Cannes snubs Blackmagic

I saw this (which I assume to be an accurate chart) and I was surprised by the complete absence of Blackmagic on this list. I mean even an iPhone and a Digital Bolex are present...WTF?

As it should be obvious by now, I am a big fan of Blackmagic products and have been using them on most of my productions. I find the color science to be well suited for narrative work, and I love the seamless ecosystem between BlackmagicRAW and Resolve.

What puzzles me is why, even after more than a decade, Blackmagic is still struggling to break into the field more strongly despite having such a strong stable of products? Speaking with several camera professionals here in Los Angeles, there appears to be a reputation that precedes Blackmagic cameras as toy-like an unsuited for "serious" production. As a part-time CG artist, it reminds me a lot of how many in that field regard Blender.

I guess ultimately it doesn't matter that much to me, as long as Blackmagic continues to make cameras that I enjoy shooting with, that's really all that is important for me. But still, the question remains...

218173457_10104034230297427_2459544227616868404_n.jpg (104.38 KiB) Viewed 8789 times

Was it a snub by Cannes or did people who could make a worthwhile or likeable film simply not use Blackmagic products?

It was a longer time than expected before RED was taken seriously, so B may be on the outer for a while yet.

I don't think it is Cannes. It's the Director and/or DP choice of camera to make the films that are submitted to Cannes. Cannes does not put a restriction as to what camera can only be used for submission.

Now the bigger question is why do these (and many other feature narrative) directors and DP not consider a Blackmagic Camera for their film? Personally, they should. In fact more than choosing a Red, a Sony, a Canon, and particularly an IPhone (this is just a fluke and it may be due to the narrative itself it made it).

Was it a snub by Cannes or did people who could make a worthwhile or likeable film simply not use Blackmagic products?

I'm inclined to agree here. I love Blackmagic but full scale productions can afford the higher end tools. Filmmakers who can standout in film festivals on a budget are always rare but even the bottom percentage of budgets still seem to be able to drum up the cash for either an Alexa or an owner/operator.

So for Blackmagic to show up at Cannes right now it's got to be a project by an artistic savant who has somehow developed the talent to create a film to be accepted by one of the most prestigious film festivals ever while simultaneously not being able to find financing (or even a community of DP's without a fancier camera they're willing to donate).

I've known plenty of wack-jobs who could scrounge up the budget for full-production features and essentially zero with the talent to make it to Cannes.

I'm sure we'll see a passion-project-budget-auteur-Unicorn soon enough - but it would be a true rarity.

Most of these movies may be low-budget compared to Hollywood, but they're still fully professional productions. If you look at where most of them go, it's exactly where you'd expect and what most people would advise: Alexa, in one form or another. Others, like Canon 300, are rental house staples known for reliability and ease of use.

BMD doesn't try to compete at this industrial level. The fact that you *could* shoot one of these movies with a BMD camera doesn't mean it would be a good idea, from the producer's perspective.

My Cannes title for this thread was simply a bit of a sensationalistic shortcut. You guys know what I meant, of course it's not Cannes!

My point still stands, after entering the camera market almost a decade ago (2012), Blackmagic still has not impressed itself on enough Cinematographers to make it on a list like this one. As I pointed out, even the iPhone is on there, so any comparisons to RED cameras taking a while to get widely accepted doesn't seem like a reason why there is a resistance to Blackmagic hardware.

The question is, why would they still prefer shooting on mirrorless prosumer cameras from Panasonic and Sony?

The iphone production must have been someone trying to prove something (about iphones) and the Panasonic is one instance. Somebody's private decision doesn't mean anything. And did you follow up what kind of production it was -- probably not the main competition?

The worst looking movie I've seen in years was shot on 16mm, streaming now. So what does it all mean in the end? Nothing, really. The unkindest thing you could say is that BMD cameras are for people who want the capability to deliver cinema but don't have the means, after the camera purchase, to do so. Meanwhile, actual productions are not looking to save a few thousand in camera rentals, when it means gambling on equipment never intended to serve an industrial market.

Meanwhile, actual productions are not looking to save a few thousand in camera rentals, when it means gambling on equipment never intended to serve an industrial market.

Are you saying that in your opinion Blackmagic cameras constitute a gamble?

When your overhead is a few thousand (or more) an hour, and you're relying on a rental house for equipment support? Absolutely it's a gamble, which no sane producer will take. BMD cameras are marketed to individuals, and that's who they're for.

I've been part of films that won awards in festivals, both shorts and feature form. I love my Blackmagic G2 and 6K, and even my previous ones. But I rarely use it on any of these films that have won awards. Most of them were rented RED cameras. I have one short film that was shot on the URSA Mini 4K few years back and I won a silver award for directing at the International Short Film Festival. The film also won several screenplay awards in other festivals. But that was the only one that won with a Blackmagic camera being used, and I was not the DP.

The question is, why would they still prefer shooting on mirrorless prosumer cameras from Panasonic and Sony?

Autofocus, is my guess.

In almost every technical category when you ignore cost Blackmagics are outclassed by another camera. Dynamic range, color science, and codec.

The only exception now is resolution, which is great! But that would only seem to serve effects heavy projects, otherwise it's a "waste" of functionality when compared to other offerings.

It's an exhausted conversation but I do think a 6k or 8k full frame camera with a boosted dynamic range would really stand out. Right now I'd likely grab a Komodo or FX6 over UMG2.

Do you think Blackmagic when competing with the big boys of Arri and RED suffer from "image problem", its not seen as elite enough but when competing against lower end cameras its too specialise and don't have the easy to use consumer level features that appeal to the average Joe?

BMD don't have "folk hero" type cinematographers or celebs to help market their product, not that I know of anyway. That Jason Momoa advert help RED shift a few Komodos

Cinema rely on state system :to get subsidies you have to use a "system" with rental hardware agencies and so on. This little world do not allow changes easily. not enough expensive

Not the pragmatism of a real entertaiment industry !

I will also add that some people LIE about what equipment they used, the budget, and a host of other elements for festivals...., not that I know anything about that. Perception is reality!

Cannes, Sundance, Slamdance, anydance - no film festival at the end of the day has any interest in what a filmmaker shoots on. They do want a great film period. Make that on a Blackmagic and it will be great. Just as it would be great on a smartphone or an Arri or your old Bolex.

Cannes, Sundance, Slamdance, anydance - no film festival at the end of the day has any interest in what a filmmaker shoots on. They do want a great film period. Make that on a Blackmagic and it will be great. Just as it would be great on a smartphone or an Arri or your old Bolex.

Way, way OT, but what you're omitting here is that creating mature dramatic illusion is very, very expensive, in the sense that no actual working person can pay for it.

Which means that unless you're playing at something other than making a "great film period", you're not going to use a smartphone, or a wind-up Bolex. You'll use the best and most reliable cameras -- or at least what consensus says is the best and most reliable, because that will give everyone, including the funders and the insurance company, comfort.

I wonder also if you really do know, that festivals are looking for "great film period", assuming we could agree on what that means. Sundance, Slamdance, -- they're peculiarly and unfortunately American, in the sense of the usual hucksterism. Sundance murdered American "indie film", with help from NY-based producers. The U.S. is among the very few developed countries without an esteemed art-house tradition.

If you're looking for greatness in the arts without money, movies are the worst place to seek it.

If you're looking for greatness in the arts without money, movies are the worst place to seek it.

Well said John. This reminds me when I was shopping once to get funding for my feature script/picture. In the United States, it's a chicken/egg situation when it comes to movies and money. I am told that I have to put out the money in order for the investors to put in the money so I can make my picture. That's funny because if I had the money to put in and pay for it, why again do I need the investors?

So for Blackmagic to show up at Cannes right now it's got to be a project by an artistic savant who has somehow developed the talent to create a film to be accepted by one of the most prestigious film festivals ever while simultaneously not being able to find financing (or even a community of DP's without a fancier camera they're willing to donate).

Last year there where 5 (or so) Blackmagic cameras on that list - camera brand ist the last reason, you don't get into Cannes.

Most of the time, it's behause your film sucks, or you don't know the right people, or postproduction took too long - the latter happened to the feature I shot on Ursas and Pockets, but editorial took them forever.

Also: how many films, shot on Alexa didn't make it for some reason?

How about "6K Bro"?

My guess, films shot on Blackmagic cameras were either not provided or not good enough - not enough known talent - for Cannes.

The iPhone and even FS7 are clearly inferior to recent Blackmagic cameras. The S1H and FX9 are on a level with the P6K. So technical details clearly aren't an issue here.

The iPhone and even FS7 are clearly inferior to recent Blackmagic cameras. The S1H and FX9 are on a level with the P6K. So technical details clearly aren't an issue here.

I would argue that even the S1H and the FX9 are not up to par with the IQ that the P6K provides since neither of those cameras can record in raw or even ProRes without an external add-on.

No, technical details aren't the issue. I think the issue is the overall perception on the part of many cinematographers that Blackmagic cameras simply aren't good/reliable/battle-worthy/etc.

I don't buy the rental house support argument either, most rental houses in Los Angeles carry Blackmagic cameras, and besides for the cost of a single EPIC or Alexa, one could outfit the production with enough redundant URSAs to make any risk of possible malfunction a non-factor.

A friend who owns a camera shop in town pointed out that Blackmagic cameras tend to use plastic materials, and many associate plastic with cheap and unreliable. I wonder if the industry would perceive Blackmagic gear differently if they released an all-aluminum or magnesium body?

I don't buy the rental house support argument either, most rental houses in Los Angeles carry Blackmagic cameras, and besides for the cost of a single EPIC or Alexa, one could outfit the production with enough redundant URSAs to make any risk of possible malfunction a non-factor.

Which just goes to prove the point: users/buyers of BMD cameras are individuals typically not subject to the fiduciary requirements of fully financed productions, so of course they're not concerned or affected by these constraints.

Try telling a bond completion company that instead of relying on Arri you're renting 8 redundant Ursas, so they should butt out and leave you alone.

I wonder if the industry would perceive Blackmagic gear differently if they released an all-aluminum or magnesium body?

That's one I haven't thought of before. When I have an UMP in my hands it *feels* pretty sturdy except for the monitor joint. That being said, in my mind I'd definitely think of Red's, Alexa's, and Venice's as being on another level durability-wise.

The Ursa design does feel kind of hollow. Maybe by packing it down and giving the body a textured coating perceptions would be totally different.

I wonder if the industry would perceive Blackmagic gear differently if they released an all-aluminum or magnesium body?

They have. They also won design awards for it.

https://www.red-dot.org/project/blackma ... mera-10466

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/ ... 0120416-08

"Blackmagic Cinema Camera includes an innovative industrial design built from solid machined aluminium metal which results in an attractive but rugged design."

https://www.red-dot.org/project/blackma ... mera-10492

"The magnesium alloy body is strong and durable."

This is such a meaningless discussion because it's about ego. Something that shouldn't have much place on a creative set.

Do you guys want validation for your use of a camera? As used on... as used by? That's what this thread says...

Blackmagic doesn't make cameras for Hollywood. They make them for you here in this thread that aren't filmmakers getting into Cannes but aspire to...

I've had things get into Cannes, Sundance, TIFF etc. Festivals are great but they are also competing heavily with streamers these days and a lot off their content is now taken off the market by streamers before they to a festival. It used to be that's where these films would get sold.

If it makes you feel better, "Lakewood" used the 12K as the "A" camera and is premiering at TIFF.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 234972223/

JB.

If it makes you feel better, "Lakewood" used the 12K as the "A" camera and is premiering at TIFF.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 234972223/.

Ah, so that's what you were doing in North Bay!

I wonder if the industry would perceive Blackmagic gear differently if they released an all-aluminum or magnesium body?

That's one I haven't thought of before. When I have an UMP in my hands it *feels* pretty sturdy except for the monitor joint. That being said, in my mind I'd definitely think of Red's, Alexa's, and Venice's as being on another level durability-wise.

The Ursa design does feel kind of hollow. Maybe by packing it down and giving the body a textured coating perceptions would be totally different.

Geeze.

I was on set yesterday. Shooting with Alexa Minis. We lost an entire cards work. All of it. Corrupted. We shot a bunch of takes with car to car scenes. And then this happened. And now it's gone. On a big movie I'm shooting with stars.

This has NEVER happened to me on an BMD camera. I'm sure it will one day. It's bound to happen. But ALL cameras fail, they all cause problems. Some more than others.

at the same time I was rolling around in the back of the car with the 12K. Worked great.

I use a lot of cameras, BMD are more reliable than most. I say this from actual hands on use for many thousands of hours. It's just a furphy. Now sure, they opinion out there is different, but I go by my own testing and experience. I invite you other creatives to make your own path. Don't be told what to do.. be brand and process agnostic.

Go watch The Five Obstructions.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0354575/

I've never ever had a producer or studio tell me I can't use a camera or lens. Other than meeting 4K and HDR requirements.

JB

Ah, so that's what you were doing in North Bay!

Indeed.

JB

I invite you other creatives to make your own path. Don't be told what to do.. be brand and process agnostic.
JB

I feel like a dork sounding like I'm walking back a comment but I was just talking ideas and perceptions. Semi-ironically pondering that it might be something so simple as what amounts to essentially a makeover that would encourage more people to go for something BMD.

At all practical levels I don't think any Blackmagic camera is actually lacking in build quality - they're just not as aesthetically tanky as they could be. I appreciate the open design as I've never been concerned about overheating on the Ursa - something I can't say about Red.

I've never ever had a producer or studio tell me I can't use a camera or lens. Other than meeting 4K and HDR requirements.

JB

So much for John Paines' Bonding Company argument then!

Do you guys want validation for your use of a camera? As used on... as used by? That's what this thread says
JB.

I think you've completely misread the point. This thread is simply bringing up the question as to why Blackmagic cameras don't seem to have caught on in the way that apparently even iPhones have with professional DP's. As I mentioned already, this is echoed by several other professionals in Los Angeles whom I'm sure you know and respect. They tend to confirm that the Blackmagic brand is typically overruled in favor of RED, ARRI, Sony and even Panasonic gear. Personally I don't care what cameras you or even Roger Deakins use, my choice of gear comes down strictly to what works for me and my needs...no ego involved.

I am however curious by nature and I like to encourage conversations about topics which interest me. The point of this thread was to have such a conversation as to what is it about the Blackmagic brand that seems to be met with rather irrational resistance on the part of so many professionals. I think several theories have been brought forth and are interesting. So far Blackmagic's strategy seems to have been focused on resolution, as well as a building unified file exchange ecosystem with Resolve. I think that's part of the equation, but not the entire solution.

You brought up the original Cinema Camera and the HD pocket as examples of metal chassis, unfortunately both of those products suffered from other shortcomings and were geared toward the prosumer audience rather than big budget productions so I'm not sure I understand your point in using them as examples.

I do however wonder what would happen if Blackmagic released an URSA pro, built like a tank with an all exterior metal body. I would speculate that for some of those aforementioned cinematographers, it might change their perspective.

I've never ever had a producer or studio tell me I can't use a camera or lens. Other than meeting 4K and HDR requirements.

For A-cam? How typical is it that on a mainstream big budget production, if you diverge from the obvious choices? The 12K, if you wanted to?

Haven't seen it for years, but The 5 Obstructions just goes to show how constraints are the friends of invention. Unfortunately, I don't think that principle applies to lack of money. Those two buggers doubtless got generous Danish film subsidies.

I've never ever had a producer or studio tell me I can't use a camera or lens. Other than meeting 4K and HDR requirements.

For A-cam? How typical is it that on a mainstream big budget production, if you diverge from the obvious choices? The 12K, if you wanted to?

That’s what I’m talking about. The brand of camera hasn’t even been dictated to me. More likely is the vendor might be strongly suggested. (You have to go to Panavision or Keslow say)

Haven't seen it for years, but The 5 Obstructions just goes to show how constraints are the friends of invention. Unfortunately, I don't think that principle applies to lack of money. Those two buggers doubtless got generous Danish film subsidies.

Err… you do know these guys literally invented a low budget movement called dogma that is exactly based on the ideas in the 5 obstructions.

http://www.dogme95.dk/the-vow-of-chastity/


Money, or lack of is just another obstruction.

Those Dogme films cost millions. The Celebration, the one they shot with the one-chip Sony consumer camcorder, was $1.5 million. They used the best crew and actors in Denmark. And that was one of the cheaper ones and more than 20 years ago? So say at least $4 million in current dollars.

I think the whole Dogme thing was mainly a publicity stunt -- von Trier doing his thing.

It takes a miracle without money, and even then the audience has to radically recalibrate its expectations. The shortage of no-budget masterpieces should be proof enough. It's not as if folks haven't been trying, for years and years.

The ones which come to mind -- say, "Another Sky", "Killer of Sheep", maybe "Primer", maybe some of the Casavettes stuff, a few Chinese indie films, "Seafood", "The Orphan of Anyang", and some interesting minor efforts, like "American Job" or "Computer Chess" -- either weren't all that low budget or reflect circumstances which can't be replicated. 'One-offs', uncontrollable convergences, like natural phenomenon. And they all have non-dramatic qualities. They're not really "movies", more like a mediation of a movie, which would interest people like us, but not general audiences.

But this unasked for disquisition is way off subject....

I think you miss the point.

Someone made a massively profitable film with a massive cast of super stars (paraphrasing your words) for “only” 1.5 million.

I’m sure I could dig out some cheap dogme films if you really think the point isn’t made.

I was only illuminating that process is often self imposed. The next step is to make your own self imposed “obstructions”.

JB

Not trying to throw more tinder on this but, I do not understand why this is important. All this is in my view is a way for camera companies to make money off of people thinking they can make better movies buy buying stuff.

I see this also in the big list of Oscar movies and what they are shot on and I can tell you I have seen movies shot on the same gear by Indie filmmakers or whoever else and they don't look the same.

Also Netflix lists...

I just never considered caring about what anything was ever shot on (brands) and wasn't aware so many people cared... until going to forums like this.

Nobody got snubbed and this list is not indicative of anything other than the choices these filmmakers made and those choices are made for a wide variety of reasons. It doesn't mean your stuff sucks.

It takes a miracle without money, and even then the audience has to radically recalibrate its expectations. The shortage of no-budget masterpieces should be proof enough. It's not as if folks haven't been trying, for years and years.

It can be done for way less, and still looking good (without the need of much recalibration) but you have to know what you are doing. If it still sucks, and is going nowhere, it's probably the story/direction/acting etc. but technically it's not that much of a problem.-

I shot this for under 30.000

https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/20 ... -curtains/

Not saying it will happen of course but if BMD were to fold tomorrow and stop making cameras I bet all their second hand cameras on ebay will rise by upto 3-5 times what they go for now and Cannes will be flooded with entries from BMD cameras because it will be considered a niche product.
Maybe that its, BMD cameras has become too accessible and a victim of its own success. Filmmaker arty types like to be different.

It takes a miracle without money, and even then the audience has to radically recalibrate its expectations. The shortage of no-budget masterpieces should be proof enough. It's not as if folks haven't been trying, for years and years.

It can be done for way less, and still looking good (without the need of much recalibration) but you have to know what you are doing. If it still sucks, and is going nowhere, it's probably the story/direction/acting etc. but technically it's not that much of a problem.-

I shot this for under 30.000

https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/20 ... -curtains/

Totally agree with Frank here. I’ve done small budget films with a director friend for under 50K USD that has been picked up by distributor. It had nothing to do with the camera but the story and artistic nature of the picture. I know a lot of people try not to clip the shadows or highlights but there are creative use to achieve the look by sometimes crushing the blacks or overexposing the whites. I like doing that and it gives a certain appeal. Don’t be afraid to do what you want to do and ignore those who say you are not doing it right for as long as you know you want it.

JB, what is that bag you are wearing to rest the camera?

JB, what is that bag you are wearing to rest the camera?

Looks like a Cinekinetic CineSaddle.

https://www.cinekinetic.com

If it still sucks, and is going nowhere, it's probably the story/direction/acting etc. but technically it's not that much of a problem.

But "technically" only goes so far, as you acknowledge. One could argue that successful story/direction isn't a matter of money -- I would counter that achieving the ambitions of either without money is going to be very difficult and usually impossible -- but acting certainly is. And it's no secret that production and post-production values only money can buy conceal deficiencies which are far more obvious in low budget stuff. Without money or 8 years to work on the movie, you go naked to the audience, every fault is on display.

The best proof I can offer you, and it strikes me as irrefutable, is the scarcity of ultra low-budget masterpieces. And we could take it down a peg from that: the scarcity of watchable ones. And those some might cite -- I gave it go, above -- are not movies in the traditional mass-market sense. The fact that it *is* possible to achieve professional production values for little money, assuming DPs and crew with those skills are prepared to work for little or nothing, doesn't really address the question, as it read it. I thought the question was much broader. All that's a long way from "Cannes snub Blackmagic", but that's where we wandered. Or at least I did.

The best proof I can offer you, and it strikes me as irrefutable, is the scarcity of ultra low-budget masterpieces. And we could take it down a peg from that: the scarcity of watchable ones.

Ironically the "democratization" of the medium from impossibly expensive to something that quite literally can be done with a phone in your pocket has not yielded an explosion of creativity unimpeded by the Hollywood gatekeepers but rather a dumpster fire of mediocrity that unfortunately I have participated in only too often!

You'd think the explosion in production which started with DV would at least produce more notables, even as the slush pile engulfs the world. In documentary, I think maybe it did: interesting stuff that would never have gotten made on film saw the light. The production values may be terrible, but as long as the material is absorbing and someone knows how to organize the material and present it in a coherent way....

But drama? It makes no sense, laws of averages suggest the standards should have risen. But they didn't. It's a bit dated now, but to this day, I think Charles Burnett's "Killer of Sheep" was/is the best genuine American indie ever made, and not because the creator is black. He did it as a student film, with virtually no resources, in the late 70s, long before everyone and her brother-in-law wanted to be a director. And 50 years later? Who remembers any of the other stuff? The typical Sundance grand prize winner is an embarrassment today. And nobody can remember them from one year to the next.

Ironically the "democratization" of the medium from impossibly expensive to something that quite literally can be done with a phone in your pocket has not yielded an explosion of creativity unimpeded by the Hollywood gatekeepers but rather a dumpster fire of mediocrity that unfortunately I have participated in only too often!

I'm assuming you mean in theaters, specifically. Yeah - definitely strange.

As video creators though, I think we've got a generation of TikTok geniuses with more matured senses of visual humor and liberated editing styles than I ever imagined existing in a population. I'll laugh harder and longer spending five minutes on TikTok than I have at ANY comedy from the past decade. I'm optimistic that feature films will evolve as a medium for the better because of a new generation of people who are practicing the craft more consistently and creatively than any film students I knew.

Is Herzog on TikTok?

JB, what is that bag you are wearing to rest the camera?

Look I got it from Deakins. And you know I just slavishly follow whatever Deakins uses for his Cannes films so…



It’s a Cinesaddle. An Australian company. Wearing it and bag operating like this is also known as “melbourne style”

This little known DP also likes a pillow tied to him. (4:12)

JB

Those bags are incredibly expensive, and have been for years. Are they worth it? Are there no dirt cheap clones? Hard to believe someone hasn't come up with one, by now.

JB, their website has several, is yours the "Original Australian" or a "Marsupial"?
When I watch the video I did thought at first did they use marsupial skin. I have a money bag made out of kangaroo dangly bit and it has no seams

Those bags are incredibly expensive, and have been for years. Are they worth it? Are there no dirt cheap clones? Hard to believe someone hasn't come up with one, by now.

I made my own, out of a big (like 4 x 4 foot) waterproof "outdoor pillow" for 12 bucks.

Took the beats out, made a pattern, and had my girlfriend sew it together - refilled it with the beats (small polyfoam balls) - et voila.

Works for me over a decade now. The fabric is not as nice and "grippy" as the original, which is like suede, but hey - for 12 bucks I can't complain.

JB, their website has several, is yours the "Original Australian" or a "Marsupial"?
When I watch the video I did thought at first did they use marsupial skin. I have a money bag made out of kangaroo dangly bit and it has no seams

Yeah I’ve had the original for years. Most people don’t realise the wearing version has to be modified. The way Mr Deakins is using it was the intention. It also comes with some hooks and straps for mounting to the hood or bonnet of a car for car rig shots.

The first I did was dispose of the beans because they are too noisy when. You move. I took a yoga mat and shredded it and filled it with that foam instead.

I took some insulation tube and put it around the not wide enough strap to make it more comfortable to wear.

It’s a cheap investment. A water proof last you a lifetime bag to keep your camera safe when unattended or to stabilise for very specific situations.

JB

Maybe replace the strap from a baby carrier?