Why aren't Cheap Cameras Used for Big Films? 

Download My Free Ebook! How to Make Stunning Films on a Budget. My Proven Secrets: wolfcrow.com/free-ebook/

I don't aspire to be a filmmaker, I just want to make my humble RU-vid videos to the best of my ability. The more I get into this world, the more respect I have for everyone in the film industry esp lighting crew, cinematographers, and editors. Thanks for sharing again!

It’s funny how medium or mediocre DPs are always talking about cameras capabilities, it’s so frustrating. Basically they are saying that you are not a real cinematographer if you can’t afford Sony Venus, Sony Burano, alexa mini or LF… don’t listen to them fellows, the only ones who are talking us cam specs are youtubers and influencers! What grown up cinematographers are teaching us is to focus on the story, camera specs are only one step in telling visuals history, storytelling is a universe not a camera brand or specs. I encourage you all whom aspire to be a cinematographer to listen to Roger Deakins

The difference is real. I have a tiny sony a6400. that use for photography & cinematography practice. but when i go on a film set, the image quality of an alexa is just mind blowing. you point the camera anywhere. it's produce an amazing image. combine that will goo lighting, you have yourself a painting.

Last year I had my first short doc projected in a movie theater (Cinema São Jorge, in Portugal). My shots were filmed using a GH5, vLog, and my Sigma lenses (17-50 f2.8, 10-20 f3.5) and Canon lenses (50 f1.8 and 70-200 f4), all with speedbooster, with natural light. The image hold its quality even in that big screen. I shot everything in UHD and delivered in FHD, the specs which I had to export the file were given by the film festival, and prepared the DCP. It looked great, I was a bit scared of that screen size for projection. After that first projection, It ran four cities, with different projection screen sizes, all held up. Of course, a 50000 dollars camera is better, but it will depend on the project. Much more important for me is the quality of the glass used. Oh, and the sound. You can get away with worse image quality, but low quality sound will destroy your movie!

Someone sent me this video, and I think this take is really off the mark, this narrator does not understanding Hollywood production. The expense of renting pro gear is a drop in the bucket compared to crew and talent cost and since they are spending millions on their production, they might as well spend thousands on their camera gear. Pros use professional cameras for their robust features, high end lenses, timecode, connectivity. But the truth is, when It comes to sensor image quality, there is very little different between the high end pro and the prosumer level.

The stylistic, filmic, and punchy color grading used in "The Creator" isn't a good showcase of your points and there are few to no other examples shown. You're using vague descriptions and giving excuses as to why you can't show us the difference without even attempting to. All this video does is instill FOMO and GAS into the audience. I would recommend doing a side by side comparison so we can actually see what you're talking about. Show us the limits of cheap sensors' color reproduction. Show us how motion apparently looks different (If you're talking about 23.98 vs 24 fps or shutter angle, those are issues that HAVE been fixed in some cameras). Show us how a hot sensor has lower quality (BTW heat has nothing to do with the Alexa's dynamic range). My point is, this video should have more evidence and less hearsay. It also throws a blanket statement across all "cheap" cameras while ignoring the many exceptions. I'm not trying to hate, I just think that this is a harmful mindset to teach. Even if you say there is no shame in using a "cheap" $4,000 camera, you are reinforcing the idea that you'll never be pro until you have an ARRI throughout the rest of the video.

There is an obsessive fascination with cameras and image quality due to the rise of digital technology, but the truth shows us that great cameras don't make great films. Some of greatest films in history were filmed on equipment far less capable than what's available today on the high street. To quote arguably one of the greatest directors of all time: "I think that those that are emerging are so incredibly talented. These young…directors…know the job well. But it’s not so often that they really have anything to say." -Ingmar Bergman, (2002)

Weird the fact that you mentioned the creator as if it looked bad. i saw it on a big ass cinema theater and thought it looked much better than most movies shot on Alexa

You did no mention a thing about the lenses.

>AI thumbnail >don’t recommend this channel

A good story, progressing at the right pace, with good audio - these are enough to keep the audience hooked. No one is going to notice the technical subtleties mentioned in this video.

Mostly because they can afford it and the tech exists. Generally a studio doesn't mind paying a premium for an image that is 15-20% better. It gives them piece of mind and also workflows are established around industry standard gear.

"Don't throw the creator as a example" you said. But why not . They did that . And because you used gh5 and some other cameras and couldn't get best results means there might be some problem back then . But now a days smaller cameras are also much better . When one have low budget instead of renting a crew for arri or red it is better to go with smaller camera . Iam not talking about big budget movies here . If one have budget then they will go for arri or red . But the main thing also to consider here is the right tool for right job. THE CREATOR dop said that he choose fx3 for its smaller size and low light capability and If they want he can choose arri but instead he opted to go with the right tool in his mind.

The stuff you said about the color but especially the tonal gradations is absolutely TRUE. But what's not true is that it has anything to do with the camera being cheap. Cheap sensors are fully capable of reproducing those tonal ranges up to their dynamic range limit. The problem is that cheap cameras will not allow you to access the raw unprocessed sensor bayer data before it reaches the image processor. Even blackmagic RAW, Canon RAW and Prores RAW wont allow you to do that. The only cheap camera's that I'm aware of being able to reproduce rich tonal gradations with the same level of quality as the RED DSMC 1/2 and the ARRI are the Canon cameras that can run Magic Lantern. They won't reach anywhere above 12 stops of DR but within those 12 stops you'll be blown away by the way the sensor captured and reproduces light

I am going to get the popcorn out for this one. I think you may have just opened a can of worms dude.

The best camera is the one you have. Filmmaking is the most expensive artform in the world. These sorts of critiques in a way are meant to break the spirit of those coming up and learning the craft of cinematography. Cameras don't define your worth, nor abilities. They are tools, period. Technology has made the entry into filmmaking more accessible to the masses, but certain RU-vidrs have found ways of trying to separate themselves from the rest of us with a brand of camera. Cameras don't make you better. Intentionality, practice of the craft is what makes us better. Elitism is not it.

By no objective measure does the Venice 2 look twice as good as the FX3. By no objective measure does Arri ever look like the most detailed image. I really enjoy a lot of your essays, but you veered into hand-waving voodoo on this one.

While there is certainly a difference, I think that a lot of your claims are drastically overstated and perpetuate the mindset that causes indie filmmakers to spend far too much of their budgets trying to get an Alexa over things that make a much bigger difference in the image quality such as lighting, production design, and number of shooting days. I’ve seen many lower budget films shot on cheaper cameras that looked amazing (yes, in a theater), because they didn’t blow their whole budget on an Alexa. I’ve also seen SO MANY films, made on similar budgets and shot on an Alexa, that looked very cheap because they didn’t have the money for more important things. I remember a friend who worked on a horror film with a 500k budget. The director/producer wanted to shoot Alexa and, to accommodate that, scheduled the shoot for 8 pages a day. When the DP pointed out that this wouldn’t give him enough time to light, the director just told him, “but that’s why we paid for the Alexa; so it will look professional!” In contrast, I know another friend who directed a feature shot on a mirrorless camera for less than 100K and it looked BETTER on the big screen because they had more time to light and shoot. I myself produced another film in which the director also really wanted an Alexa even though it meant camera was almost 1/3rd of our whole budget. I told him (and the other producer) that we could potentially get 50% more shooting days if we went with a cheaper camera package (and by that I meant a RED Dragon-X or maybe an Ursa-Mini Pro). They felt the Alexa was worth the sacrifice. I transcoded the footage myself and worked with the colorist myself. I loved the look of the film but it wasn’t a large increase over what we would have gotten with the other two cameras (I’d used them on previous commercials I’d directed and seen the raw footage as well). More importantly, I believe that many scenes would have looked BETTER if we’d saved that money for more shooting days because it would have meant we could have shot certain outdoor scenes at a better time of day AND had more time to light on indoor scenes. I also KNOW that it would have meant we would have gotten more coverage AND better performances of our actors who needed a few more takes and a bit more time to get into the scene.

I mostly disagree. Nowadays An Alexa LF or Venice would be lets say 20% better than a A7S3. The dynamic range & skin tones are better but if you control the lighting & have good lens the difference is really small. The logic behind using a 60K camera is that the camera cost is negligable in the overall budget of a film. So they better have the best of the best quality. It's more the lenses used & the lighting that will change the quality of the footage

Sorry i believe majority of the cameras available are sufficient enough to make amazing images. The real reason for Arri and other cameras being used in big budget films is that they're battle tested and reliable on top of their great image. Plus they're widely used making it easy to work with others. However, i believe most cameras out now is more than enough to make a film.

On the technical side, your claims just don’t bear out what I’ve seen with my own lying eyes. There are plenty of cameras under 10k that produce amazing results when shooting RAW. Does a Venice or Alexa look BETTER than cheaper cameras? Of course! Do they look drastically better to the extent that the average person will notice? Not in most situations. It’s odd you keep bringing up The Creator because I certainly didn’t see people leaving the theater saying, “that movie looked like it was shot on a cheap camera!” I wasn’t aware they used an FX3 until recently and I wouldn’t have been surprised had someone told me it was shot on a Venice, Alexa, or Red Raptor VV (and I’m definitely pickier than the average cinema-goer). I’m not a DP but I’ve been in the business for a while and, though I tend to work in the lower-budget range, I’ve had the privilege of knowing a lot of people on big budget shoots. You’ve shot some lovely work and I’m happy some of it has gotten a theatrical release in India. But you haven’t shot big budget films either. The camera package is an incredibly small part of the overall budget so there really isn’t a reason for them to try to save money on a cheaper package. When I’ve talked to bigger DPs about cameras these days, they spend a lot more time discussing features, workflow, and IO instead of image quality. This wasn’t always the case. When the original Alexa was released it was heads and shoulders above other digital cameras in many respects. But the difference is FAR LESS drastic today. The vast majority of DPs I know have told me that, when it comes to image quality, things have never been closer (though they still obviously have their preferences). One of the best looking shows I’ve seen is Better Call Saul (and I’ve watched it on a 65 inch OLED). The first three seasons were shot on a Red Dragon 6k which you can now find for a few thousand online; season 4 used an Varicam 35, and the last two seasons were Alexa LF. The whole shoot, they also used a BMPCC4k and later BMPCC6k for certain shots and the DP raved about both of them. I couldn’t tell the difference between cameras/seasons nor could the average person. I certainly don’t think seasons shot with an Alexa LF look any better than those shot with the cheaper Red Dragon.

This video highly misleading and the dude is just yapping without making actual points. If you cannot make a "cheap" cam look good, an alexa is not gonna save your film. Also what even is all that terrible sample footage?

Bro you need special help😅😅😅

Honestly I think if there are really obvious differences between the visual image quality between prosumer cameras and Cinema cameras, that's just as much of a benefit as a downside. Having unpredictable quirks in the image isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it was there wouldn't be apps to replicate the look of disposable film cameras of VHS cameras you could download, but there are. And in the cinema world, people use anamorphic or vintage lens not because it makes their films look more accurate to how they looked in person, but to make the film look more visually interesting. At the end of the day, while saying something like 'this camera is more true to life' might be objective, saying 'this camera looks the best' is just a mater of opinion.

Any camera could be used to make a movie: it depends on the ambitions of the cinematographer, the cast & crew. Now, this does not mean a cinematographer wants to use the cheapest camera ever made, but if someone really wanted to make a movie, Hollywood or Independent, if they have a camera, cast & crew, it could be done. The entire basis behind Italian Neorealism was that their filmmaking industry was eradicated during & after World War II & filmmakers such as Vittorio De Sica found a way to make films from whatever was in their reach.

ARRI is the industry standard but by no means required to make a good film.

I thought hollywood had used the Canon 5D MKii in some instances(?)..

Filmmakers are upset because a small camera with one person can take the work of an entire team. Conflict of interests😅

No-one cares about the skin tones, if the story is good enough. Resolution? Noise? Colors? The Third Man. Didn't even exist in just 4k resolution, until it was cleaned and scaled a few years ago.

But cheap cameras are being used for films. You pointed out an example yourself. The fact that you think of it as bad quality is irrelevant, the movie did fine.

All sass, no substance.

"The right tool for the (specific) job" .. Good thing is that technology advances: Take the FUJIFILM GFX 100 II (with an Pl-mount adapter, a V-mount power setup and the usual other bits and pieces. Result? You spend less than 20k (without lens) and you are a visibly huge step closer to the "this cam is worth a house" look. Love it for that reason (And it takes great Photographs as well ) ...

David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” was filmed with a Sony camcorder. Visual aspect doesn’t matter if the film has an interesting story to tell. If I want visuals then I watch something of Ron Fricke.

It's pretty obvious that you are not a professional colorist. I'm not either, but I can employ one. So much of this video was just personal opinion and actually dangerous for independent filmmakers

Cinematography isn't about the camera. It's about the vision of the cinematographer. All artistic mediums have limitations. The limitations of film and video and digital video technology are what define the masterpieces of each era. They are like fingerprints, and the way in which the cinematographer works with them separate geniuses from mediocrities. Shoot what moves you with the camera you have at hand, and tell your story. let lesser lights geek-out and pine for better cameras hoping to fix their lack of skill and vision. You have a film to make!

Way more goes into a professional image than the camera body. Lenses, light, production design, wardrobe, sound are all way more important than the body you are shooting on. That's why the Creator looks so good.

the director makes da camera. the camera doesnt make the director. foh

Love the video on Spielberg's technique shooting movies. Today the word 'film' is used too often when you talk 'digital.' It can be confusing. Are you talking about using film or are you talking about using a digital camera??????? What you can do if you haven't is to explore the difference between using film vs. a digital sensor. They are so different that going into depth would be great. Film uses grain and it looks much different than a 'movie' (not a film) using a digital sensor. I've seen the difference as I have been shooting stills since 1972. Today I use a digital camera mainly because of the expense of film and the poor processing by labs. Cost too much. Yet, even pictures of people I have taken years ago using a film camera, make doesn't matter, using Tri-X and making an 11x14 print. The grain gives it a unique texture. Digital won't do it. It's just different. So, when using words, and words are ultimately important, use the correct term. Filmmaking uses film. You are making a movie (moving pictures). Digital is in a league of its own. You are a journalist. Accuracy is important if you are trying to get your message out.

Seems like a lot of unsubstantiated "trust me bro" claims. You compare these movie industry recording devices to luxury watches (and the other things you mentioned). So automatically a fundamental misunderstanding. Firstly, a luxury product is always a consumer product, there are no "luxury" industrial tools. No one is going to buy a 18k gold camera housed body, luxury is for the simpleton consumer. Also the comparison falls flat on it's face when you realize luxury watches are actually garbage whenever precision is required. When you want to actually tell time reliably with little deviation, you would resort to a quartz powered watch, not a mechanically driven one. But if you want ultimate precision (like research and high precision industrial applications) you would have a sync with an atomic clock. But that's me nitpicking your poor analogies. To the specific technical claims you make about a "container but not filled with color completely" when referencing 16-bit or 12-bit. Firstly, you talk about viewing your content on big screens. Movie screens are a joke. The upper end of true HDR (Dolby Vision due to color space mandates, bit-depth mandate, and high peak brightness of 10,000 nits) requires a display of 12-bit color depth. I presume there is a R&D lab at Dolby that houses a true, native 12-bit panel. But I know of only one single 12-bit panel from Flanders Scientific. This panel achieves this only at 30Hz refresh rate due to frame-rate-limiting to dither the image and achieve 12 bit over it's native 10-bit. So when you talk about "color" being viewed, you should test taking a photograph and see just how ready the consumer available sensors are far beyond any of our current viewing displays' capabilities. You also make motion-claims. Motion handling shouldn't be problematic as long as you have the processing speed and I/O bandwidth headroom for high bitrate recording. Then you can take said recording any play it back on any consumer flagship TV with proper pulldown processing. You mention judder being a problem for some sensors and it's very apparent on a "good display". But OLED's refresh rate is so fast, it's going to make all low frame-rate footage look like garbage when panning. It will also never look filmic due to the inherent sample-and-hold manner of digital displays. If you want filmic go back to viewing low framerate content (99.99% of all films sadly), and go back to LCD's with piss more motion handling leading to blur. Or you can go back to CRT's since they're pulse driven and have natural phosphor decay timings and mask motion judder perfectly, leading to that filmic look. Lastly, because this post is already too long; the real reason to use cine cameras, instead of consumer cameras, is due to the standards and the cameras being specifically built for the needs and on-set particulars of the cinema industry itself. So things like ports, things like locking PL mount, and most importantly, the availability of the thing that actually matters more than the body: the cine lenses. All assistants will know how to work with these cine mainstays, they won't easily cope with just random consumer cameras being used on every different job they go to (this is the same reason specific brand lights are used over consumer lighting). And finally - as you should know - the real reason this stuff costs a fortune is due to economies of scale. And also the cameras themselves have specs that are slightly above things that would ever hit consumer markets (like 16K RED cameras). This is the same reason high framerate recorders also cost a fortunate: Because it's specialized, low economy of scale, and demanding higher prices is what the market will tolerate (when a movie production is also spending millions in terms of budget, renting gear isn't something that should cost these studies their life).

This reminds me of digital vs analog n music. In reality, there are pros and cons to both, and the consumer can't tell a difference and doesn't care. Even if somethjng is produced with these flaws and they go noticed, fans of the product will perceive them as intentional if the content itself is valued. I personally don't think the average person is so observant at the cinema, and most content is consumed on the devices you dismiss, like phones, laptops and tv screens. Hollywood has a lot of money and will use the best of everything that they can, and what they willingly spend on cameras (setting the market value in the process) is a drop in the bucket. Some really good movies that live on were done on cheaper budgets than others and might be at a lesser quality than what most people have today on a phone. While I know little about movie making, I know aspiring film creators problems won't be solved with the most expensive camera, similair to how successful or respected music isn't determined by the most expensive compressor or recording to tape.

I agree with everything you said here, but I think you left out one more key reason that Hollywood studios use the cameras they do, and that is reliability. If you ever work in the camera department on a Hollywood project, you aren't likely to be using some new sleek camera just purchased. You are going to be using rented gear, or something pulled from a studio warehouse shelf, that has been around for a few years and been used on several productions. It is going to be beat up, have dings and scratches, and almost certainly there will be a few things that don't work quite right on it. I've worked on a few productions that used big, $100,000+ camera rigs, but these cameras always came with issues. When the cameras were checked out, there would be a "discrepancy report." This was basically a list of what didn't work right or was damaged on that camera- Things like certain ports that had been damaged and no longer worked, or the battery latch didn't latch any longer, so you'd have to use gaff tape to help secure the battery. But the cameras themselves would hold up to this kind of abuse. So they could keep going out on production after production for years. And it is not abnormal for these cameras to be kept around for 5, 10, even 15 years sometimes. A more affordable cinema camera, I don't think, would survive the kind of abuse that typical Hollywood studio equipment endures. Over ten years, that $30,000 Alexa is only $3,000 a year. So that is in the range of something like an FX3 or Pocket 6K, which probably wouldn't survive the abuse of large productions for much longer than a year anyway.

The moment you get a little bit of recognition for your work the ego starts to inflate and the tendency to start gatekeeping must be overwhelming. I've made it, now I want to minimize competition because competing on an even playing field is hard.

Idk this sounds like snobbery. You can definitely use less expensive cameras and produce a very good looking film. This reminds me of back in the day at the advent of digital audio when analog studio owners berated users of the digital format and how it isn’t professional or doesn’t sound the same. But look how musicians today are able to craft Grammy winning records using computers and even on their phones. As of now each camera is like different film stock. Cool video, but nah, I don’t buy into your opinion.

Looking for issues where there are none. No one goes to the theatre to look for muddy or blown highlights. No one complained of the “creator”, not even the Hollywood colourist. Only you, that am aware of. There is more that goes into all this. Not just the camera. Creativity is what needs to be encouraged not camera. I now remember why I unsubscribed from this channel. Too much ego. Guess not my kind of RU-vid channel.

I am a stills shooter. I recently moved from Leica to Hasselblad, X2D. Same story. There is that image difference in color, tonality and just honest re-creation of what it saw.

It's about risk. It's pro ecosystem, reliability, familiarity, workflow, skill sets, depth and breadth of capability etc. 'You don't get fired for using an Alexa, but you will using a cheap camera if anything goes wrong' or 'you control the expensive equipment, the cheap equipment controls you' or 'a pro camera works around you, you have to work around a cheap camera'.

Does anyone go to the theater anymore? While I will admit those cameras are better, once to put them on a TV or worse yet a cellphone, 99% of viewers can't tell the difference. My biggest problem is people act like you need these overpriced cameras for RU-vid. Entry level mirrorless or even 1080p DSLRs are more than adequate.

given that some Star Wars Movie were made on half the size sensor of a micro 4/3 camera, I beg to differ. Lots of blockbuster movies have technical defaults but guess what, nobody cares, as long as it's barely noticeable. You only see it because you graded your movies, while the public barely noticed it.

Also, Hollywood doesn't own cameras, they rent cameras. They have to because if something goes wrong, they need a replacement camera immediately. They can't wait to buy another camera or something like that. Any "budgeted" movie, would always rent, even if the filmmaker owns equipment simply due to this factor. The insurance policy also doesn't cover personal equipment and sure you can always rent your camera to the show for an extra buck, why would you do that on a low budget production? In the end, you'll always want to rent and currently, cameras like the Venice 1 and Alexa Mini's, can be rented for not much money and they're both excellent cameras.

the ai thumbnail looks awful

And just as easy you can ruin the most expensive camera footage with a shitty lighting, composition and grading.

The cameras that will be coming out in the next few years will be rivalling the Alexa in many ways. We will be getting global shutter, 14 stops of DR and full frame open gate. In the end the only limitation of making a good film is not going to be down to the cameras used, it will come down to anything but that.

Once u r a cinematographer, u loose ur Creative ability as film director...coz u just trapped inside technical stuff of camera, lens, light,but forget everything other 80% require to make good films.

It would be great if you can give us a contrast between the quality side by side with real examples, you used some terms that are hard to understand without watching a sample footage/clip.

Yet The Creator looks better then every frame of footage I’ve seen you show in all the years I’ve been subbed to your channel. You put out fantastic quality essays, and presumably from all the footage you recycle on your channel of you on set are successful in the film industry… video scopes are great… but a technically rich image is just that… technically rich or accurate. Ironically you seem to be falling into the same YT meta you are criticizing… specs. I have almost exclusively used a 130” projector screen for almost 2 decades, the difference between 4K and 1080 is night and day, the difference between 8bit and 10bit is noticeable… something that is capable of actually showing 24fps is noticeable… beyond that it becomes exponentially more difficult… 10bit and 12bit in certain circumstances is noticeable to the trained eye, beyond that you are fooling yourself what is discernible.

I have been watching your videos for 7 years now. I love how you never pander to the viewers or the algorithm. And try to teach things that some people may not want to hear. It is an incredibly rare quality in social media. Please know there are a lot of us who appreciate you.

ARRI is one of those things, you won't 'get it' till you use one.

Are the high end cameras measurably better than affordable cameras? Obviously. Are there valid reasons for choosing a high end camera for a bigger production? Also, obviously. Is the difference in image quality really noticeable, or even visible to an average viewer? I'd argue no, in most cases it is not, based on my own experience (assuming everyone involved knows their job). The most important thing really is what is in front of the camera, that is the deciding factor that makes a visible difference between high end productions and low budget ones. Again, this is based on my own experience, which is admittedly limited - i have worked in projects that use high end gear, as well as in projects that use lower end gear. But rarely on projects where these are used side by side, where these can be compared in the exact same circumstances. The only case this was done through the whole project was a commercial I directed about a decade ago. The main camera was Alexa Mini, the 2nd was Blackmagic Cinema Camera (the original 2,5 K one). At least in this case, though there were visible differences in the ungraded footage, it was no problem to match the two together in the grade well enough to intercut seamlessly. I've also shot some test clips with humble A6300 side by side with Venice, and while there indeed were differences, they were not nearly as big as i anticipated - especially considering A6300 is 8 bit 4:2:0. I'd argue that if the A6300 footage was intercut with the Venice material from that shoot, it is unlikely anyone would have noticed. As a side note, in a few weeks, i will be working on an interesting case - i'm woking on the VFX for a feature film shot with Arri, where we will create a composite shot that has Arri footage of the actor comped in with A6700 footage of the background element(s). It will not be side by side, but a split screen. Both will be on the silver screen at the same time. I'm rather confident that the choice for the 2nd camera will not draw attention from the viewers.

As this video states, know the limitations of your camera and make the best film you can within those limitations. When I saw "The Creator" in a cinema, it was so muddy and dark I walked out before the denouement (not to mention the derivative story-line). Yet, two of the most visually interesting films I have seen are Sean Baker’s breakout indie “Tangerine” and Steven Soderbergh's "HIgh Flying Bird", both shot on an iPhone. Tangerine was shot on an iPhone 5 and High Flying Bird on iPhone 8, believe it or not! The image quality of these two films are nowhere near cinema quality, but it doesn't matter because both films used lighting, set design, frame composition and actor blocking in highly creative ways to tell engaging stories (unlike The Creator). Soderbergh in particular composed his shots with graphic architectural lines in his background, and he built depth with prop placement in his mid and foregrounds because he knew these compositions would be enhanced on the iPhone 8 inherent wide angle lens. Understanding your camera limitations is one thing, but understanding how to be a creative within the confines of those limitations separates the men from the boys.

While all true, don't forget the real reason for the insane (for most) cost: Gatekeeping. They don't want competition. If more people could afford excellent equipment, the ones who are lucky enough to have the best jobs in the industry would feel some real threat to their job security.

I'm a fairly new Alexa mini owner/operator, and I totally experience what you're saying about the color gradation. I've been getting my feet wet with the the Alexa on corporate projects, with sony FX3 as a b cam. I can match most shots to an extent, but when it comes to those skin tones, I just can't get it to perfectly match the Alexa. As you said, it literally won't capture those "in between" colors (that skin tones are FULL of), nothing like what that the Alexa captures. I never knew what true skin tones were until I started filming with the Alexa. Sadly, my eyes are ruined to other cameras now lol

I’m not at the highest levels on set yet, but my honest opinion for why “cheap cameras” aren’t used on set is simple. Reliability. The Alexa series in particular is reliable, strong, built to take a beating, and always works. Also, when it comes to professional filmmaking, it’s less about “expensive” and more about “the standard” or “the best.” When you’re spending 100s of 1000s or millions of dollars on a project, you damn well better film it on the best system you can. That comes down to the camera, the lenses, the monitors, the focus system, the wireless video, the tripod, the dolly, the jib, the lights, the stands, the audio gear, the memory cards, the laptop(s), the headphones, the walkie talkies, the carts…….at every step of the process, producers want to know that they made sure that everything works and it won’t be a problem on set. It’s not just about the image, it’s also about the workflow. Knowing it’s going to work every single time.

What you're saying may have some merit and truth to it, but I guarantee you if it's well shot and lit, not a single soul on this earth would question what camera it was shot on- and if that's what the viewer is thinking about then you've done it wrong. Especially with the post workflows that have developed over the past half decade. The pocket 4K is old news at this point there are plenty of newer and better cameras that are much more comparable to high-end cinema cameras in terms of their image. As a DP, I've found that the biggest weakness of most digital cameras these days is moire. Most mirrorless and prosumer, digital cinema cameras exclude an OLPF. Why?? who the hell knows- some say it's to maximize resolution it's really just a mistake in my opinion though. The reason that Hollywood still leans towards more expensive cameras, such as the Alexa or Venice is because they are reliable and there are lots of input output options. These days it's extremely diminishing returns when it comes to image quality when comparing prosumer versus high-end cinema cameras.

i think its really just lighting and lenses

Most movies never come to a theater. Most people don't watch movies in a theater. Not everyone has to use the same tools as Nolan.

I agree 100% with on everything you are saying it here, you get what you pay for it, no $5k camera can come close to Arri Alexa that cost $40-65k 👍🏻

100% accurate. I have a friend releasing a Indi film this weekend. I’ve seen clips. It’s good but the rolling shutter judder is a ROUGH hacked mess from some DSLR… we all see it but I don’t think most people know how to describe it. I also own an Alexa so I’m a bit spoiled.

hey when you are right, you are right. Higher quality sensor, camera MADE for high data rates, a actual cinema only camera and sturdy af is gonna be a win over any "tiny" 8k camera. or said even shorter and mentioned already: its tv or the internet VS big huge screens. its ok to pick a lane and stay in it, just get better and switch when you are ready.

Youve skipped on 2 major contributors: Lemses and Lighting. The sensor can only puckup what the lens sees. There's a heck of a difference between a $1000 lens and $100k PL lens.

I dont get the point, isnt this obvious? Good thing is no one left a Movie saying, :"Well the film is great but if they had filmed with an Arri cam would be better."

What do you think of the Blackmagic cameras then?

In the end, everybody rents everything they need to accomplish their projects. Nobody has to pay the full price. It's more accessible than it seems.

I agree with everything. I’m a dslr BMPCC shooter and I have to agree with everything said.

I'm not sure a GH5 or R5 are a good reference here. They lack in dynamic range and reliability, with the R5 having a record limit and obvious overheating problems and 15ms rolling shutter. FX3 is on par with RED Raptor's rolling shutter speed, same with Alexa. Only Venice 2 has the fastest rolling shutter which is less than 3ms. The A9III is being used on a new film as well, and The Creator had the most organic looking night scenes vs any film so far and one of the best looking VFX.

I don’t think the sensor is the only factor. But rather…the entire circuitry and cooling system. They do make a difference in many sense, yet story is above all. The smaller mirrorless cameras have a certain look to them that can be used for certain things.

Being able to easily grade an image from a higher quality camera makes life easier. Trying to learn how to grade on a low quality camera is like trying to learn how to become a racecar driver in a model T car - You might be a very good driver, but never know because you can't get your hands on race car.

I guess I'm shelling out for the C400 instead of the R5C then. I mean if Philip Bloom uses it...

Totally agree 👍🏻amazing video and aloot ot non professional videographer don't understand coz they don't have experience.

The Blair Witch Project made $248 million using a RCA Hi-8 camcorder and a lot of movies made with $60,000 plus cameras suck.

It’s for the same reason F1 is driven with expensive race cars and not the Toyotas pickups. Sure, an FX3 can shoot an amazing image, but an Arri will give you a better image, along with way more other features. You always want to use the best possible thing your budget can afford you, and big productions have big budgets.

An asterisk that comes with the Arri footage is that the people doing the lighting are professionals who only do lighting and have done lighting full time for a long time, compared to the indie people. Also, because of the film's bigger budgets with an Arri the lighting crew has more resources with which to make the best lighting. More experience, more full-time professional big budget experience, and more resources. Add to this, highly paid full-time professional colorists with much more experience than indie colorists who have another full-time job to pay the bills. These things will make the footage from an Arri look better than a low budget camera. Around 2011 I read of a big time, Hollywood Director who had a number of his Director friends over. In his home screening room he showed them 4 film clips. Afterwards, he then told them that one of the clips was shot on a Canon 5D MK IV. NONE of the professional Hollywood Directors could pick out which clip it was. That was then. I agree when zooming in to finished footage that you can see artifacts with the cheaper cameras, but we don't watch films in theaters "zoomed in." I understand a large screen will reveal more, but I don't remember any average movie goer complaining about the quality of The Creator footage when it was showing in theaters. My contention is that we can analyze and compare side by side footage shot on a $4K camera and a $300K camera and see the differences.....but the audience never sees movies this way, and thus the difference is not revealed to them, and they know no difference. It would be interesting to see the same lighting crew, using the same equipment, and the same colorists, all used on big budget Hollywood movies shoot a scene with a $4,000 camera, and THEN compare the footage to an ARRI camera. This would be an apples to apples comparison. However, it is possible that if this were done, and the difference in footage was negligible, the budget for future film could be negatively impacted.

FILM!!! There are no digital films that look as good as the great films shot on FILM.

where can i watch your movies?

Love your videos man.

Spoken like a man who tries to make up for his poor cinematography skills by using ludicrously expensive cameras.

I tried to find the video in your uploads but couldn't. I do remember when Nikon Z9 was launched you tried to convince us that it was far better than Sony Venice. I may be wrong but my consciousness says it was you.

This video sets a lot of the points I argue with my friend who rents film equipment. I see he is right in many things and I am also right in a few... Ive seen so many movies shot with arri looking bad and others shot with BMCC4K looking good that I keep thinking that lights and lenses are 90% of the magic. But so many other things come from the body. So Yeah I guess you and him may have a few good valid points.

All that care about the absolutely best picture quality only to have people watch movies on tiny cellphone screens...

Camera should be the cherry on the top of the cream on your multilayered cake. You can buy an Alexa cheaper than an FX3, as i did, it's even has an XR upgrade so capable of 3.2k ProRes and internal raw, can produce 4k easily. However, bear in mind that a cinema camera is heavy, you'll need large tripods, easyrig, dollies, larger cranes, or compromises. It also produces HUGE files i mean 3.2k ProRes 444 almost 7GB per minute, you'll need to store that, backup, transfer, process. So, if the story, actors, team, sound, lighting, stage is already at that level, then think about it, otherwise it's just a waste of resources. Feels good for the DP that he finally works with an Alexa, but the end result will be a nicely shot crap. :D

I remember using my Fujifilm 0.8 megapixel camera years ago when I took a picture of my fx lightsaber. They way in which it picked up the color, made it look exactly like how the lightsabers looked in the movies. But then, years later, a had a higher definition megapixel camera, about 16 megapixels, and made by Sony, and when I shot the same lightsaber, it just didn't look the same. Each camera has its own look and feel, and so producers make their projects with that in mind usually..

Comment statement: The used a $3,500 camera too! ME: Yes and a professional DP, $20,000 lens, and light kits. *All fun aside some ultra low budget are great because the content.

I can’t tell for sure, but I see “qualitative” differences between cameras. As an example, I shoot underwater documentaries, and have used Sony Mirrorless and Canon Cinema more recently. I am a one man crew… color grading has been really hard for me through the years - water can be nasty on colors. However, since I started working with the Canon C300 MIII my life got easier, and I was able to focus more on the story. Even when shooting under conditions that are supposed to be identical, the Canon grades almost perfect with one minute of work, but the same with the Sony used to take me 2-3 hours to do. I have no agenda, I am a one man shop, and all I will say is that there is a difference between my $15k Canon and my $3k Sony that makes a difference to my story.

I think you missed more than half the problem with low end cameras. Cameras are vastly improved... a BlackMagic Pocket Cinema or a new iPhone can make images that would far outstrip what was possible with older "budget solutions" like Super8 & 16mm ... or worse video system like the F900 HDCAM cameras used on Star Wars prequels. The people who can only shoot on low end cameras often have the LEAST EXPERTISE AND EXPEREIENCE needed to create a lighting and shooting plan to overcome their limitations. New film makers most often, right? I shot a feature on a Canon 7D in 2009. That routinely gets praised for its images, but what viewers do not know is how I had to compromise lighting, motion, depth of focus, color palettes, and production design in order to work within the limitations of the camera. Viewers don't see the many hours of pre-production tests we went through to expose issues and build solutions. Viewers rarely understand the limitations we faced in post-production. In other words I had to build my entire shoot around solving camera problems, rather than around my story and setting. For me it was an experimental film - I wanted to try shooting on a DSLR, and it worked. I learned a lot, AND we got a decent picture done. However, the process would be entirely unacceptable for a studio production. You mentioned The Creator - the camera, a much newer and more capable camera than my antique 7D, was in the hands of an expert team. They understood the limitations and the techniques to get around the camera limitations - and they could use those techniques on their film. They remained fairly free to use the camera, and they had the expertise, and time, to get around the limits it did present. 99.9999% of people using low end gear do not have the knowledge and experience to achieve that. Even worse they do not have the time to solve any unexpected issue. When you shoot on a Red, Alexa, or Venice ... those limitations disappear. You are freer to shoot as you see fit for the benefit of your story and vision. You are rarely, if ever, at risk of running into "strange problems," and having to stall production to solve for issues.

Well… that’s debatable! Let’s go back in time, and remember the 2008-2012 when the cinema cameras such as Red One and the Alexa were almost the only choice when choosing to shoot digital, and none of them come close to the FX3. Remember the days when you hated to use DOF adapters to get shallow depth of field??? Come on man, I can use any blackmagic camera and get great quality, good enough to be projected.

Another thing you need to learn is "field of view" and the trick theaters play on you. Believe it or not, your home TV may actually have a wider field of view than most seats in a cinema. I've had many films I've worked on, shown in cinemas and they're always MUCH softer than the home video release. In fact, over-all, outside of Dolby Vision and IMAX HDR released, I'd say generic theaters have little to offer compared to OLED HDR TV's at home and UHD BluRay. The concept that you're making something to be seen in the theater and that the quality of the camera is related to that, is a bogus and completely disproven theory. A film maybe shown in the theater for a few months, but it lives on home video for decades. What it looks like at home, is what you should be focused on. If it looks good on your home 4k TV and iPhone/iPad, then it'll look totally fine in the theater when you're dealing with REFLECTED LIGHT against a screen! The losses in that presentation format are tremendous. That's why even the highest resolution digital cinema, doesn't hold a candle to a good HDR OLED display, it really can't unless you use some magic like IMAX and Dolby Vision do. None of that tech is available at home and probably never will be.

I have made a few short films and a micro budget film with my son. While good equipment helps I think the most important part of any filmmaking kit is the nut behind the camera. If you have a big entourage of DPs, grips etc, then you can probably afford to buy or rent an expensive camera and lenses but for micro budgets, where you are the camrea, sound, lighting, DP, director etc rolled into one then I feel most canon dslr cameras and mirrorless cameras that can do at least 1080p are sufficient for a film festival. A great filmmaker/director could make a classic with an inexpensive dslr or mirrorless camera or even an iphone while an inexperienced filmmaker will make sh$t regardless of the camera they use. Thats what I think and for a while I was obsessed with getting a great camera but realise that what the main factor in the final output of my film is my own ability behind the camera nd recording good audio as well as good editing and a good script to film a story. I hope that one day I will be at a level to fully utilise an expensive camera but at the moment what holds my films back is not so much the camera but my own inexperience and I find it a challenge to make a great film with what I have and no longer am obsessed with having a high priced cinematic camera which I can't afford. My Lumix G85 M43 camera is plenty camera for my current ability.

Parts of "Crank: High Voltage" were filmed with a consumer grade Canon VIXIA HF-10 and XH-A1 that you could pick up at your local big box store for a song.

I think it's funny you're shooing with the R5 whilst complaining about low end shoots. The R5 is by far, one of the worst still cameras I've ever owned. Not only are the raw stills pretty much junk out of camera, but the video possibilities are atrocious. External recording is at best a slight improvement, as the color science of the imager is poor. Grading is a less in futility and FPN is arguably your main protagonist of anything you shoot with. The reason why professionals shoot with professional cameras is mostly due to the workflow. The pro crews have a certain set workflow and they don't want to work with anything else. It's why Sony worked so hard to make a camera that basically mimicked the Alexa in size/weight and color science. To get on big shows, it's what you need to do and today, the Venice is just as hard working as the Alexa. Meanwhile, Red has been relegated to 3rd fiddle, with its head slightly above the water filled with Canon, Z-cam,. Kinifinity and Blackmagic cameras. With that being said, Blackmagic just proved they can make a good camera, which is competitive against Sony and Arri, I wonder who will attempt to compete in that $16k market. To me, color science trumps everything. I'd rather have a big camera with good color science, than a small camera like the R5, with shit color science.

The revolutionary introduction of Blackmagic Design Cine cameras nearly put an end to the division of cameras into professional and prosumer categories. Needless to say, with the advent of cameras like ''pyxis'' in 2024, broken the myth that only expensive cameras can produce professonal cinema quality , It's clear that in the coming years, companies like Arri, which sell expensive cameras, will have to eliminate themselves or redesign their products with the cost out of 1/10 to maintain their presence in the market. This is a big change another example is that Panasonic has recently dropped their films from Professional and Consumer categories.