[HN Gopher] The cameras and lenses used on the latest Oscar nomi...
___________________________________________________________________
The cameras and lenses used on the latest Oscar nominated films
Author : belter
Score : 27 points
Date : 2022-01-13 19:49 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.premiumbeat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.premiumbeat.com)
| 323 wrote:
| The most expensive cameras and lenses are the ones used in TV
| broadcast, like the ones used for sporting events. Those giant
| long box shaped high luminosity 20x zoom lenses cost $250k+.
|
| https://ymcinema.com/2021/08/03/meet-the-fujinon-sk35-700mm-...
| onion2k wrote:
| Even if you could afford the camera you still couldn't make
| anything like a Hollywood movie. The amount of control a film
| crew exerts over what they're shooting is pretty staggering to
| anyone who hasn't spent time in a studio or a film set. Literally
| everything is controlled. Everything is logged. A set has to be
| reset between takes, which means knowing where everything is,
| what settings all the cameras, lights, etc had, everyone standing
| on marks taped on the floor, etc. A great camera is important to
| any scene, but there is _so much more_ to filming anything.
|
| (Background: I studied Broadcast Engineering at uni and spent
| time around television studios 25 years ago. It's a lot of fun,
| but intensely laborious, and ultimately making things on the
| internet proved more exciting..)
| paxys wrote:
| What is a 'Hollywood' movie? If you mean something released by
| one of the major Los Angeles-based studios, then sure.
| Otherwise there are a ton of feature length movies made with a
| shoestring budget and none of the effort you mention which get
| a wide release and get immensely popular and profitable.
| belter wrote:
| Although I don't disagree with you, I think that number is
| much smaller that it might look like.
|
| Same thing applies to home recorded albums or NPR style
| concerts.
|
| What looks like just made on shoestring, its just the most
| exquisite work of very experienced professionals, making use
| of all their knowledge and years and years of experience.
| What looks like the use of minimalist resources, are smart
| choices whose modus operandi is only accessible to the best
| professionals.
|
| NPR (Tiny Desk) concerts are the best example.
| netr0ute wrote:
| > the most exquisite work of very experienced
| professionals, making use of all their knowledge and years
| and years of experience
|
| Weird Al's first album was mainly recorded in the Cal Poly
| bathroom and look where he is now.
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| I was also astounded how much CG goes into movies. For context,
| I was an extra in Lord of the Rings ~20 years ago and almost
| every arrow in Helm's Deep was added in post.
| belter wrote:
| That deserves a post in itself :-) Were Orcs allowed toilet
| breaks in full costume?
| plussed_reader wrote:
| Probably something special in the thigh pad.....
| gist wrote:
| > Even if you could afford the camera you still couldn't make
| anything like a Hollywood movie.
|
| But what is a 'hollywood' movie? Do you mean one where
| predictably (like a Spielberg film) there is a certain level of
| technical expertise that comes off as very polished and
| perfect? Where I will add that that is not even the most
| important factor in many movies. After all movies are really
| entertainment and it's easy to be entertained by something that
| (if done well) was done on high end prosumer equipment. Now me
| personally I don't like the polished up 'hollywood' look
| either. It's almost to perfect and really not appropriate for
| every type of entertainment.
|
| One thing I will say is that looking back and watching again
| many movies that I loved in the 90's that are 'hollywood' I
| don't like them as much as ones that I see now on Netflix.
| (Many of those are done super well technically but many are not
| and both often equally entertaining).
| dmitriid wrote:
| For most of us from outside the movies books like "The Devil's
| Candy" (about Brian DePalma's making of "Bonfire of the
| Vanities") also have a great insight into this.
|
| It really is insane how much work and care goes into these
| movies (even the bad ones).
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| A friend who worked on crews on everything from Oscar winning
| movies to direct to video schlock likes to say "It's just as
| much work to make a bad movie as a good one."
| lmilcin wrote:
| Pretty much the same as buying high end DSLR.
|
| The camera does not "make" pictures. The photographer does.
|
| If you have no idea how to compose your shot or control
| lighting, it is going to look bad regardless of how much
| investment in the camera and lenses.
| ghaff wrote:
| Even if you're just on camera for some documentary thing, the
| amount of fussing with lights, sound, multiple camera angles
| etc. is significant. The reality is that you can probably get
| most of the way there these days with significantly cheaper
| gear and most people wouldn't know the difference if the people
| using the gear were competent. But it's still impressive what
| goes into just a basic corporate talking head.
|
| (Of course, a lot of people who go into shooting video for jobs
| like this are often into gear and financing their hobby. And
| even if showing up for the shoot with just an iPhone produces
| good results, you probably shouldn't expect a followup job.)
| soperj wrote:
| A lot of scenes can be naturally lit. I know someone who does
| documentaries solo, and they just make sure they interview
| people in a place that works.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't disagree. For interviews of any length, you
| probably want a decent microphone, a tripod, and somewhere
| quiet (unless you want something that's obviously in a
| bustling setting). But if they're hiring a video crew most
| companies probably expect a typical production video crew.
| d136o wrote:
| Possibly related, I've become a fan of recording videos on my
| iPhone on 4K. On playback I just love the video quality, and I
| don't care about how much space they take. Any 8k fans? I think
| some android phones support it?
|
| I'm not a pro or anything but amongst my family members I tend to
| be the one who likes documenting the most, and I like the idea of
| really high quality playback of special moments many years from
| now.
| eric__cartman wrote:
| Rather than investing in a phone that can record in 8k (if it
| even exists) I'd try and look into some entry level "proper"
| cameras. The bigger sensors and better optics should provide a
| bump in video quality. Mirrorless cameras aren't very large to
| lug around when going on vacation or other places where
| interesting events could be documented.
| janekm wrote:
| Somewhat surprisingly, it's actually easier to get good-
| looking footage on an iPhone than say a mid-level mirrorless
| camera. The iPhone has better built-in stabilisation and
| handles high dynamic range more conveniently (built-in tone
| mapping and HDR capture by taking multiple real captures per
| video frame). Taking full advantage of a "proper" camera
| takes additional equipment (tripod/gimbal / lights /
| microphones / decent lenses).
| ghaff wrote:
| Definitely. A modern iPhone can do a pretty fantastic job
| at capturing a somewhat cinema verite sort of video--with
| appropriate eye and editing. For relatively modest
| expenditure, you can take that to the next level. But it
| probably requires hauling around a lot of gear and being
| less spontaneous.
|
| I was fairly interested in video at one point when film
| (Super-8) was just transitioning to video. But it was all
| such a hassle that I pretty much just kept to still. An
| iPhone (or a videocam that's a few hundred dollars) would
| have been so great.
| ghaff wrote:
| Although once you're getting into "proper" cameras, you're
| probably also talking about at least a tripod, maybe
| steadicam, at that point. But, yes, once you're at 4K, I'd
| definitely be thinking about other ways to move to the next
| level than higher resolution.
| d136o wrote:
| This is a great point. Part of what I've liked about iPhone
| shot videos is sound and stabilization.
|
| So maybe there are some of those aspects which dedicated
| cameras could do better without stepping up the resolution.
| ghaff wrote:
| Traditional cameras--and the more traditional you get the
| truer this probably gets--have been fairly, well,
| terrible is probably not too overstated in software. One
| could probably make nationalistic--or at least industry
| related--comments related to that but I won't. (BTW I
| have significant Canon and Fuji systems.) It's also
| probably the case that the buyers of those cameras were
| traditionally fine with software that was pretty hands-
| off.
|
| But, yes, if you combined APS-C Fuji, say, with the
| software available in an iPhone you'd have a really
| impressive instrument and presumably we'll get there some
| day.
| zokier wrote:
| I think it is telling that even Hollywood is not yet on the 8K
| bandwagon; for example the ARRI Alexa LF camera mentioned in
| the article is "4.5K" and the Sony Venice is "6K"; I venture to
| guess that vast majority of feature films are produced at 4k
| currently. I find it unlikely that smartphone video footage
| would be at this point significantly improved by changing
| recording format to 8k.
| asimpletune wrote:
| I think the main reason people are shooting is 8K is that they
| can crop into 4K more easily. It just means you don't have to
| do as much planning with your framing.
| d136o wrote:
| Yes I was wondering if the smartphone push into 8k is almost
| coming from the expected future of VR, but it may offer
| benefits for users before getting all the way to VR playback
| like you mention.
|
| Collect all the video at a higher resolution than you can
| display and then only show the small part which is in the
| smaller user view field.
| TAKEMYMONEY wrote:
| The lenses are still very poor compared to pro gear (especially
| like what we see in this article). This can be fixed in post
| with lens distortion correction but there's no substitute for a
| nice hunk of glass.
| alexashka wrote:
| This really misses the mark. Any 2-3k camera beats the image most
| movies had 20 years ago.
|
| The reason Hollywood uses expensive gear is because the _human_
| cost is so enormous, that any improvement in gear to reduce human
| cost becomes a no-brainer.
| asimpletune wrote:
| > This really misses the mark. Any 2-3k camera beats the image
| most movies had 20 years ago.
|
| Do you mean beats any _digital_ camera 20 years ago? Because I
| think film cameras back then were phenomenal.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| A studio-quality 35mm movie camera is roughly equivalent to 4K
| digital in terms of resolution. It is only 16 frames per second
| though so rapid motion is not as smooth.
| robbrown451 wrote:
| It's just a matter of time before someone wins an Oscar for best
| cinematography and does it using a couple thousand dollars worth
| of equipment.
|
| Recently Finneas won the Grammy for best engineered album (for
| his sister Billie Eilish's album), and he did everything except
| the very final mastering on equipment that cost less than a
| typical car. Including recording vocals and some acoustic
| instruments in their parents' house.
|
| The recording industry isn't that different from the film
| industry, where most things are done on ridiculously expensive
| equipment. But it is increasingly unnecessary.
| gist wrote:
| Classic supply and demand. The price is set based on the market
| and the demand if these were created in any type of quantity
| they'd cost very little ... obviously. Essentially like any
| expensive machine these are custom machines for a very limited
| and particular purpose. The rental is a strategy that makes sense
| (to extract the most revenue) after all tech moves on and there
| is no reason to have a camera for another film when something
| better will most likely exist.
| gxqoz wrote:
| I read a book recently on technical advances in early Hollywood.
| One chapter was on cinematographers. To start, they were using
| off-the-shelf consumer tech. It was the responsibility of the
| cinematographer to provide their own equipment (and hold it, one
| but not the only reason why there weren't many women in the job).
| As the 1920s went on, cameras eventually became expensive enough
| that the business model had to change. Now studios purchased them
| and provided them to cinematographers working on specific films.
| This was part of the broader move to the studio system.
|
| It was still a while before there were a lot of Hollywood-
| specific cameras developed. It was still a niche market compared
| to, say, home movies.
| mikestew wrote:
| Isn't that the joke in _The Disaster Artist_ when Tommy buys the
| gear instead of renting it? The implication being that one does
| not simply _buy_ movie-making gear. (And the secondary
| implication being, "where the fuck does Tommy get all this
| money?") Not that I know the first thing about making a movie.
| dntrkv wrote:
| The other part of the joke is he bought both a film and digital
| camera. He then shot the movie using both formats. They were
| the first to do this. Tommy was such a visionary.
| busterarm wrote:
| The joke there is mostly about the secondary implication.
|
| People actually do buy movie-making gear and loaning it out to
| people a way to earn cash/favors or network in the industry.
|
| Luis Guzman owns a ton of camera gear that he still keeps in
| his lower east side apartment and that he lends out to crews of
| movies produced by friends of his.
|
| The closer you end up to low-mid budget filmmaking in your
| career, the more you'll be sourcing equipment from people.
| Keyframe wrote:
| Camera cost is negligible compared to cost of a production. No
| one buys equipment to shoot a movie at that level too. Camera,
| albeit important, is also not the single most important factor in
| percieved image look; There's also glass, light, grip, production
| design, post. And ultimately and most importantly - knowing how
| to use all of that. On top of it, you cannot do it all alone.
| People that do (know) cost a lot more than any of the above and
| you need them, on average anywhere between 30-90 days without
| much sleep during principal photography, not to mention all of
| the prep and post work.
|
| Tl;dr; it's about camera as software is about text editor.
| jerojero wrote:
| Maybe a more interesting article would be the cameras and lenses
| used in the best short films and whatnot? Those tend to be done
| in a much more budget-friendly manner and in reality if you want
| to become a good film maker you will always start with shorts
| rather than full length films.
| smm11 wrote:
| Meanwhile the world is busy filming with iPhones, and at any
| second a movie shot with one/them will win an Oscar.
| paxys wrote:
| If you mean in any one of the major categories (best Picture,
| Direction, Cinematography, Sound Editing/Mixing etc.), then it
| is not going to happen anytime soon, probably ever. There are
| still several generational gaps between the mainstream
| equipment in use today and a phone camera.
|
| I can see an iPhone-shot movie getting best documentary short
| or whatever, but that's it.
| zactato wrote:
| I think this might take another generation. The Oscars
| represent the high production values/costs of the entertainment
| industry. Giving an Oscar to a 17 year old with an iPhone would
| threaten the foundation of a lot of that industry.
|
| I suspect we'll see a tipping point soon (if we haven't
| already) where more minutes of time are spent watching content
| produced on an iPhone vs an expensive film camera.
| ghaff wrote:
| You'll almost certainly see some short documentary or short
| subject at some point. (i.e. something almost no one ever
| sees) But other costs so dominate the actual photography,
| there's little reason to expect a studio to economize on the
| cinematography (and sound, etc.) other than someone doing it
| as a stunt.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| >I suspect we'll see a tipping point soon (if we haven't
| already) where more minutes of time are spent watching
| content produced on an iPhone vs an expensive film camera.
|
| Counting Youtube/TikTok/whatever, this must have tipped years
| ago.
| lostcolony wrote:
| A 17 year old with an iPhone, maybe.
|
| Happily, plenty of industry veterans are finding uses for
| camera phones. https://momofilmfest.com/oscar-winning-claude-
| lelouch-cannes...
| beavertrilogy wrote:
| "Tangerine" got pretty close. Made it to Sundance and that
| was in 2014/2015 with an iPhone 5S.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine_(film)
|
| The threat to the industry definitely appears to be the
| bigger hurdle, but don't discount workflow. Offloading from
| an iPhone is non-trivial, especially when all big-budget
| movies employ at least one DIT (if not an entire team) to
| manage this process.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Searching for Sugar Man won Best Documentary in 2013 and was
| partially shot on an iPhone.
| byw wrote:
| I suspect at the same time Oscar will gradually become less
| relevant as people's attentions will be divided between
| Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
| omoikane wrote:
| I think the correct link should be
| https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-oscar-nomina...
|
| This matches the title of the post. Either that or update the
| current title to be "You Can't Afford This Expensive Hollywood
| Camera Gear".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-13 23:02 UTC)