If you're going for specifically this sort of sci fi world like The Creator, then yes unfortunately 😂 tbf I'm glad they used the budget on other departments like set dec and vfx instead of just camera, you can see how much this shines through
I remember one of Gareth's earlier movies "Monsters" in the BTS videos you see it was shot on a Sony Ex3 camcorder with a DOF adapter and largely cut on a laptop. It's cool that even now he's embracing these accessible cameras on really large-budget productions!
I actually have a small role in this film, I was only on set for one day, and didn't really get the opportunity to get up and close with the cameras. I remember thinking they were FX3s but wasn't sure, I thought they might be part of the Sony Venice system. But super excited to know it was filmed on the same camera I use to make documentaries.
I saw The Creator last night. Was completely blown away by it - visually it’s incredible. Then I went on UA-cam to look up more about it today, and I find it was shot on the same camera I own. My mind is kind of blown right now.
In the market for an Fx3, I feel like the fact this massive film was shot on it leaves zero doubt as to what it can do on a pedestrian level lol thanks!
What's interesting is that although we don't know how much the FX3 was used, no one is saying there's no way those images couldn't have come out of an FX3 in the first place. These small cameras are that good now.
@@MemeLordCthulhuIt's not just a case of the camera. For the look of 'The Creator' you have to factor in the cost of the lenses, of which a whole set of cinema glass can often cost the price of a house or a large wad of cash to rent. Then there's possibly virtual Led sets, incredibly expensive lighting, etc. It's 'budget' but a heavy FX movie is still quite an investment.
Even before we talk about Hollywood man, there are so many people here on UA-cam making great short films with little gear. Its all about you picking a camera and create what you have in your mindyour. Thank You Matti Haapoja.
Most cameras are pretty much capable of shooting feature films. Things that make the difference are: crew, lighting, lenses (you have fx3 + a $20000 lens :) ), great actors, director, dp, custom music score, locations, vfx. Yes, they could not shoot it on T3i, but we are long ago past low quality cameras in this price range. Without these things no one can shoot something like that, regardless the camera equipment IMO.
Consumer cameras are insane quality wise there is nothing ur lacking. Anything ur lacking is convenience a cannon r5 shoots such high resolutions and details. Fx3 has such great low light capabilities it would make any hollywood camera jealous
Sometimes you don’t need a really expensive camera. It’s all about lighting and lenses. There have been feature films shot on the S1H. I plan to do some on the S5iix that I am getting and that camera is basically Panasonic’s FX3.
I agree and I suspect that their camera choice was most likely because they wanted a certain look or feel. The cost of using even top end cinema cameras is probably not a significant budget item on most productions. There are so many other costs when filming a feature film that the cost of the camera gear isn't ever going to be the real barrier to entry.
@@jacobstone4real S1H and S5 would work great when there aren't many moving shots due to the rolling shutter. FX3 happens to have very low rolling shutter, pretty much the same as Arris that they are used to, so it isn't a concern, especially for this movie. Going by the trailer, there seems to be loy of action and movement.
No, its all about lightning, lenses, art direction, acting, directing, framing, overall cinematography, movements, makeup, costumes, vfx, color grade, sound.... this can last 1 hour, you got it. If you miss of of those things it looks amateurish. So yeah the camera choice is almost the least important thing. And that is why I dont understand why the filmmaker community is talking so much about gear. The filmmaking community is quite wrong focusing so much on gear. I see very little videos talking about preproduction, art conception, etc. Im sorry to say it, but almost all charnels, including this one, is not really talking about filmaking, but is just talking about tools. Tools are jmportant, sure, but it should ocupy maybe 20% of this kind of YT channel. But i guess this is what community is waiting for. Guys yiur waisting your time ! The day i understood that a good concept is the most impirtant factor when starting a project, everything changed for me.
Matti reports are coming out they used the Alexa 65 with the addition of the FX3, did you get any new info that shows it was specifically shot on the Fx3 only? So many UA-camrs making videos on this now and it would be a shame if it were actually shot on the Alexa 65 mostly
@@RamSarup This has already been debunked. DP himself and his gaffers says they shot the whole film on FX3. Don't be salty because is a Sony's Camera...
I saw another filmmaker post that although the original comment from the director was it would be exclusively shot on the FX3, I believe he said he found that ARRI and the FX3 were both listed. Assuming some of the large scale work that needed CGI was probably the bulk of the work there and the FX3 fit in for closer work. Hopefully there will be a full behind the scenes and some technical talk about it.
Went back and looks like they went by the info on IMDB which lists both those cameras, but a few people said they talked with gaffers and others and they said don't believe IMDB. Then someone posted a Tweet from Soffer the said: "We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)". This might be one of the more exciting things to have to wait for in some time.
Sounds like my video :) Yeah, the Arri stuff got removed. At this point IMDb is not too reliable. But I still harken back too the original podcast quote. And think the quote that one of my viewers got from the gaffer was interesting.
@@wildwoodweddingfilms You have any resources showing that? Would suck if it is clickbait, but the production team is quoted as saying they used the FX3. Wish this would get sorted.
That's honestly insane! Using the Sony FX3 on a huge budget production like this? I'm shocked! Goes to show that if we can get impeccable with our design, lighting, and production choices we too can achieve results akin to the mighty hollywood!
They probably used an external recorder (Ninja V or Shogun) in ProRes RAW codec, which can later be converted to CinemaDNG 16-bit or Slog3 4444. This camera is amazing, even in H265. In DaVinci Resolve with Aces Color Manage (HDR), H265 (Slog3) is incredibly flexible. The question should be: Why use the ARRI Alexa? (Currently, it has to prove itself to be better). Great video, keep it up!
@@jammaschan The dynamic range of the Arri Alexa is not very different from the Sony FX3 (when recorded in ProRes RAW 16-bit). Have you ever recorded in this format? ProRes RAW can be converted to uncompressed CinemaDNG 16-bit, all of this combined with Davinci using Aces (Color Managed), and you have a very professional format. One small detail is that the ISO 12800 of the FX3 is unbeatable at the moment (I know there is noise in RAW, that's where NEAT comes into play). FX3+Atomos+Davinci, when used correctly, becomes almost unbeatable.
@@djchrisnobeat the alexa (in arri raw) has 16.7 stops of dynamic range compared to 14.7 of the FX3 (in prores raw) according to CineD's tests. That's two whole stops of dynamic range, a very significant difference. Edit: forgot to specify it's the alexa 35, and also yes I agree the low light performance of the FX3 is crazy good.
The camera works because in the end, good lighting, good production design, good compositing and good talent all come together to make a beautiful image.
It’s brilliant that a camera like the FX3 was used as one of the cameras on this project along side the Arri 65 I think. Hollywood has a long history of using smaller prosumer cameras in different parts of production like Blackmagic cameras in MAD MAX, so it’s not unheard of.
Fury Road used ten Canon 5D MarkII and six Olympus OM5 for the main shoot. They only used the BMD Cinema Camera for the reshoots which were mainly inside the citadel - the shots on Tom Hardy running, used the BMCC for example, using a chest rig. They would have used the BMCC for the entire shoot as the VFX team loved the files they got from it, sadly the camera wasn't released in time for the main unit shoot.
@@BartonKi Fury Road used ten Canon 5D MarkII and six Olympus OM5 for the main shoot. They only used the BMD Cinema Camera for the reshoots which were mainly inside the citadel - the shots on Tom Hardy running, used the BMCC for example, using a chest rig. They would have used the BMCC for the entire shoot as the VFX team loved the files they got from it, sadly the camera wasn't released in time for the main unit shoot.
I was making movies back in the 90's. It was shot on tape and transferred to a computer, then edited and dumped to Tape. We did some special effects but mostly it was running, fights and talking scenes. Lots of big locations, like downtown LA, the beach, golf course, desert and so on. They were all run and gun free locations. Guns were toys, explosions and laser shots were computer generated, and it was fun. The actors were new, young and cheap or free. But, they got staring rolls in the movie and put on the Covers. We made the movies for $10,000 and sold them to foreign distributors.
It's not that they shot it on the FX3 that excites me (though I do shoot on the a7SIII and Alpha 1), it's that pretty much every camera at that level out right now is such a beast and is capable of that kind of quality! I'm just trying to get going on UA-cam for fun/business and obviously nowhere near that level of filming. One thing's for sure, no one, NO ONE can complain about gear these days! Check your lighting or check your skills but damn your camera is probably not the problem hahahaha
Exactly, they even shot the horror/thriller movie Hannah back in like 2015 on the Sony A7S2 and it appeared in all theaters movie was great in my option couldn’t even tell 🎥
Agreed. However, I’m not buying the “hype” entirely. It’s cool that such camera meets Hollywood standards, but there’s more to it than camera and skill. Huge crew, super high quality lighting, custom score, locations, great actors, vfx,… This may lead to a huge disappointment to some new filmmakers. Thay may buy FX3 based on these videos and never achieve “good results” because they will compare their quality to such movie. The camera is the same, why is the result not? :). I get the message and I really like Matti’s video but I miss this “disclaimer”, that even with this camera and skill you will need couple $100k to really achieve such overall quality.
@@MartinNemeth That was my point though, these cameras are more than capable. So if you are not achieving your desired results then you probably need to up your skills or check your lighting. Cameras aren't magic, they don't just automatically add effects, perfect lighting, and sound/music... hahaha anyone who thinks that probably should be rethinking their pathing! Also, you definitely don't need a couple $100k to achieve such overall quality. There's plenty of UA-camrs putting out AMAZING quality material with nothing more than a camera and gimbal. If you aren't able to get that quality from your camera then you indeed lack skill.
Love your energy. Speaking from the bottom of that pyramid, im so happy with the current tech! Reminds me of how revolutionary MIDI was to audio, everyone can now play and produce quality material!
A reporter just asked him on the red carpet about the camera nd he said, "I just shot my first movie (Monster) on the EX3 and now with the FX3, this is going to sound boring now, but I just really like the color science, it's lowlight where you can practically shoot during just moonlight, and that it's light..." Love his transparency.
He shot Monster on his own with second hand lenses and camera so this doesn't surprise me but I really need to know how they set the fx3 up so I can match it lol
There have been a number of studio feature films going back a few years shot all or partially on the Sony a7S II (The Possession of Hannah Grace and Black and Blue, both for Screen Gems, and the FX3 has been used as a B cam to "match" Venice on Hulu's Dopesick and Amazon's Daisy Jones and the 6. Another very well-known and respected DP, Oscar-winning actually, also shot a feature on the FX3. And adding that I know the DP for the above-mentioned shows and he recorded internally, 422 10-bit.
I’ve owned and have been consistently shooting on my FX3 for two years now. People aren’t lying when they say it holds up to the Venice, especially if you’re just uploading to UA-cam/Insta
with the correct illumination , and team , you can do anything , obviously the camera its soo important , but the combination of this things its the key.
We're starting to reach the point in filmmaking where it matches the same energy as people asking artists what brushes they use. Imagine going to Van Gogh's studio and being psyched that he painted everything with a cheap pallet knife. 😂 It is really inspiring though, just like filming on an iPhone is, but the plus side is all the extra control with lenses etc.
I remember hearing Greig talk about planning on using the Fx3 for an upcoming project a few years ago on a podcast. He never said what project that was for. I figured he was gonna use it to shoot something smaller, never did I think this was the project he was talking about. Crazy.
It’s all very interesting and also an insight into the two worlds of filmmakers/Cinematographers. We have UA-camrs buying Sony Venices and Arris and then we have Hollywood directors and DPs using FX3s, C70s and even an iPhone to make their films. There’s something possibly to be learnt here 😊
they did explain in a podcast why they were planning on using a fx3 for their new film they'll be working on.. we didn't know at the time it would be this movie for sure.. but its been confirmed in the last week or so by the cinematographer I believe
A few years ago, there was a horror movie shot on Sony A7R3s (if I’m not mistaken). More than a decade ago, most of a whole episode of House MD was shot on Canon 5dmk2s as the set design was so squished, they couldn’t fit anything larger in there. What I’m trying to say is that the possibilities have always been there, but the big advantage today versus yesterday is that today we have a much less noticeable quality difference between cinema cameras and even hybrid cameras for $1000. There’s never been a better time to produce one’s own movie. I hope everyone is as excited about this as you and I are, Matti!
Watching Matt try to look enthusiastic and saying he thinks the FX3 will be closely matched with the ARRI he just spent $100K on with a smile is hilarious. The ARRI obviously makes better pictures but the takeaway from this is that good writing and content are king. BTW Matt, I’m a 13 year IATSE veteran production sound mixer. I’d love to create with you. Hit me up sir. Nothin but love and respect.
Thanks for the video, I had confusion between which camera I chose for my movie which we planned in a very Budget, after I saw the trailer of the creator I'm convinced with Sony FX 3 in Kollywood, thank you ❤
I heard the same thing and he mentioned that he wanted to shoot it all on the FX3 but rumor is they also used Arri mini's.They def used Atlas lenses though. As an FX3 owner it would be dope if it was just an FX3.
@@mattih Yeah but now you have that same combo brother 💪🏽. I'm expecting a blockbuster. Come to NY and we can film it together... Bring your Arri 🤣 Keep rocking brother, I love your work!
I remember all the fuss when the finale of season 6 of "House"was shot entirely using Canon 5D Mk II cameras ans then they used them for a lot of season 7. We've come a long way since then.
I have to say, I hope your channel is transitioning more towards this narrative film content. I love the gadgets and editing videos but you have a really good opportunity to segway in to some new content.
I think they used this camera over the Alexa to give more of a sense of reality. When you shoot something on a camera that is slightly less quality than the best image Hollywood has to offer, it can give a sense that its more of a documentary than a feature. This works great when there is a lot of cgi in the film and you are trying to make it actually be real to the audience.
I don't think Gareth would have any problem operating any camera.. I remember him rocking his XL1 with a massive 35mm adapter (yes those were the days) with a very small team on his first feature film Monsters that I really recommend. he did all the VFX himself, and it is truly a great movie for such a small budget. It just goes to show, that the camera hype is or should be over.. Any of the camera on the market will do.. A great set is more valuable than any camera or lens for that matter. If you also get a great story then it's fantastic...
I’m as well shoked that they shoot this on Fx3. And I agree with the idea that image quality wise, the gap is getting closer. BUT this does not mean anything really, this does not make “Hollywood” more achievable. Once you have the massive budget for the ton of extra equipement, lighting, locations, art, actors, crew and post… does the camera even matter that much? For that matter, I think movies like Nomadland, even been shot on the Mini, are far more inspiring and realistic on the odds of making our own narrative films.
Matti, I assume that 7 months on , you have watched all the Bts stuff where they talk about the choice of the fx3 and how Gareth started with the EX3 for 'Monsters'.
If you think 4K, shallow depth of field, and good dynamic range constitutes “good filmmaking” then you are severely mistaken. Yes, technology is better now than it was in the past, but good filmmaking still requires a tremendous amount of skill and collaboration. Just because the technical bar for entry is getting lower doesn’t make the craft itself any easier.
There have been a ton of films that used low budget cameras to achieve a certain amateur/documentary look. But this is the first one that isn’t going for that look and actually plays into the cameras strengths instead of it’s weaknesses.
No. It shows that waiting for better gear to come is not an excuse any more. As soon as a Hollywood DP shoots on a prosumer cam everybody says: see its about the Lens. That is ridicoulus, it is the same people that said it IS about the camera Yesterday. Hollywood movies are about everything and every talent involved: gaffers, actors, DP, Director, Set Design, Wardrobe, Sound...and surely least about the lens
@@smepable There’s a reason they don’t shoot on photo glass. Stick a proper cinema lens on an A73 and it looks pretty solid. In fact they did that, for The Possession of Hannah Grace. Can’t have one without the other. I notice that there is a general emphasis on UA-cam placed on the camera and not the optics.
@@jackbynum are you listening ? He couldnt have done that on a A73. It is much much more noisy in low light. I know because I use both and its a shock every time I try to use the A73 in low light. I know. And the DP of the Creator knows And talks explicitly about this. And thats why this is a big deal about him using that new technology that we can use too. But yeah, ignore what that DP says. Its the fucking Lens!......of course it IS also about the Lens. But the way a lot of comments search for excuses why they dont Shoot great stuff is sickening.
@@smepable damn dude, why you so mad about this? Like, the atlas orions look far better than the stock photo glass most people are shooting on on this platform. It’s disingenuous in my opinion to act like the cam is pulling all the weight in the image.
The day young filmmakers will understand that making a film is not about the camera but everything that goes with it, it will be a big step forward. The camera body is probably the cheapest expense for a movie. The lenses are way more important and expensive to rent. And the crew. And post. And EVERYTHING ELSE!!! Spend time writing a damn good screenplay then you'll have any camera you want on set.
This is from Oren Soffer the DP along with Greig Fraser "We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)" This was in regards to a twitter thread about the use of the FX3
It was cos of the crazy ISO performance, size and the RAW. With it they got close to actors, the emotions are easier to get "on film" with small camera.
So this means that if my FX6 footage doesn't look "cinematic" its just because of my lack of skill on grading and lighting, not on that I don't own an Arri?
I got no proof of this or any source, but if I really had to guess it's less about the low light and probably more about the pixel density of the FX3 or rather the lack of density. That is one of the things that really separates it from say the fx6 or fx9 in terms of the sensor itself. Modern cinema cameras can shoot in high ISOs, but they still introduce a ton of noise. The FX3's ISO can be blasted and still have very few noise because the pixels are so much more cramped up together leaving less room for splotchy noisy extra pixels.
Don't forget those types of movies, the film footage is so heavily modified and graded in VFX and Comp, just having a basic and decent image from the beginning does the trick, for that, the FX3 is good enough.
I see a couple of reasons why they made the choice to go with the Sony FX3 for a film like this. Dual ISO Low Light Performance. Not so much to shoot by avoiding lighting so much as greatly extending the lighting flexibility in night/dark scenes. The lighting budget is probably critical for a movie like this and the camera may have exponentially increased its lighting options with the lighting budget. Small size and weight. Greatly increasing creative mounting flexibility, whether in tight areas or mobility of the setups.
"Feature film shot on Sony FX3" - yeah, but behind it all is amazing, crew, knowledge, experience, lighting and lenses, pretty great, small prosumer camera. More budget and payout for production, instead of wasting on camrea and lens rentals.
We know why they shot on the FX3, for the incredible low light abilities. You can see shots in the trailer that were basically shot at night. That being said, it was likely an exaggeration when Fraser said he was shooting the "whole" movie on the FX3. It's likely a combination between the Venice...
Anyone else feeling incredibly inspired right now? Still cant believe it....
hell yes!!
Probably not for theatre screens
@@bevinmore And why would that be?
Imagine… Greg using the camera I have lol
@@bevinmore They moved the film up a few weeks specifically so it can premiere on IMAX screens.
Now I just need lenses, lights, crew, vfx artists, actors, props, costumes, and locations. 😂
That part 😅
And tons of money.
Exactly 😂
And Tons of experience. TONS
If you're going for specifically this sort of sci fi world like The Creator, then yes unfortunately 😂 tbf I'm glad they used the budget on other departments like set dec and vfx instead of just camera, you can see how much this shines through
I remember one of Gareth's earlier movies "Monsters" in the BTS videos you see it was shot on a Sony Ex3 camcorder with a DOF adapter and largely cut on a laptop. It's cool that even now he's embracing these accessible cameras on really large-budget productions!
Yea crazy!
@Matti Haapoja
His Attila the Hun movie he did for bbc shows how versatile he can be
I actually have a small role in this film, I was only on set for one day, and didn't really get the opportunity to get up and close with the cameras. I remember thinking they were FX3s but wasn't sure, I thought they might be part of the Sony Venice system. But super excited to know it was filmed on the same camera I use to make documentaries.
I still remember trying to squeeze as much quality as I could out of a 480i camera. What a time to be a filmmaker.
Me too! So true!
Man, Facts!
I saw The Creator last night. Was completely blown away by it - visually it’s incredible.
Then I went on UA-cam to look up more about it today, and I find it was shot on the same camera I own.
My mind is kind of blown right now.
This makes me happy. Wasn’t sure I was purchasing the right camera a few months ago when I got the FX3, now I can’t imagine my life without it ❤
In the market for an Fx3, I feel like the fact this massive film was shot on it leaves zero doubt as to what it can do on a pedestrian level lol thanks!
What's interesting is that although we don't know how much the FX3 was used, no one is saying there's no way those images couldn't have come out of an FX3 in the first place. These small cameras are that good now.
This was for all intents and purposes shot using a ninja v to out raw.
But how cheap is it? Can I make an indie thriller in a mafia setting with some supernatural elements with it?
@@MemeLordCthulhuIt's not just a case of the camera. For the look of 'The Creator' you have to factor in the cost of the lenses, of which a whole set of cinema glass can often cost the price of a house or a large wad of cash to rent. Then there's possibly virtual Led sets, incredibly expensive lighting, etc. It's 'budget' but a heavy FX movie is still quite an investment.
So hyped for this film! Not only because of the FX3 and the people behind it, but because it just looks awesome!
Me tooo!
Even before we talk about Hollywood man, there are so many people here on UA-cam making great short films with little gear. Its all about you picking a camera and create what you have in your mindyour. Thank You Matti Haapoja.
It’s mind boggling that that camera is that good. Can’t wait to see the breakdown of what they used. Great vid Matti
If you didnt know it is that good youve been sleeping ;)
Most cameras are pretty much capable of shooting feature films. Things that make the difference are: crew, lighting, lenses (you have fx3 + a $20000 lens :) ), great actors, director, dp, custom music score, locations, vfx. Yes, they could not shoot it on T3i, but we are long ago past low quality cameras in this price range. Without these things no one can shoot something like that, regardless the camera equipment IMO.
@@MartinNemeth what a time to be alive, am I right?
@@MartinNemeth cool story bro
Consumer cameras are insane quality wise there is nothing ur lacking. Anything ur lacking is convenience a cannon r5 shoots such high resolutions and details. Fx3 has such great low light capabilities it would make any hollywood camera jealous
Sometimes you don’t need a really expensive camera. It’s all about lighting and lenses. There have been feature films shot on the S1H. I plan to do some on the S5iix that I am getting and that camera is basically Panasonic’s FX3.
I agree and I suspect that their camera choice was most likely because they wanted a certain look or feel. The cost of using even top end cinema cameras is probably not a significant budget item on most productions. There are so many other costs when filming a feature film that the cost of the camera gear isn't ever going to be the real barrier to entry.
@@DTSquared agreed!
@@jacobstone4real S1H and S5 would work great when there aren't many moving shots due to the rolling shutter. FX3 happens to have very low rolling shutter, pretty much the same as Arris that they are used to, so it isn't a concern, especially for this movie. Going by the trailer, there seems to be loy of action and movement.
No, its all about lightning, lenses, art direction, acting, directing, framing, overall cinematography, movements, makeup, costumes, vfx, color grade, sound.... this can last 1 hour, you got it. If you miss of of those things it looks amateurish. So yeah the camera choice is almost the least important thing. And that is why I dont understand why the filmmaker community is talking so much about gear. The filmmaking community is quite wrong focusing so much on gear. I see very little videos talking about preproduction, art conception, etc. Im sorry to say it, but almost all charnels, including this one, is not really talking about filmaking, but is just talking about tools. Tools are jmportant, sure, but it should ocupy maybe 20% of this kind of YT channel. But i guess this is what community is waiting for. Guys yiur waisting your time ! The day i understood that a good concept is the most impirtant factor when starting a project, everything changed for me.
@@Studio23creation Yeah I know all that, but my point is if you’re looking at cinematography only, then lighting and lenses are a big factor.
The fx3 is really living up to that “cinema line” designation!
Matti reports are coming out they used the Alexa 65 with the addition of the FX3, did you get any new info that shows it was specifically shot on the Fx3 only? So many UA-camrs making videos on this now and it would be a shame if it were actually shot on the Alexa 65 mostly
and im saying outside of the go creative show, as that quote may be taken somewhat out of context
90% was indeed shot on ARRI 65. No idea why UA-camrs cannot do some simple research before putting out clickbait videos.
@@RamSarup This has already been debunked. DP himself and his gaffers says they shot the whole film on FX3. Don't be salty because is a Sony's Camera...
I saw another filmmaker post that although the original comment from the director was it would be exclusively shot on the FX3, I believe he said he found that ARRI and the FX3 were both listed. Assuming some of the large scale work that needed CGI was probably the bulk of the work there and the FX3 fit in for closer work. Hopefully there will be a full behind the scenes and some technical talk about it.
Went back and looks like they went by the info on IMDB which lists both those cameras, but a few people said they talked with gaffers and others and they said don't believe IMDB. Then someone posted a Tweet from Soffer the said: "We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)". This might be one of the more exciting things to have to wait for in some time.
Sounds like my video :) Yeah, the Arri stuff got removed. At this point IMDb is not too reliable. But I still harken back too the original podcast quote. And think the quote that one of my viewers got from the gaffer was interesting.
@@ScottJeschke Yeah, that was it Scott. Thanks for chiming in.
Almost none of this movie was shot on an FX3, this is just clickbait.
@@wildwoodweddingfilms You have any resources showing that? Would suck if it is clickbait, but the production team is quoted as saying they used the FX3. Wish this would get sorted.
That's honestly insane! Using the Sony FX3 on a huge budget production like this? I'm shocked! Goes to show that if we can get impeccable with our design, lighting, and production choices we too can achieve results akin to the mighty hollywood!
They probably used an external recorder (Ninja V or Shogun) in ProRes RAW codec, which can later be converted to CinemaDNG 16-bit or Slog3 4444. This camera is amazing, even in H265. In DaVinci Resolve with Aces Color Manage (HDR), H265 (Slog3) is incredibly flexible. The question should be: Why use the ARRI Alexa? (Currently, it has to prove itself to be better). Great video, keep it up!
the Alexa still has better dynamic range to say the least
@@jammaschan The dynamic range of the Arri Alexa is not very different from the Sony FX3 (when recorded in ProRes RAW 16-bit). Have you ever recorded in this format? ProRes RAW can be converted to uncompressed CinemaDNG 16-bit, all of this combined with Davinci using Aces (Color Managed), and you have a very professional format. One small detail is that the ISO 12800 of the FX3 is unbeatable at the moment (I know there is noise in RAW, that's where NEAT comes into play). FX3+Atomos+Davinci, when used correctly, becomes almost unbeatable.
@@djchrisnobeat do you think the fx3 have a lot of difference in video quality compared to the sony a7iv?
@@djchrisnobeat the alexa (in arri raw) has 16.7 stops of dynamic range compared to 14.7 of the FX3 (in prores raw) according to CineD's tests. That's two whole stops of dynamic range, a very significant difference.
Edit: forgot to specify it's the alexa 35, and also yes I agree the low light performance of the FX3 is crazy good.
@@djchrisnobeat it outputs 16bit raw but it is recorded in 12bit prores raw so you are losing some information there.
The camera works because in the end, good lighting, good production design, good compositing and good talent all come together to make a beautiful image.
Thats so incredible. Really shows its the creator not just the tools
Let’s go Sony, it shows you don’t need super high end gear to make a movie 🎥 it is more knowledge and creativity to make a film
It’s brilliant that a camera like the FX3 was used as one of the cameras on this project along side the Arri 65 I think. Hollywood has a long history of using smaller prosumer cameras in different parts of production like Blackmagic cameras in MAD MAX, so it’s not unheard of.
The shots in madmax that were shot on blackmagic are all not longer than 2 seconds lol
Fury Road used ten Canon 5D MarkII and six Olympus OM5 for the main shoot. They only used the BMD Cinema Camera for the reshoots which were mainly inside the citadel - the shots on Tom Hardy running, used the BMCC for example, using a chest rig.
They would have used the BMCC for the entire shoot as the VFX team loved the files they got from it, sadly the camera wasn't released in time for the main unit shoot.
@@BartonKi Fury Road used ten Canon 5D MarkII and six Olympus OM5 for the main shoot. They only used the BMD Cinema Camera for the reshoots which were mainly inside the citadel - the shots on Tom Hardy running, used the BMCC for example, using a chest rig.
They would have used the BMCC for the entire shoot as the VFX team loved the files they got from it, sadly the camera wasn't released in time for the main unit shoot.
I was making movies back in the 90's. It was shot on tape and transferred to a computer, then edited and dumped to Tape. We did some special effects but mostly it was running, fights and talking scenes. Lots of big locations, like downtown LA, the beach, golf course, desert and so on. They were all run and gun free locations. Guns were toys, explosions and laser shots were computer generated, and it was fun. The actors were new, young and cheap or free. But, they got staring rolls in the movie and put on the Covers. We made the movies for $10,000 and sold them to foreign distributors.
It's not that they shot it on the FX3 that excites me (though I do shoot on the a7SIII and Alpha 1), it's that pretty much every camera at that level out right now is such a beast and is capable of that kind of quality! I'm just trying to get going on UA-cam for fun/business and obviously nowhere near that level of filming. One thing's for sure, no one, NO ONE can complain about gear these days! Check your lighting or check your skills but damn your camera is probably not the problem hahahaha
Exactly, they even shot the horror/thriller movie Hannah back in like 2015 on the Sony A7S2 and it appeared in all theaters movie was great in my option couldn’t even tell 🎥
Agreed. However, I’m not buying the “hype” entirely. It’s cool that such camera meets Hollywood standards, but there’s more to it than camera and skill. Huge crew, super high quality lighting, custom score, locations, great actors, vfx,… This may lead to a huge disappointment to some new filmmakers. Thay may buy FX3 based on these videos and never achieve “good results” because they will compare their quality to such movie. The camera is the same, why is the result not? :). I get the message and I really like Matti’s video but I miss this “disclaimer”, that even with this camera and skill you will need couple $100k to really achieve such overall quality.
@@MartinNemeth That was my point though, these cameras are more than capable. So if you are not achieving your desired results then you probably need to up your skills or check your lighting. Cameras aren't magic, they don't just automatically add effects, perfect lighting, and sound/music... hahaha anyone who thinks that probably should be rethinking their pathing! Also, you definitely don't need a couple $100k to achieve such overall quality. There's plenty of UA-camrs putting out AMAZING quality material with nothing more than a camera and gimbal. If you aren't able to get that quality from your camera then you indeed lack skill.
Hollywood hit a Uno Reverse on Matti 😂😂. Just when he bought the camera they use, they started filming with the camera Matti and us use
Bahahaha got me good
I think this shows that just film your ideas. Half the battle is in the idea and how to execute. lets goo film makers.!
Love your energy. Speaking from the bottom of that pyramid, im so happy with the current tech! Reminds me of how revolutionary MIDI was to audio, everyone can now play and produce quality material!
Luvin my FX3!
If you have good color grading you can make anything look splendid
Just went and watched the trailer, and WOW. I'm definitely hyped to see what this movie has to offer!
Sameeee
A reporter just asked him on the red carpet about the camera nd he said, "I just shot my first movie (Monster) on the EX3 and now with the FX3, this is going to sound boring now, but I just really like the color science, it's lowlight where you can practically shoot during just moonlight, and that it's light..." Love his transparency.
Matti, OFF TOPIC but...
Your Audio Presets stopped working for me in FCP after latest update.
Am I doing something wrong?
He shot Monster on his own with second hand lenses and camera so this doesn't surprise me but I really need to know how they set the fx3 up so I can match it lol
this is HUGE! there is no barrier to entry anymore... bedroom filmmakers are gonna take over hollywood soon
The camera is the cheapest part of making a movie. Everything else is still expensive, especially the biggest asset - time!
I love this camera. The best I ever bought. Just touching it and having it around feels amazing. ❤
That's what I'm talking about. Big can be achieved no matter what size the package. Talent, vision, and hard work people!!!!!! 🧐
Fx3 is my camera. I should start charging more :)
The greatest time ever to be a filmmaker was in the late 90's/early 2000's when indie features were being bought for millions at festivals.
Definitely would love to know how the whole setup looks! That would be sick! Matti break it down for us!
There have been a number of studio feature films going back a few years shot all or partially on the Sony a7S II (The Possession of Hannah Grace and Black and Blue, both for Screen Gems, and the FX3 has been used as a B cam to "match" Venice on Hulu's Dopesick and Amazon's Daisy Jones and the 6. Another very well-known and respected DP, Oscar-winning actually, also shot a feature on the FX3. And adding that I know the DP for the above-mentioned shows and he recorded internally, 422 10-bit.
I’ve owned and have been consistently shooting on my FX3 for two years now.
People aren’t lying when they say it holds up to the Venice, especially if you’re just uploading to UA-cam/Insta
with the correct illumination , and team , you can do anything , obviously the camera its soo important , but the combination of this things its the key.
We're starting to reach the point in filmmaking where it matches the same energy as people asking artists what brushes they use. Imagine going to Van Gogh's studio and being psyched that he painted everything with a cheap pallet knife. 😂
It is really inspiring though, just like filming on an iPhone is, but the plus side is all the extra control with lenses etc.
I remember hearing Greig talk about planning on using the Fx3 for an upcoming project a few years ago on a podcast. He never said what project that was for. I figured he was gonna use it to shoot something smaller, never did I think this was the project he was talking about. Crazy.
Bro just casually flexed his Mini LF.
Man it would suck if you'd just shelled out on an Arri and Hollywood suddenly decided to shoot everything with point & shoots LOL!!!
Bahahah
It’s all very interesting and also an insight into the two worlds of filmmakers/Cinematographers. We have UA-camrs buying Sony Venices and Arris and then we have Hollywood directors and DPs using FX3s, C70s and even an iPhone to make their films. There’s something possibly to be learnt here 😊
Exactly! Taking out loans to by Venices. Why?!
@@MockeryManor To take it on your shoots and charge the clients an extra $1500 a day for your kit... That's why.
they did explain in a podcast why they were planning on using a fx3 for their new film they'll be working on.. we didn't know at the time it would be this movie for sure.. but its been confirmed in the last week or so by the cinematographer I believe
A few years ago, there was a horror movie shot on Sony A7R3s (if I’m not mistaken). More than a decade ago, most of a whole episode of House MD was shot on Canon 5dmk2s as the set design was so squished, they couldn’t fit anything larger in there. What I’m trying to say is that the possibilities have always been there, but the big advantage today versus yesterday is that today we have a much less noticeable quality difference between cinema cameras and even hybrid cameras for $1000. There’s never been a better time to produce one’s own movie. I hope everyone is as excited about this as you and I are, Matti!
“The Possession of Hannah Grace” was filmed on the Sony A7SII
@@rileylivingston that’s probably the one I was thinking of.
I had no idea this movie existed but anything Greg Fraser I’M IN. Also so sick he used FX3s
Watching Matt try to look enthusiastic and saying he thinks the FX3 will be closely matched with the ARRI he just spent $100K on with a smile is hilarious. The ARRI obviously makes better pictures but the takeaway from this is that good writing and content are king. BTW Matt, I’m a 13 year IATSE veteran production sound mixer. I’d love to create with you. Hit me up sir. Nothin but love and respect.
Thanks for the video, I had confusion between which camera I chose for my movie which we planned in a very Budget, after I saw the trailer of the creator I'm convinced with Sony FX 3 in Kollywood, thank you ❤
I heard the same thing and he mentioned that he wanted to shoot it all on the FX3 but rumor is they also used Arri mini's.They def used Atlas lenses though. As an FX3 owner it would be dope if it was just an FX3.
Haha yea but also kinda stupid wild if it was
@@mattih Yeah but now you have that same combo brother 💪🏽. I'm expecting a blockbuster. Come to NY and we can film it together... Bring your Arri 🤣 Keep rocking brother, I love your work!
I remember all the fuss when the finale of season 6 of "House"was shot entirely using Canon 5D Mk II cameras ans then they used them for a lot of season 7. We've come a long way since then.
I have to say, I hope your channel is transitioning more towards this narrative film content. I love the gadgets and editing videos but you have a really good opportunity to segway in to some new content.
I think they used this camera over the Alexa to give more of a sense of reality. When you shoot something on a camera that is slightly less quality than the best image Hollywood has to offer, it can give a sense that its more of a documentary than a feature. This works great when there is a lot of cgi in the film and you are trying to make it actually be real to the audience.
No. He used it for the low light capabilities. Just listen to the DP.
I don't think Gareth would have any problem operating any camera.. I remember him rocking his XL1 with a massive 35mm adapter (yes those were the days) with a very small team on his first feature film Monsters that I really recommend. he did all the VFX himself, and it is truly a great movie for such a small budget. It just goes to show, that the camera hype is or should be over.. Any of the camera on the market will do.. A great set is more valuable than any camera or lens for that matter. If you also get a great story then it's fantastic...
It was an EX3
😂 I got a Nikon ad on this video.
On another note, we love the FX3, all our content in the last year has been shot with it.
I’m as well shoked that they shoot this on Fx3. And I agree with the idea that image quality wise, the gap is getting closer.
BUT this does not mean anything really, this does not make “Hollywood” more achievable. Once you have the massive budget for the ton of extra equipement, lighting, locations, art, actors, crew and post… does the camera even matter that much?
For that matter, I think movies like Nomadland, even been shot on the Mini, are far more inspiring and realistic on the odds of making our own narrative films.
Now this gives me confidence as a young filmmaker
Reminds me of Act of Valor, was filmed on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II.
Matti, I assume that 7 months on , you have watched all the Bts stuff where they talk about the choice of the fx3 and how Gareth started with the EX3 for 'Monsters'.
If you think 4K, shallow depth of field, and good dynamic range constitutes “good filmmaking” then you are severely mistaken. Yes, technology is better now than it was in the past, but good filmmaking still requires a tremendous amount of skill and collaboration. Just because the technical bar for entry is getting lower doesn’t make the craft itself any easier.
There have been a ton of films that used low budget cameras to achieve a certain amateur/documentary look. But this is the first one that isn’t going for that look and actually plays into the cameras strengths instead of it’s weaknesses.
Peter Jackson once advised to start by using our phones to shoot a film
Amazing Video Matti... Exciting times!
Please do an in depth Alexa LF vs FX3, I bet we all want to see it
Definitely coming 😊
Goes to show the quality of the glass you use is so much more important than the camera.
No. It shows that waiting for better gear to come is not an excuse any more. As soon as a Hollywood DP shoots on a prosumer cam everybody says: see its about the Lens. That is ridicoulus, it is the same people that said it IS about the camera Yesterday. Hollywood movies are about everything and every talent involved: gaffers, actors, DP, Director, Set Design, Wardrobe, Sound...and surely least about the lens
@@smepable There’s a reason they don’t shoot on photo glass. Stick a proper cinema lens on an A73 and it looks pretty solid. In fact they did that, for The Possession of Hannah Grace. Can’t have one without the other. I notice that there is a general emphasis on UA-cam placed on the camera and not the optics.
@@jackbynum are you listening
? He couldnt have done that on a A73. It is much much more noisy in low light. I know because I use both and its a shock every time I try to use the A73 in low light. I know. And the DP of the Creator knows And talks explicitly about this. And thats why this is a big deal about him using that new technology that we can use too. But yeah, ignore what that DP says. Its the fucking Lens!......of course it IS also about the Lens. But the way a lot of comments search for excuses why they dont Shoot great stuff is sickening.
@@smepable damn dude, why you so mad about this? Like, the atlas orions look far better than the stock photo glass most people are shooting on on this platform. It’s disingenuous in my opinion to act like the cam is pulling all the weight in the image.
This film was shot on Sony CIneAlt Venice + Sony Fx3
I knew Greg was using it, I had no idea it was THIS MOVIE 🤯
Passion and reckless disregard for reputation are also necessary 🖤
What was that podcast you mentioned? 😉
The trailer literally reminded me of rouge one before you even said anything about who directed it 😂
The day young filmmakers will understand that making a film is not about the camera but everything that goes with it, it will be a big step forward. The camera body is probably the cheapest expense for a movie. The lenses are way more important and expensive to rent. And the crew. And post. And EVERYTHING ELSE!!! Spend time writing a damn good screenplay then you'll have any camera you want on set.
love to see how giddy you are about it. this is great news.
This is from Oren Soffer the DP along with Greig Fraser "We can’t share any technical info JUST yet but promise we will spill all the beans when the film comes out! All I will say for now is just a reminder that any rando can edit IMDb and despite our efforts to contain it the info up on there isn’t accurate, so, grain of salt! ;)" This was in regards to a twitter thread about the use of the FX3
I've been shooting all of the movies in the past 2 years on the fx3. I didn't hear anyone complain yet 🤪
I love this video more because of your energy, Matti. Subscribed.
It was cos of the crazy ISO performance, size and the RAW. With it they got close to actors, the emotions are easier to get "on film" with small camera.
No wasn’t it shot on an Alexa 65? Im sure they used the fx3 for when they needed to get in tight spots/needed a small rig
FX3 > BMPCwhatever 🤩🤩🤩
100%
@matti haapoja, I’m betting anything, they went ProRes from the FX3 to a Ninja V or something in the same line.
Love this!! I needed to hear this. Thanks Matti!
So this means that if my FX6 footage doesn't look "cinematic" its just because of my lack of skill on grading and lighting, not on that I don't own an Arri?
Thanks for sharing its really interesting what cameras they use in major movies just showing it’s not needed to have the biggest and best ❤
Thats awesome, I heard it was a litte bit of an ARRI ALEXA 65 but mostly fx3. Can't wait to see how everything turns out
Love the new direction for your content !!
Unbelievable
Thank you for this info! Man that trailer is awesome!
I got no proof of this or any source, but if I really had to guess it's less about the low light and probably more about the pixel density of the FX3 or rather the lack of density. That is one of the things that really separates it from say the fx6 or fx9 in terms of the sensor itself. Modern cinema cameras can shoot in high ISOs, but they still introduce a ton of noise. The FX3's ISO can be blasted and still have very few noise because the pixels are so much more cramped up together leaving less room for splotchy noisy extra pixels.
We have no excuse now haha. Get him on your channel!!
Corridor digital have just made an awesome video about the drone doing motion capture!
Don't forget those types of movies, the film footage is so heavily modified and graded in VFX and Comp, just having a basic and decent image from the beginning does the trick, for that, the FX3 is good enough.
Love your enthusiasm and passion and capacity to inspire! New subscriber here.
I see a couple of reasons why they made the choice to go with the Sony FX3 for a film like this.
Dual ISO Low Light Performance. Not so much to shoot by avoiding lighting so much as greatly extending the lighting flexibility in night/dark scenes. The lighting budget is probably critical for a movie like this and the camera may have exponentially increased its lighting options with the lighting budget.
Small size and weight. Greatly increasing creative mounting flexibility, whether in tight areas or mobility of the setups.
I'm confused Sony fx3 is just 12megapixel camera and if it has to put on big screen would it work ?
"Feature film shot on Sony FX3" - yeah, but behind it all is amazing, crew, knowledge, experience, lighting and lenses, pretty great, small prosumer camera. More budget and payout for production, instead of wasting on camrea and lens rentals.
Do you have an Arri Alexa Mini LF? I hadn't noticed.
Im pretty sure $8,000 - $25,000 lens were used and color grades were done by the best color grading company.
We know why they shot on the FX3, for the incredible low light abilities. You can see shots in the trailer that were basically shot at night. That being said, it was likely an exaggeration when Fraser said he was shooting the "whole" movie on the FX3. It's likely a combination between the Venice...