It's no secret that tremendously high-quality results can be created on relatively modest equipment these days. Nevertheless, it's surprising just how high-quality the results can get, particularly when it's from what is best considered a consumer camera. The Sony FX3 is a revered cinema camera, but don't let the word "cinema" trick you into thinking this is a deep-five-figure camera, it's not — it's $3,899. Now, I'm not delusional, that's still a lot of money, but put into the context of a Hollywood film, it's about as budget as you can get.
The common cameras you would see on a set of a big-budget film are ARRIs and their best offerings are upward of $75,000. When you watch the trailer for the film shot on the FX3 (which you can see here), there are no telltale signs that this feature film was shot on anything less than the typical, high-end equipment. It really goes to show what is possible and how few limitations we all have these days.
Nice, a great reminder that I'm the problem... not my camera.
The camera choice is interesting. However you have the typical hyperbole in the title. Blockbuster? How can that be? I looked up the release date and it isn't in theaters. How can it be a blockbuster without proving its success?
It'll likely run 80+ minutes, so "full-featured film" would be be more accurate.
The Sony FX3 is a consumer grade camera? Some could argue it’s not a cinema camera - but it’s definitely a pro camera. The fx30 isn’t even a consumer grade camera. And go watch any video on expensive cinema lenses vs. cheaper ones like Rokinon…I would save my budget and not use an ARRI or $50,000 fujinon lenses and instead spend that money on talent - cinematographers/writers and actors. Studios love movies that come in under budget and gross a ton of money.
Never heard of it.