Looked nice though.
You're killing it with these quasi visual essay/mini-docs my friend, keep up the great work!
appreciate you, jon!!
I shoot Weddings. I had one Sony A7 III and an A6400. Bought a 3rd camera. Considered buy an A7S III, A7 IV, but the thing is, do I need 10-bit? Do I need larger files or 4K60? Are ANY of my clients complaining about video quality? No, no, no. Bought the ZVE10. Perfect fit, amazing image quality on 4K24, great ISO, great price. Thanks for confirming that we must work with what we have, and get better skill before getting better cameras.
Patrick, thanks for the great video!
And of course, Oren, thanks for the insights!
This is a great perspective, I have always told my friends while talking about filmmaking that it is more than just the camera and the crazy editing filmmaking is so diverse. Thank you Patrick Tomasso for this video.
Thanks Patrick your always staying ahead of the game with these knowledge drops
Brilliant, especially the lighting techniques, and love using the roughness to add to the believability.
That was an awesome interview. Thanks for putting that together.
One thing I took away from Oren's words was the point of taking the environment you're shooting in, and base your lighting off of that. Use the queues the environment is giving you to decide how to shape your light. And like you said, use the camera that you already have. With a well thought out plan and direction, you can get what you're looking for.
This is why i love using my OG BMPCC for all film ideas. Its challenging and yet capable of doing all I want and need with such a small package. Great work man!
Great analysis. It's true that digital cameras are just data sensors, and nowadays the only important part in selecting a camera is the ergonomics and workflow of the camera. I think this is also a testament to the power of lens selection. It was a throwaway line, but those Kowa anamorphics are gorgeous, and brings so much character and aesthetic to the film.
Absolutely loved every part of this video.
One of my fav YT creators right here...vid perfectly captured the magic of cinematography. Use the camera to tell the story, don't tell the story to use the camera. Masterful work brother! That webcam shot tho... 😮😮😮🔥🔥🔥
Great video. And to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth was fantastic 👏
cheers Paul!
First video of yours that I've come across and I subscribed straight away. Love your style of interviewing: you ask great questions and then just let them speak, leaving your insightful "take-away analysis" afterwards, which I enjoy too. Thanks!
It's awesome seeing Garath going back to his roots with this project
"Know ur tools" totally agree, as long as the tools are figured out, then you can focus on the story.
Tools are just tools, as long as they speak to your vision.
Thank you for hosting him.
Niiiice. Totally agree. Its not about the equipment. The willingness to go out there, use what you have, and make mistakes. That fuels creativity.
Excellent vid Patrick, great interview, educational and entertaining, oh and it looked great!
Totally agreed with your thesis. Great video!
🤘
I consider "The Creator" my top favorite film of 2023 along with "Gran Turismo". The fact that those two film have a budget of 80 and 60 million dollars is an astonishing feat of itself.
We can all add Godzilla minus one in December I guess with a budget of 11 million or sth 🫡
@@eyuptas6590 21 years. Why?
THANK YOU for highlighting that the camera doesn't really matter!! God I have genuinely seen over a dozen youtube thumbnails talking about how the FX3 was used for The Creator and it's not that big of a deal, they were limited by the gear they could carry around the world on commercial flights with a small crew, if they could have used the Alexa 65 Gareth used on Rogue One you know they would have, this was a compromise, not a statement.
Oren puts it well when he says it's the least interesting part of the film but that he understands why people are interested in it. If you've worked with cameras you know anyone could easily film an entire feature film on a consumer camera, that's not surprising, it's just that this was one of the first times it was proven on a big budget film.
Love the thesis dude... so on point, and so GOOD! Preach brother!
Great video Patrick! Hope more people ( youtubers in filmmaking industry ) will talk and teach more about how to make movies, what’s important in them, techniques, etc rather than another unboxing of new amazing gear that we need to buy
thanks!
ZERO complaints on the technical work in this film. 10/10
Love this! I'm learning cinematography right now. I'm finding interviews like this and productions like The Creator to be super inspirational!
Learning how to play with light and make the most out of a scene/setting are incredible pieces of advice for anyone. Would love to see more interviews like this!
Thanks for showing us the visuals and strategy behind the movie vs. the equipment being center state.
I think Luc Forsyth positioned the FX3 importance well by saying it showed that not having "good enough" equipment is no longer a good excuse.
This is awesome, thank you!
Great video, but I do want to point out that the 160m budget for Rebel Moon is for both 3 hour movies, not just the 2hr of Part 1. Zack also adopted a similar approach to shooting and VFX that led to a low budget and streamlined process. Another impressive example of cost effective sci-fi film making.
i know it's 2 movies
🤌 man, loved this and your core message to ‘focus on what’s inside the frame’.
Love how you edited and put this interview together. It was entertaining and engaging🤩
Thanks!
I just saw this film and absolutely loved it! Made even more so by the gear choice. I think for me, the way he shot and the equipment used.. offers far more scope for the rest of us (removing the CGI etc). With ‘good enough’ camera gear and some lighting, there will be interesting locations near all of us.. it’s just taking the time to perfect the skills to make those come to life
really nice interview. A lot of high valuable information. And very inspiring. Talent and a vision > gear.
The creator is my favorite movie of 2023. I just seen it today though! I really enjoyed it.
thank you for this interview. This was helpful!
Dude you knock it out of the park with this video. Thanks!
Thanks!
I know that the fact the creator was shot on an FX3 (a camera that I actually own) means nothing because what matters the most is the story, lighting, actors' performance, locations....
BUT, For some reason that I ignore, this make me very motivated to take my camera and shoot my next short after two years from my first one (which was a one man band low/no budget film with a BMPCC4K and two lenses).
I think in this era of perfect digital images, the "perfectly imperfect" is an interesting option to explore.
I saw The Creator two successive times in one day, and I can say that this film is positively changing something in me as a filmmaker.
Thank you for this video and thanks to The creator creators for such a beautiful, inspiring movie 🙏
I love these kinda videos from you. Inspiring. I find the camera section especially interesting because I'm still using an iPhone 11 Pro Max. While I'm not making films I've learned over the years to make it work through lighting, editing and composition. Same thing applies to my Android devices.
I love how his webcam is even setup on the shadow side of his face and has some nice greenery but it's not too forced.
This is like when I see these articles or videos talking about “You can shoot movies on an iPhone” or “Olivia Rodrigo shot her new video on an iPhone” but a lot of times these people have access to full studios, crew and gear most of us don’t. That’s what makes the difference.
More than anything, talent makes the difference.
@W1||88
“A lot of times these people have access to full studios, crews and gears, that most of us don’t, that makes us different.”
Think about how Christopher Nolan made his first film “The Following” with only $6000 of his own budget, the actors are his friends and relatives that have their own full time employment jobs on weekdays, in which they could only film their scenes on weekends as part time, and the whole film was shot on a Super16 camera with black and white film stock with a little crews and budget. In addition that Nolan directed, written, produced(with his wife Emma), Edited and filmed (yes he’s the DP in the making of the film) all by himself. Took him, his crew and casts a year to complete the entire film. At the end, his film received positive reviews and feedbacks from audience and made him and Emma stepped their feet into Hollywood.
As Patrick said, that’s talent, makes the difference.
@@alexchrysler2339 I agree it does but what I’m specifically talking about are like these iPhone commercials saying “You can shoot this on iPhone” but they have like car mounts, a full automated dolly, a huge jib, like thousands of dollars worth of lights, etc. I just find commercials/videos like that a bit disingenuous.
@@W1ll88 What Apple showed and tells you that is giving you an idea that you could use a smartphone to make a short film yourself IF you have the budget. How you want the visuals to be looked like, it’s up to your creativity, efforts and your available budget.
If you have the budget, you are definitely can access to these services for your production. If not, that’s where guerrilla / run&gun filmmaking come into place.
Thanks for sharing the great interview Patrick!
This is a fantastic video Patrick!
Thanks!
No lie, this movie looks gorgeous
I saw this baby opening weekend on IMAX and from a visual standpoint-this movie is incredible. And the subject is really great too but I needed more. I felt like they really put a lot of complex ideas into a two hour movie and it easily could’ve gone another 45 minutes and I would’ve loved it.
I felt like the story needed more time, more time to play out these scenes for the audience to really emotionally connect to the characters and what was at stake.
16:55 too right! I made a feature film with a Sony A73 back in 2019 instead of waiting around for the highly anticipated A7S3 to get released.
This is great, Patrick, Gareth is really a talented director/shooter. And Oren is so spot on with the importance of a color palette. This is true for movies and run n gun corporate video as well.
Thanks for watching! Colors in the frame is so damn important. I got a new video coming that focuses even more on this.
This movie was stunning!
This was a really interesting video thank you Patrick!
I think that one other key element of why The creator looked so good with this budget is that Gareth Edward started his career as a VFX artist. He knew exatcly how they worked and what they needed to make everything he wanted in the most efficient way possible!! Nowadays with bigger budjet movies, they don't know how VFX studios work and give them impossible deadlines and changes to make at the last minute resolving in them making acceptable cgi but not good cgi!! That's why marvel and DC movies look bad recently!
Gareth knew the importance of their work and their way of working!! I heard VFX artist who really had a great experience working on The Creator, in comparison to other big budjet movie where a lot of artist work crazy hours and end up quitting their job because of the working conditions!
The Creator is really the kind of movie that we need support!!!
yes, if only the script was better, because many people criticized the ending
thx 4 making this !! has inspired me / gave me ideas for music :)
I also agree entirely with what you say about focusing on the content, not just the gear. When working on my undergraduate, I remember in a mentor meeting with some of my professors, one in particular who worked on the film Forest Gump, said, "It isn't about the camera, it is the person behind the camera and whether they have vision. I know many people with expensive cameras that make crappy stuff and others with inexpensive cameras that make wonderful films." After 16 years of making no-budget to million-dollar-budget films and documentaries, it is the vision and knowledge to know how to use whatever camera and tools you have. Start with what you have and develop your craft because if you can't make something beautiful with the basics, you won't know what to do with the more complex tools. Understand the basics, like color palettes, etc. But having a no-budget, or $10,000.00 budget compared to a half million to a million dollar budget can and often does make a massive difference in the end product. I can only imagine and hope to one day know what it feels like to make a film or documentary with a million-dollar-plus budget.
Yooooooo! Thank you, man for this video, the message in it and the interview with Oren! Fantastic 💥. You’re 100% right, they would’ve done the same (more or less) with an iPhone, so yes, the camera at this point is the least important aspect. Grazie 🙏
Amazing interview! Love learning so much!
Great work! I love your switch in direction. Generally, gear reviews are only helpful if you have a specific use case or need something for a project, and talking about gear in a movie is pointless as those things are readily available. What's hard to find is how the creative is done to achieve the vision or even having the idea in the first place. I want to learn more about how people work and create and why they make.
Thanks for watching! I agree.
Great interview, interesting approach with the right music!
Genuinely great video. I love your perspective on it and super helpful info
I'm glad they got into using bounce to making things more organic. Remember...anything that reflects is a lighting source. You don't have to be direct with a key but, in fact, counter-intuitive would be to control what all IS a source. Bouncing that tube should have been a no-brainer. It's like trying to light a table scene for each character vs. setting one light overhead and getting great bounce off the table and then creating motivated light for the back/hair and fill. The way they did this movie pushed them in directions that most don't think to go and for them to explain that and expand on the why, I very much appreciate and applaud them. I applaud the look they achieved. This is why we test. At the end of the day...they passed the test.
Excellent content and interviewer. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video! ❤
Amazing interview!
Give me some more of this please. Amazing video, Thank you!
Been waiting for your take on the cinematography.
How is this made for only $80 million? Crazy.
Incredibly insightful. So awesome.
Fantastic interview.
From those 20 years spent on film sets (plus my years as a freelance photo-reporter), there is a major lesson I have learnt and that shall be here to stay : them we call "technicians" in the world of imagery actually are artists performing their craft with machines, but they are true artists down to their core.
I'll start by saying that I love watching a good classic, The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Ben-Hur (1959), Shichinin no Samurai (1954), Casablanca (1942) etc.
For as long as I can remember, I have always enjoyed collecting the films that left an impression on me.
First on VHS, then I renewed my film collection in DVD format, then I loved the increase in quality to the Blu-ray format and finally, I acquired all the movies I got, which have since been re-released in 4K.
Over the years I have followed with great pleasure the evolution of film cameras used in cinema.
The quality was increasing, the realism was increasing, the resolution was getting closer to reality, IMAX and the sound...The sound!
In short, evolution! All this description to see a fiction film arriving in 2023 with an image from the 80's and the typical grain of the 50's...
I'm sorry, but enjoying the film's plot, very present/futuristic, with excellent Dolby Atmos sound, I was really shocked by the salty mix of poor image quality and grain!
Please, filmmakers, everything in its time, the grain belongs to the 50s and the low quality belongs to the 80s.
They can be used in new films that portray these times, but not in those set in the present, much less in films that represent a society in the future.
Evolve! PLEASE!!!
Ps: Now, if you make a movie with a bright, sharp image and good HDR clean grain version and another with grain, like the "Director's version" it will please Greeks and Trojans 😄
Thanks for the interesting and intellectual discussion on this movie. I've seen it twice and probably a 3rd time tomorrow. Since you used Makeup and Vanity Set music, I had to instantly subscribe. I am also burned out on the vapid gear-lust. So it's refreshing to see a video like this. I feel lucky I found this video. Thank you.
I did it 3x as well. Thanks for watching! Enjoy the music 🍿✌️
great video Patrick. Very entertaining!
Great interview and important take aways for our community!