How Hollywood shot an entire MOVIE on this $1,200 Camera?

Hollywood made an entire feature film with a $1,200 mirrorless camera and made $45,000,000 in Box Office, against a production budget of about $7.7 million! and the image LOOKS REALLY DAMN GOOD! But How they did it?

00:00 - Intro
00:25 - The Film
00:44 - Magic of ANAMORPHIC
01:19 - Mirrorless vs Cinema Camera
01:44 - a Way to Best Quality
02:06 - CAMERA MOVMENT
02:33 - COLOR & 8 BIT FOOTAGE
03:13 - RISE OF A7S III & FX3
03:22 - BATMAN CINEMATOGRAPHER & FX3
04:04 - THE POINT
04:19 - 5 MAIN ELEMENTS
04:40 - DONT FORGOT TO LIKE!

shoutout to : @StudioBinder @dslrvideoshooter @cammackey

CONTACT ME:

[bardofhighrenown]

It reminds me of how '28 Days Later' was shot on a Canon XL1, which was, at the time, a high end consumer MiniDV camcorder. Just goes to show you that gear is not a hindrance to producing something great.

[kinoromantic]

Only proves that with a 40000$ lens set, a semi truck full of lighting, and another semi truck full of set dressing, you can shoot on a shoe and make it look good. Oh, and post production budget!

[larrycoonrod]

A lot of aspiring filmmakers are obsessed with the wrong gear. Lighting and sound will make a far bigger difference to your film than the camera. And of course story, composition, pacing and editing

[DSLRguide]

With or without anamorphic lenses, the crew makes more difference than the camera, and it would all be pointless without a good story. Hard to live by these principles even though I believe them

[OfentseMwaseFilms]

The Camera you use doesn't matter much, all you need is Anamorphic Lenses and Good lighting.

[fanjan]

We are spoilt by equipment today, and equipment becoming cheaper at high quality simply emphasises the fact, that it isn't about the gear that makes something great, it is about you and your collaboration

[bondgabebond]

Heard one of the benefits of cameras like the Sony FX-3 is that you buy it and keep it. No more renting. Lenses also are getting very affordable even for the newbie. It's crazy.

[marianviorelradu]

This video shows that if you can spend 100.000$ on lenses, 50.000$ on lighting, 10.000$ on rigging, 50.000$ on stabilisers and another 1.000.000 on crew, you don't have to spend another 50.000$ on camera. Nice! Encouraging!

[AllgoodthingsTv]

Awesome and inspiring video with actual substantive information about how this can be achieved. Reminds me of the season finale of "House" being shot with the 5D Mark II back in the day.

[calvinwongmedia]

My DOP instructor taught me it's better to overexpose than underexpose but 1.5 stop? That's a surprise to me. Great video Ermia!

[villagranvicent]

This is not an A7sii with a kit lens.

As others had said, the cost of the body is irrelevant when you need to consider thousands on lenses, rigs, gimbals, lights, and all the human power needed to produce a movie.

The title obviously misleads like if an A7sii is all it takes to achieve that level of imagery.

[jpr-tech]

Agree 100% 😊
That’s why I’m enjoying shooting with my old Canon eos-m with Magic Lantern. It’s amazing the quality I can squeeze out of this $100 camera.
Just upload a short doc all shot with the EOSM + 15-45mm kit lens & the TTartisan 35mm f1.4. 😅

[calebrasak]

As someone who works in the industry as a gaffer. The camera system plays such a small role in the look of the film or show. Sure it matters, not saying that. But truly lighting, lensing, movement, location, and set dec are such an immensely more impactful tool to achieve a cinematic look.

I will say the one time I did notice a difference with a body was using the Ursa Mini 12K on a film I shot last year in Greece. We shot most of it at 400 asa with darker skin talent. This was daunting for lighting knowing we needed a lot of dynamic range to achieve the look we were going for. Sadly this body did not help in achieving that.

At the end of the day these things are tools. Pick the one you have and if you have the opportunity to chose a body go for one that limits you the least.

Excited to see more projects on smaller more affordable bodies.

[Alex-VA]

I love how perfect the timing of this video is for me :)
I got myself an a7s2 a couple days ago for 630€ and this video really motivates me to just use any possible moment to shoot with a camera to get a better understanding of photography and videography as well as of the camera itself.
I also have a question: would you say that an anamorfake lens could give a similar feeling to an anamorphic one? Sadly I can't afford myself a real deal because I'm just a casual student :D

[westwolf]

Recording to an Atomos Shogun Flame in 4:2:2 was a key part of the workflow. I don’t know why you neglected to mention that because without the external recorder you lose 2 times as much color information. Also the film was basically a Sony Alpha demo reel to sell more cameras and make a mediocre horror movie seem more special with a gimmick.

[ringopaulusch]

"Upstream Color" by Shane Carruth was shot 10 years ago on a Panasonic GH2.

[JuanflimIt]

that insane I watch this film a few years ago and never notice

[philipp.foerster_]

Fun fact: the hawk lenses used don’t actually cover the full frame sensor. But in order to get an 2.39:1 image you have to get rid of a lot of the left and right part anyway (2x squeeze of the lenses would result in a 3.56:1 image) so it works but you are loosing a bit of resolution.

[namopinaeddy]

At 1200$ we could get the bmpcc4k wich provide 12 bit raw internaly. Or 10 bit 4:2:2. Or you can go thurther with the 6k for super35 sensor. Anyway making movie is still expensive, believe me, it's not just the gear, we'll have always to pay the crew. Every day expenses during shooting, dresses and production design.

[Christo_glenn]

Mate, I love your work! I’ve watched your other videos, including the ones shot on the A7IV and was blown away!

Mate, if you did a DaVinci Resolve rundown on how you develop your look(s), that would be legendary!