Jump to content

WTB: 3-perf movement for MovieCam Compact MK2


Damon Hoydysh

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Tyler, maybe just phrase your statements differently, like: "I'm spitballing here but the difference in height and width..."

You sometimes phrase things in a very assured way, like how hard or easy it is to convert certain cameras to two or three perf - a topic you later learned you gave the wrong information - and to give you credit - later corrected your statements.

For me, this results in mistrusting your info - like to this day I don't know if 100ft 16mm film on a core will fit inside the light-tight plastic box without bulging or not. To the point that I will actually try it myself and publish a video to prove once and for all if it does or not.

And you might be correct on that topic, but now I'd rather test it myself, which is unfortunate, bc people come here to have their questions answered.

So just let us know when you're spitballing, and when you give accurate information from first hand experience. Thanks ❤️

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, David Sekanina said:

I don't know if 100ft 16mm film on a core will fit inside the light-tight plastic box without bulging or not.

I'll check that for you on the Steenbeck but I suspect not. The daylight spool diameter is 93mm. and the spool centre diameter is only 35mm. Will report back.

Edited by Mark Dunn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Thank you Mark, it was just an example. It's not unique to Tyler or this forum, it happens everywhere. You start to read the answers to a question posted in a forum, and after you read through 47 sometimes totally contradicting answers, you question reality itself ?

So I completely understand Dom insisting on accuracy.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the point. Anyway, I happen to have a Steenbeck handy, so...

OK.

Head and tail on a 100' roll is an extra 4ft each end, right?

So. 108' of colour print on a 2" core is 92mm. in diameter. Kodak spec for R-90 daylight spool is 3.615" (91.8mm) and the one I have does indeed measure just under 92mm.

As I recall the spool is a tight fit in the box. Maybe there's a bit of room for the black bag, but it still needs testing. I'm not sure I'd be happy relying on it with no overlapping can flange but there are the facts. As insisted upon?

Of course if I were doing it I would just run it back on the spool using the Steenbeck in the dark. But that's cheating.

Edited by Mark Dunn
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

Tyler, maybe just phrase your statements differently, like: "I'm spitballing here but the difference in height and width..."

This is an Internet forum, 95% of the information can be disputed, even from the top pro's. Why do you think NONE of them post here? It's not because of me. It's because people challenged them on a regular basis and they don't have time for that. 

In this case, I got my numbers from the American Cinematographer manual. But they don't match what Dom had for numbers. 

So who is right? How do you define what is right?

I work on cameras every week. The manual says the penetration should be X, but when you try that and nail it, the camera is loud. So who is right? The manual or the tech who needs to tweak it in order to get it right. You always start with the manual number (or the measured number before disassembly, if you can get it). Reality is, not even the manufacturer knows the exact numbers of many things within their own cameras. They get close, but as you discover getting deeper and deeper into cameras, there are changes/modifications done over the years, which are not reflected in the manuals. 

So who is right? Do you give people the manual information or do you tell them your best guess based on experience? 

10 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

You sometimes phrase things in a very assured way, like how hard or easy it is to convert certain cameras to two or three perf - a topic you later learned you gave the wrong information - and to give you credit - later corrected your statements.

I work with one of the top techs in the entire world and sometimes he forgets to tell me something. So I assumed the information I had was everything because we did go through each of the cameras in question. However, there was a tiny bit of information that was not told to me, which was about a single camera, one that he didn't have much experience with. So yes, once I discussed it with him, we figured out how it could be done and I corrected my statement to coincide with the new information. It doesn't matter, because converting that camera is impossible today anyway. So nobody was hurt, misguided or confused because it wouldn't matter. The historical accuracy of the post is still very much in tact. 

10 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

For me, this results in mistrusting your info - like to this day I don't know if 100ft 16mm film on a core will fit inside the light-tight plastic box without bulging or not. To the point that I will actually try it myself and publish a video to prove once and for all if it does or not.

It's one thing to simply be typing fast on your phone and mistype a number, it happens to me all the time. I'm generally working at the same time I'm writing on here, either on set, in the middle of a camera repair, maybe scanning film or something. I post during those quick moments when I wanna chill for a sec before getting back to work and 9 times out of 10, it's done on my phone. So shit man, mistakes happen when you're always going from memory. I'm not 65 years old, bored to death, sitting in front of my computer with an ASC handbook at my disposal, writing down the wrong numbers lol. 

Also... I've found that Internet forums in general, do not have accurate information, period. Part numbers? sure, they'll be accurate. But opinions based on experiences and memories, can vary wildly. I can't tell you how many arguments I've had with people on car and bike forums, seemingly worthless information always. They also don't try to give accuracy. At least many of us do try to be as close as we can get, myself included. 

Can a 100ft daylight spool that came off an SRI fit into a black daylight spool box without bulging? Yes 100% yes. Done it many times, though it was over 20 years ago and I suggest not doing it because it'll kinda shock the lab. 

Can a 100ft daylight spool that's on a core fit into a black daylight spool box without bulging?  I don't think so and I'm sorry if the word "coreless" wasn't clear enough in whatever comment I made years ago about this subject. My guess is, it was in an SR thread, and I had assumed we were talking about SR's, which are "coreless" takeup cameras. 

Oh and no, you can't put it in a black bag. It will be lose in the box with no protection. We just taped the living shit out of the box with black gaf tape. 

10 hours ago, David Sekanina said:

And you might be correct on that topic, but now I'd rather test it myself, which is unfortunate, bc people come here to have their questions answered.

If you trust anything said on Internet forums to the point where it will make or break your production, the fool isn't the writer, the fool is the reader. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Fair enough Tyler - say hi to Andrée. BTW I always wanted to interview Danny at cinefacilities and document him working on film cameras (haven't asked him yet). Would you be willing to do the same with Andrée? It's a bit far for me. I think it could be a marvelous short doc and their work deserves to be documented.

Edited by David Sekanina
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
17 minutes ago, David Sekanina said:

Fair enough Tyler - say hi to Andrée. BTW I always wanted to interview Danny at cinefacilities and document him working on film cameras (haven't asked him yet). Would you be willing to do the same with Andrée? It's a bit far for me. I think it could be a marvelous short doc and their work deserves to be documented.

Yea know, I really want to. It's part of why I wanted to work with him so badly, because I wanted to really make a nice documentary about him. I'll do it. He's in good health and we got some time. 

Danny is also awesome, I really hope you get a chance to go hang out with him. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 7/21/2022 at 5:19 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

In this case, I got my numbers from the American Cinematographer manual. But they don't match what Dom had for numbers. 

So who is right? How do you define what is right?

It's very easy to define what's right here, because it's a straightforward mathematical calculation.

The numbers Tyler supplied for frame dimensions and crop factors were fine, his method of using those numbers to calculate equivalent focal lengths was the problem. Perhaps he got confused because the crop factors his online calculator gave him related to full frame. So I'll explain how to calculate it as clearly as I can to avoid any confusion.

The simplest method is to make a ratio of the two frame dimensions you want to compare. You can use the frame diagonal, or the width. For widescreen aspect ratios the width is more straightforward since you want the equivalent focal length to replicate the same horizontal view, but using the diagonals here gives you exactly the same answer anyway.

So for 2 perf we have the old Academy standard width of 22mm (or 21.95mm according to Tyler's numbers, which we can use). Modern 2 perf cameras like the Penelope or Arricams use a wider frame, but let's stick with the smallest 2 perf width.

For 3 perf we have the full S35 camera aperture width of 24.9mm as the absolute maximum. This is the dimension Tyler gave, and we can use that. In reality, most people will want to frame using the ground glass frameline for 2.35 or 2.39, which is typically 24mm wide, but we'll stick with the maximum figure, to give us a boundary for the most extreme difference in frame size. 

So using those numbers the ratio of 2 perf to 3 perf width is:

21.95/24.9 = 0.88  

In other words, 2 perf is 0.88x the width of 3 perf, using the most extreme difference in possible frame dimensions.

We can get the same figure using the crop factor numbers Tyler gave, 1.6x and 1.82x (which both relate to full frame):

1.6/1.82 = 0.88

We can now use that ratio to calculate an equivalent focal length.

So to get the equivalent horizontal field of view of a 20mm in 3 perf, you would need:

20 x 0.88 = 17.6 or an 18mm lens in 2 perf.

To get the equivalent horizontal field of view of a 24mm in 3 perf, you would need:

24 x 0.88 = 21.12 or a 21mm lens in 2 perf.

These calculations used the numbers Tyler provided.

If we use the Penelope 2 perf 2.39 ground glass frameline width, which is 22.35mm, and the ANSI 3 perf 2.35 ground glass frameline standard, which is 24mm wide, we end up with a ratio of:

22.35/24 = 0.93 

This is around the minimum difference you might encounter between the 2 formats, where 2 perf is 0.93x the width of 3 perf. 

In this case, the equivalent focal lengths for 20mm and 24mm would be 18.6 (18mm) and 22.3 (22mm). Pretty similar to the 18mm and 21mm we got with the maximum difference.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this is that these things are psychological rather than mathematical.

I'm not saying whose wrong, just that its not a useful way of thinking about it.

The 2-perf format, especially at native 1:2.6, with an 18mm lens, really gives you an 18mm FOV horizontally and a 30-40mm FOV vertically compared to other 35mm formats. If you shoot it anywhere near wide, you're balancing your minimum vertical coverage with your maximum horizontal coverage and shooting both wide and normal at the same time. For most shoots thats fine, you light from the top with booms and put your dolly track and bounce on the bottom....

Some compositions (group shots etc.) are going to feel like 2 4-perf frames side by side with a 2x crop factor, some (maybe subject centred and foreground elements at the sides) are going to feel close to a 1x crop factor... without the height. Your lenses behave totally differently depending on what you're framing.. Its a surprisingly versatile format, and while its still possible to shoot an entire feature on a 28 or a 32, its easier to get surprised by what you thought a lens would do vs what it actually does.

Cropping to 2.4 or 2.35 isn't hugely relevant because delivery is more aspect-ratio-agnostic than ever. La-la-land was released at 2.55, hateful 8 at something like 2.8. Nobody felt like it was too much. I tested 2-perf anamorphic at 5.2:1, it looks fine.

These days very few people are doing radical extractions and economy is more important than ever. For features finishing at over a 2:1 aspect ratio, saving a third to a half on your entire film-shooting outlay is incredible. And not just stock, labs and transport, but your loader's time, reloading time, max take length, steadicam rebalancing time, everything is more efficient when you move less stock. Less set to dress, smaller heads closer to your actors, closer mics, ok ok.

Remember that the wrestler and black swan finishing at 2.35 from a s16 negative look incredible and that 2-perf is 4x the imaging area at the same crop. In real terms there is no loss of quality over 4-perf because on any screen you'll be seeing the negative at the same final magnification. The full width 35mm gate is now a hell of a lot of resolution no matter the perf, so that these days we aren't really talking about limits of resolution any more on anything other than s16, we're talking about grain/noise floor and maybe grade flexibility. First Man was shot entirely on vintage and detuned lenses, nobody is short on pure quality on account of any choice of perforation. Talking about the image quality of movies from half a century ago really forgets how modern our current stocks are and how many generations those old films went through before you pulled a frame of google images. 

Aaton penelopes quadrupled in price over the last 4 years, so we're in the middle of a 2-perf rush, just without the cameras to go around.

Edited by Isaac
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
10 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

In this case, the equivalent focal lengths for 20mm and 24mm would be 18.6 (18mm) and 22.3 (22mm). Pretty similar to the 18mm and 21mm we got with the maximum difference.

But as a cinematographer, as Isaac points out above, that's not what the format feels like at all. So the math is wonderful, but since you don't shoot, you don't know what it feels like to use the format. 

I wrote my initial post sitting on a film set, between takes. The camera team and myself were talking about 2 perf vs 3 perf and it was a funny coincidence there was a thread about it, so I commented based on the 80+ years of experience shooting films ON FILM that particular team and I had. 

So sure, my numbers were around 2mm off for "the math", but if you were to shoot 2 perf and crop to 2.39:1, then shoot the same scene on 3 perf with a 2.39:1 crop, you'd actually be stuck between lenses and most likely agree with our numbers. 

But since that'll never happen. :shrug:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, Isaac said:

In real terms there is no loss of quality over 4-perf because on any screen you'll be seeing the negative at the same final magnification.

It's what you'd think, until you do an A/B comparison and realize the only benefit on 2 perf is financial really.

This is why guys like James Cameron choose to shoot his movies on 4 perf S35mm "cropped" rather than 2 perf, which was available at the time.  

There are dozens of benefits over a larger frame, tho 4 perf is a bit much... 3 perf is the perfect "medium" and the cameras that shoot 3 perf are the same size/shape as 2 perf cameras, so all those benefits of 2 perf exist on 3 perf as well. Most shows shoot 1000ft loads anyway, so 15min vs 22 min, ain't the end of the world on a loader or crew. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

It's what you'd think, until you do an A/B comparison and realize the only benefit on 2 perf is financial really.

This is why guys like James Cameron choose to shoot his movies on 4 perf S35mm "cropped" rather than 2 perf, which was available at the time.  

This is so confusing. Its like you're writing as if you're making the opposite point that you're actually making.

Yes finance is the entire name of the game. Saving 10k on film and lab costs on an indie feature is at the minimum that much more to spend on lighting or crew, but moreso its make or break for budgeting celluloid when digital would otherwise be the only option. And this compromise isnt just happening on 1mil features its happening on 10 and 20 mil features. Or, in a beautiful world where none of this matters, its still 3 takes of your scene instead of 2, 6 takes instead of 4.

James Cameron is literally one of the highest budgeted directors of all time with an army of loaders on any set he goes near. Using him as an example proves the point that reframing from a bigger neg just because you can is only an option for the top 1% of major studio directors.

I've been on sets where i can look around and literally count the number or people who aren't there (or are there but arent getting paid) because we spent their rate on an extra perf.

Its not pretty, and with digital on the table these days the idea of justifying to your producer spending tens of thousands of dollars on spare headroom is just not realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
24 minutes ago, Isaac said:

Yes finance is the entire name of the game. Saving 10k on film and lab costs on an indie feature is at the minimum that much more to spend on lighting or crew, but moreso its make or break for budgeting celluloid when digital would otherwise be the only option. And this compromise isnt just happening on 1mil features its happening on 10 and 20 mil features. Or, in a beautiful world where none of this matters, its still 3 takes of your scene instead of 2, 6 takes instead of 4.

If you're shy $10k for 2p vs 3p, you got a MUCH bigger problem on your hands. 

I've worked on 4 perf, 3 perf and been present for a few 2 perf shows. There is zero difference in workflow on set. There is zero difference in workflow in post. 

Ya still need a full-time loader. 
Ya still need to change film and there is PLENTY of downtime between takes for ANY camera to re-load. 
Ya still need a lot of film. 

2 perf camera rentals are generally more than 3 perf. 
2 perf scanning per foot is more than 3 perf.
The majority of "affordable" 2 perf cameras to own, are bigger and older. 

So there are lots of trade-off's that are also unforeseen up front. 

Plus, what if you don't want to shoot 2.33:1 or wider? Honestly, I hate wide screen these days. It serves no purpose but more black bars at the top and bottom of your viewing device. 

You aren't going theatrical if $10k is make or break, so don't even say "wide screen is for the theatrical experience", because it ain't. My good friend just finished a 2 perf feature, it's getting a lot of press and publicity. The film looks outstanding. Will it get a theatrical run? Nope. Festivals and 4 wall's, but nothing wide. It's the name of the game today. 

As you know, I love film and I've focused my entire career on the medium. I'm just no fan of 2 perf. I think it sets unrealistic expectations as if it's magical and solves all problems and ultra-low budget people fall into the trap. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
On 7/23/2022 at 12:41 AM, Isaac said:

The problem with this is that these things are psychological rather than mathematical.

I'm not saying whose wrong, just that its not a useful way of thinking about it.

No, this is actually mathematical. 

If you are comparing 3 perf 2.39 to 2 perf 2.39 as we were, there is no psychological difference, because the aspect ratios are identical. You change from a 24mm to a 21mm and you have the same view, the same constricted height. If you were comparing focal lengths going between say 2.39 and 1.85 then sure, it becomes a more psychological choice, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

On 7/23/2022 at 12:41 AM, Isaac said:

Cropping to 2.4 or 2.35 isn't hugely relevant because delivery is more aspect-ratio-agnostic than ever. La-la-land was released at 2.55, hateful 8 at something like 2.8. Nobody felt like it was too much. I tested 2-perf anamorphic at 5.2:1, it looks fine.

The overwhelming majority of 2 perf productions are released in 2.39 or 2.35. The very few that aren’t are less wide. I’m not aware of any 2 perf shows released wider than 2.39:1.

La La Land shot 4 perf anamorphic and was deliberately referencing early CinemaScope movies like A Star Is Born, but it doesn’t seem to have inspired any other 2.55:1 movies. 

The Hateful Eight was a one-off 70mm roadshow release shot in the resurrected Ultra Panavision 70 format which uses 1.25x large format anamorphics on the already wide (2.2:1) 65mm frame, which no-one has since done again.

If there are any other modern releases wider than 2.39 I haven’t heard of them, but I’m happy to stand corrected. Maybe there are some experimental films or indie offerings that never made it past festivals. But from what I can see, the trend is actually moving away from ultra widescreen to aspect ratios like 2:1, or back to 1.66, 1.37, even 1.19.  Or mixing aspect ratios within the one production, using it as a story telling device.

2:1 is becoming a new standard, thanks to streaming (although Storaro has been using it since the late 90s). Several 2 perf originated shows have been released in this aspect ratio, although usually if shot on film it’s 3 perf.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

If ya got the money to shoot 2 perf vs 16mm. You can find the money to shoot 3 perf. 

Not necessarily. In the UK the minute prices are:

16mm - £11.5 per minute

35mm 2perf - £22 per minute

35mm 3perf - £34 per minute.

It's half way inbetween and that makes a big difference.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I usually appreciate Tyler’s banter and insights, but I’m with Isaac on this one. I am prepping for shooting my first feature, Dayglow Black I: Green, where I’ll wear many hats; writer, director, possibly DOP, camera op, editor, sound, VFX, title design, but also (executive) producer. Spent the last decade gathering most of what I’ll use to shoot and decided on film ? and VHS ? refilmed in the camera  is the only way to tell a story set in 1987. 
 

My desire to shoot 2-perf is both aesthetic and financial. I loved the look of I Know This Much Is True and I love the idea of saving $10k to pay for more actors, better music licensing, or more towards titles & VFX. Hell, even saving $100 is worthwhile. As I have  *zero* financing in place at the moment, and I have three 4-perf cameras, committed to shooting on film, and wondering what my options are. I’m more of a writer>director>dop who is very technically inclined, but I don’t own a lathe, or lens spanned wrenches, and know there’s certain things I should leave to the experts. A switchable solution to converting my existing cameras (Moviecam SL MK I, IIC, Arritechno 35-90) to 2-perf seems impossible, but while I work on financing and casting I want to explore the options. Even if that means sitting on these cameras ? and getting a Konvas 35. I appreciate your bluntness Tyler, but I also think I need to think like both a director AND producer for this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
3 hours ago, sines said:

As I have  *zero* financing in place at the moment,

Sounds like that's your actual problem, not what format you shoot on. 

With feature films especially, unless it's some wildly unique genre film like my friends last one "Moongarden", which did have quite a bit of money, I don't see how it'll be successful without a real budget and some pre-sales. 

Your casting choices, location, art direction, even silly things like being able to afford a good composer and sound mix, really plays heavily on the viability of the film long term. It's why so many film diehards, still shoot their features digitally. The risk factor for a low-no budget movie is WAY less. If 50% of your budget is "film" aspects, statistically that's a red flag to any investor or distributor. It also means you may not have the shot you think you do. 

I have worked on many features in multiple roles including producing and in todays no/low market, there is basically no room. Once DVD sales died, once Amazon and Netflix stopped accepting low-budget indy films, once VOD/PPV stopped accepting low-budget indy films, the market for getting money back, has dwindled to self-advertising and paying to have it on Amazon/Youtube Red as a "rental". Many people try the festival route to get sales, but even if your film is perfect for the festival and you get in, from there on it's grossly expensive. I know guys who've spent $50k on one festival alone, wining and dining distributors, to get nothing. 

Anyway, I know this is a cinematography forum and we're discussing the most nerdy subject of what kind of format to shoot on. I'm sorry I don't mean to be depressing.  The subject is just very close to my heart and it's why I haven't attempted to turn one of my many scripts into a feature. My lowest budgeted show is 1.35M right now, to do it right, with real cast, with a real crew, with any sense of making a sellable product and sure, roughly $175k of that is 35mm cinematography, but when ya got 1.35M, it doesn't matter much. The BULK of the budget is still casting, crew and post places where ya can't skimp.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this can happen, then anything can happen. I appreciate your doubts about my "actual problems", even if a known producer was sitting on 1-10M, we'd still have this conversation, like Cianfrance did with HBO.

I bought my Moviecam thinking I'd first shoot with anamorphics, only to change course, and now 2-perf is that area in-between S16 and 3-perf; horizontal resolution where you need it and cost savings on vertical resolution; anamorphic would be too expensive across the board, nor does it fit the story. I have the lenses & 35mm bodies, rigging, support, and lighting; and what's left is the talent, locations, and film, I think I've saved any producer a boatload already, and the cost of shooting, developing, and scanning film makes sense to tell this story. I don't see why we can't deliberate and justify the need to save money and also make a high-quality product. 

Unlike others, I started in music, titles, and post, then worked my way back to writing + directing, and have fixed,  finished, and packaged enough of other people's stories to head into this with a "what not to do" no-film school education.

Your message rings loud and clear, and I'm going to make sure I prove you otherwise. I wish you luck with your own productions!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyler has a point, sorry. Film will be very expensive and it adds up in the thousands fast. Your feature will suffer because most or nearly all the budget will go into purchasing film stock and getting processed etc. I did a no budget feature on s16 several years back where it was I and a friend of mine paid out of our pockets as a passion project. Of course, between stealing shots to accessing some terrible locations and horrid sound did not yield worthwhile results. Film only makes sense if there is a proper budget in place where only a percentage of it woild be allocated to film related expenses and still have money to hire a crew and get locations etc... otherwise, really it will be a waste of your money but of course this is just my opinion. 

I would shoot a short or a teaser for your feature and try to get funding. With a teaser, combining images, art work some stuff you shoot to convey the tone of the film, at least you could show something visual along with a strong script to investors and actor managers etc. Crunch numbers to estimate the budget, from locations to rentals to crew to catering and try the raise that much and then shoot. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

I would shoot a short or a teaser for your feature and try to get funding. With a teaser, combining images, art work some stuff you shoot to convey the tone of the film, at least you could show something visual along with a strong script to investors and actor managers etc. Crunch numbers to estimate the budget, from locations to rentals to crew to catering and try the raise that much and then shoot. 

Glad you said it because that's exactly what we're doing. ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
4 hours ago, sines said:

If this can happen, then anything can happen. I appreciate your doubts about my "actual problems", even if a known producer was sitting on 1-10M, we'd still have this conversation, like Cianfrance did with HBO.

Eh, I think if you research, you'll find that Cooper did a few short films that were successful first and due to some lucky chances, he was able to get Jay Duplass involved with one of his scripts and he helped Cooper get a REAL producer for his first feature "Shithouse". You'll see, everyone who has "made it" always has some sort of big connection to Hollywood. So, he's done two features and both have played well. I think part of that is because he stars in both movies and he's probably a good enough actor. To me, bad acting is probably #1 detractor from any film.  

So where his rise was very fast, faster than I've seen in a long time, it's also extremely rare. For every Cooper, there are literally 1000's doing just as good work, just as much work and with plenty of talent, who go nowhere. 

For sure worth trying, but the lottery system just doesn't work for me. It's far easier to make smaller products, for way less money and try to get a good story told that attracts people to your skills and then sell an entire package. The way people go about it by making the feature first and then finding the money after, may have worked in 2016, but it does not work anymore for 99% of the content out there. Again, there are a few extremely rare instances where this is not the case, but majority rules sadly. 

Edit: I also tried to watch the trailers for Coopers movies, both nearly put me to sleep. So what some indy festivals think is hot, doesn't really make for a sellable product globally. Reminds me a lot of Sean Baker, who kinda makes entertaining movies... but still isn't horribly successful outside of the indy world. 

4 hours ago, sines said:

I bought my Moviecam thinking I'd first shoot with anamorphics, only to change course, and now 2-perf is that area in-between S16 and 3-perf; horizontal resolution where you need it and cost savings on vertical resolution; anamorphic would be too expensive across the board, nor does it fit the story. I have the lenses & 35mm bodies, rigging, support, and lighting; and what's left is the talent, locations, and film, I think I've saved any producer a boatload already, and the cost of shooting, developing, and scanning film makes sense to tell this story. I don't see why we can't deliberate and justify the need to save money and also make a high-quality product. 

To me, the only thing that's important when everyone is watching on phones, computers and TV's, is how "large" the image is on their screen. Black bars at the top and bottom, in our modern non-theatrical world, just doesn't make much sense. Even if it's a "creative choice", the less bars ya got, the better. This is why nearly everyone is doing 1.85:1 or 2:1 these days. I do agree tho that 16mm is a "look" and if your story doesn't support that look, then perhaps going with a bigger format is better. 

4 hours ago, sines said:

Unlike others, I started in music, titles, and post, then worked my way back to writing + directing, and have fixed,  finished, and packaged enough of other people's stories to head into this with a "what not to do" no-film school education.

Haha sounds like you got a good head on your shoulders. I started in production/producing and then went into post. So I already had the skills to put together a show production wise and then had to put them together in post. This is why some of my films have such good production value, with zero money. Because those producer skills, help understand how to get things on screen. To me, those skills are the most critical if you want people to care about your shows. 

Also... I hope you are successful. We need more success stories, especially with people shooting on film! 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...