If they are so good, why aren’t Cheaper Cameras used for commercial Films?

Watch the video:

In the vast world of filmmaking, the debate over the choice of camera equipment – especially between high-end cameras and more budget-friendly options – is as heated as a blockbuster action scene.

The Prestige of Premium Camera Brands

The allure of high-end cameras like the Arri Alexa LF or Alexa 35 or the RED Raptor isn’t just about brand prestige; it’s deeply rooted in the tangible superiorities these cameras offer over their lower-priced counterparts.

For example, while a Canon EOS R5 (Amazon, B&H) might capture footage in 8K RAW, similar to the Raptor, and even be used to shoot features that make it to cinema screens, such instances are remarkably rare.

When you compare the cost of an Arri Alexa 35 to a consumer mirrorless camera, the difference is staggering – akin to comparing a Rolls Royce to a compact family sedan.

In reality, no studio executive will greenlight such an expense unless the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. After all, those funds could alternatively sponsor lavish company retreats or hefty executive bonuses.

There must be something so tangibly obvious to everyone that low budget filmmakers decide not to see. After all, even the audience is accustomed to high-quality films.

The Importance of Visible Image Quality

The primary argument for high-end cameras is their unmatched image quality. Despite advancements in technology that allow lower-end cameras to boast impressive specs like 6K or 8K resolution and extensive dynamic range, the actual image output often falls short of professional standards.

They might promise a gourmet visual feast but end up delivering a fast-food level experience – acceptable but not exceptional.

Consider the visual impact when such footage is projected in theaters or viewed on high-quality broadcast monitors. The discrepancies in detail resolution, color accuracy, and gradations are stark. High-end cameras handle these elements effortlessly, ensuring that every scene is depicted with the utmost clarity and vibrancy, thus preserving the director’s artistic vision.

There are visual artifacts in a cheaper camera that are rarely visible on smaller screens. They are painfully obvious on a cinema screen.

What do you look for? Look at the differences in colors and tonal gradation. That’s a great place to start.

Here are two examples from the recent film The Creator, shot on a Sony FX3 and Sony FX9:

What do you see? The most obvious, assuming you have some experience, is the poor color reproduction and lack of tonal detail in the gradations.

Even if you’re not trained, you will notice something is off when pointed out to you.

Cheaper cameras come with cheaper sensors that just can’t reproduce color the way an expensive cinema camera can. RAW doesn’t mean anything visually because it’s just a container. Neither do things like 16-bit or 12-bit.

You can fill up a container with lots of colors and tonality, or just a few – It’s like buying a big bag of chips and discovering it’s half air. And half the other half is burnt. Turns out, they were selling you the bag all along.

Color grading sessions in professional facilities can be eye-opening. They starkly highlight the differences between footage shot on high-end and low budget cameras. Cheaper cameras often struggle with color fidelity and noise levels, which become painfully apparent when viewed on large screens or scrutinized by seasoned colorists.

And it’s not all about color. Some textures aren’t captured accurately too. There’s something about the crispness, or pop, of an Arri Alexa or a Sony Venice or Red Raptor that you just can’t get with cheaper cameras. Compare the frames from The Creator with Blade Runner 2049, shot on an Arri Alexa:

Textural issues like low light noise are simply ugly to look at, and can’t be hidden. When you try to fix underexposed areas by crushing blacks or slapping on heavy noise reduction, sure, you’ve changed it, but now you’ve just spawned a new set of image artifacts.

Cheaper sensors also come with sensor pattern noise, or random artifacts where the image response isn’t the same from left to right or top to bottom.

And all this is assuming you’re filming in RAW. If you’re filming in H.264 or H.265, then you are also going to introduce compression artifacts.

The Effects of Motion Artifacts

Cheaper cameras use cheap shutter hacks to make things work. It’s great for YouTube videos and TikTok. But on a cinema screen even a simple pan or camera move can feel wrong, it just judders, for lack of a better word. The motion isn’t filmic. Or, it’s too smooth, video like.

You also have rolling shutter skew and other motion artifacts on many cheaper cameras. You can work around some of the issues, of course. In my film I tried to keep motion to a minimum, because the rolling shutter on the Canon EOS R5 isn’t good enough for cinema. 

Cheap monitors and HDTV systems that just don’t reproduce motion correctly. At the very least you need a broadcast monitor designed to replicate the exact motion in your footage. Don’t assume just because your gaming display boasts stellar specs for a game it’s going to be good to judge cinema motion.

The Rigorous Demands of Professional Film Sets

On a bustling film set, cameras are subjected to extreme conditions. They might be mounted on fast-moving vehicles, suspended from cranes, or operated in harsh weather. High-end cameras are built like tanks, designed to withstand such rigors without compromising functionality or output quality.

In contrast, budget cameras, while improving, often lack the durability and resilience required for such challenging environments. The materials and tolerances are not always on par with the best.

Sensor Size and Image Processing

The superior image sensors and processing algorithms of high-end cameras allow them to capture a wider dynamic range and better color depth. This technical advantage is crucial in scenes with complex lighting or when capturing subtle nuances in skin tones and textures.

Simply put:

High-end cinema cameras can give consistent image quality across a wide variety of lighting conditions, skin tones, motion and production demands.

For major productions with significant financial backing, the investment in better equipment can lead to higher quality outputs, which translate to better box office performance or critical acclaim.

Another important consideration is cooling.

Even if a cheap camera doesn’t overheat, you can bet the sensor heats up enough to degrade image quality. Sensors react to thermal changes, and need to be constantly cooled. Adding a fan raises the size and weight of the camera. A smaller fan might keep the sensor running, but won’t keep it at its optimal temperature. The more you run your cheap cameras on a hot day, the worse the footage gets. Try it!

One of the reasons an Arri Alexa is huge and heavy is because of the need for cooling. Not just the sensor but the entire circuitry inside. Temperature can affect HDMI and SDI ports too, and everything else. Cooling is a big reason why the Alexa can reproduce its insane dynamic range and color tonality over a large range of ISO values.

Conclusion: The Justification for High-End Cameras in Filmmaking

In conclusion, while the initial cost of high-end cameras may be daunting, their value is justified through superior image quality, reliability, and performance on professional sets.

The most important detail is: These advantages are obvious even to the non-technical crew involved in a film – Producers, studio executives, etc. Even major stars are savvy to camera technologies and lighting. After all, it’s their career on the line, too.

For filmmakers aiming to produce work that competes at the highest levels, the choice often tilts towards technology that will not compromise their artistic vision. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding – or, in this case, in the crystal-clear, color-accurate, and beautifully rendered images that only high-end cameras can consistently deliver.

I don’t want you to get the wrong idea. Filmmakers without the budget have no choice but to use cheaper cameras, but it won’t look as good as a well-produced film on larger screens unless you are extremely careful and have a ton of experience to cover up the shortcomings.

Your audience probably saw something shot on an Arri Alexa right before watching your film, and even if they don’t know the technicalities, the difference will have an effect on them. Anyway, low budget non-commercial films (those that don’t get sold or make any substantial money from their release) can film in whatever camera they can afford.

I filmed my film on such a camera, the Canon EOS R5 (Amazon, B&H). It cost less than $100,000, and it was a minor miracle it landed in theaters in the first place!

When budgets are tight you take what you can get. If you really have to film on a cheap camera try to stay within its limits. Thousands of filmmakers try it every day. Once in a while someone produces beautiful images.

Focus on making a good movie!

What do you think?