Tyler Purcell

Just sent... remember it's all about making a "successful" movie and the processes involved. Please PM me if you wish to talk more about it.

Which in itself seems like a great idea... but honestly, it only damages your vision and here's why. Filmmaking is a collaborative process for a very good reason. If you don't have other people as checks and balances, from script through distribution, you may make something unwatchable without realizing it. Just because you see the world in a certain light, doesn't mean audiences want to see the same light you see. Remember, as artists we want people to see our work. If they have no interest or dislike your work for whatever reason, then as an artist you won't be able to grow. Yes, there have been a hand-full of "do it yourself" movies that made filmmakers successful enough to not worry about money... robert rodriguez being one of them. As a teenager, I idolized Rodriguez because he did something I wanted to do. Yet as an adult, when I re-watched his movies and saw how he made them, I was kind of disgusted. He isn't some great talent, he's someone who got his friends together and because he shot his first movie on film (looks good) and put quite a bit of money into the post aspects to make it sellable, he at the time broke NEW ground. Today, anyone can make a digital feature film for peanuts and sell it for 100k and make profit. So his words and advice are kind of very much based in the 90's, prior to the digital cinema boom and flooding of ultra-low budget feature films on the market place. Now... I too am a writer, director, operator, DP, editor and colorist. LOL :) There are a lot of pro's to doing all those jobs... it costs less money, it takes less time, finish product matches script and directors vision more clearly. Yet... no checks and balances. Nobody to say "hey I have a better idea for a shot" or "you could cut this a different way and get MORE emotion out of it". Even though I do all of those jobs, I have checks and balances built into each of them. I have a script writing team I work with, 4 people who I'll spend months with, re-tweaking scenes and dialog. I have a phenomenal producing team, which lifts the loads of producing off my shoulders entirely so I can focus on the directing. I have a great AC and Operator who can take care of the camera if need be. I've got a great gaffing team I started working with last year, they're top notch and can take care of everything. I've got an assistant editor who puts dailies together and sends out cut scenes. I even have two other top industry editors who I bring on board for "sweetening" after the fact. So it's still a very collaborative process and unlike many directors, I'm very open to people adding their own input. So the way I get away with doing all of those jobs, is by having substantial crew people prop me up. On set I can work with the gaffer first and organize the lighting setup. Then I can go to the camera guys and get them on track for composition, focal length and even stop. I'll then work with the actors one-on-one. I rehearse the scenes several times because rolling the camera is expensive. I'll let the camera operator rehearse with us and give any suggestions. Once satisfied, I will take my seat behind the camera and call action from that position. I generally dislike watching monitors on set, so I rarely use them for myself. I let the producers and other crew sit behind them. The only reason I DP my own stuff is because I like the job too much. Removing myself from that role is like taking away the fun for me. I'm a very visual filmmaker, my feature scrips could all be told with no dialog and just music for emotional cues if need be. Eventually, I will have to work with a DP because finding funding for a project without a DP, it hard. People are already scared about funding, if you give the more reasons to be scared, you're kind of in trouble. It's one thing to budget yourself as the editor and colorist, it's another to budget yourself as DP... that's difficult, even on an indy. Yes, you should "tame" it down a bit and compromise on your first film. Find places to save money, but still keep the visual and story content at a high level. Right, but you can't "crack" cinema with one movie. You can't fix it overnight... it takes time. Remember, most filmmakers get ONE CHANCE to do it right. Even if they make the biggest, most beautiful work of art, if financiers don't get their money back, you could be washed up as a filmmaker. Plus, you could make something great that nobody see's and in the end, as an artist, isn't it our goal to share our art? Yep, sure did! In 1997, the world was a very different place.

I personally feel the more one-on-one approach like being mentored, is a far better educational tool, then simply reading a book as your only connection to the information. I've mentored with many top industry people over the years, I'm currently working with one right now. I like to experiment with ideas and then learn from the master on how he would accomplish the task. Since my situation - like everyone else's - is entirely different then his, it only makes sense to learn what you're missing, rather then what you already know. That may sound like a jaded approach, it won't work for everyone, but that's why mentoring works and books don't. I've learned more on these forums then I've ever learned in a book. Why? Because you can question the process and by doing so, fully comprehend the reasons behind it. This is the reason why people spend gobs of money to attend school's and training courses. Now telling someone you're story via book? Well, yea there is some merit to that. Reading Richard's stories (or anyone else's for that matter) would be fun, but would you gain as much knowledge as just asking him a question via PM? Probably not.

LOL :P Books are too "permanent" and what works today, may not work 3 years down the road. It's far better to be on the forums and give advice because you can do it on your spare time. You could just start a forum like Roger Deakins did and simply respond to people's questions. Sure, you wouldn't monazite anything, but in the long run it would probably be better. Just my 2 cents. :)

Composite analog? Umm... I guess they make SSD recorders for that, but that's another expense. Plus are you really going to cut together a scene quickly to make sure it plays out via video tap material? The great thing about digital is that if your smart, you can have someone cut together parts of your scene with audio, right there on set. This is a process that being used more and more today with instant dailies. Again, it's a "new' filmmaker trick and it helps move things along. I mean, I'm a film guy, but I also understand the power of digital. If you don't have the money to muck around with re-shoots, you need to be very careful about what format you choose to shoot with.

It did look hot! I thought that was purposeful because the blacks looked OK. Interesting note though! :)

Yea, you got a hi-8 deck in your pocket? Also, you really can't tell if something is in focus on a SD video tap and no way can you tell "color" content, impossible. Reviewing clip by clip, also doesn't say much. With digital, your DIT has all the files right at his fingertips and you can walk over and re-watch everything at the click of the mouse. This is a HUGE benefit to a new filmmaker.

I was just saying to make it "more" commercial, rather then ONLY personal. Having worked with a lot of indy filmmakers over the years, mostly all of them complete failures, I've learned there is a fine line between "art" (which is the short film in the first post) and "commercial". You can have both, but it's SMART to lean towards the commercial side.

Hey David, I just got back from watching the Love Witch and I really enjoyed it. The script/story was a lot of fun, the costumes and set design were a blast and your cinematography was just great! Having read the AC article, it was nice to finally watch it and put the pieces together. I think the filmmakers and you captured that style perfectly, it really looked like "Marnie" in a lot of ways. Pity the modern film stocks kinda make it look "modern". The print at CineFamily looked good, there was a light scratch on reel 4 at the beginning for around 10 minutes :gulp: but I don't think anyone noticed it but me. Few dirt marks around reel changes, but nothing a quick cleaning wouldn't resolve. Over-all, I really enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to any cinephile. It's not quite general audience, but it's still a boat load of fun. :)

Even as a film advocate, I'd not recommend making a first feature on film. The key reason is that you need instant dailies because you need to make corrections as you shoot and without that ability, you may not have blocked something right or maybe missed a key shot. If you can watch your stuff back right away and can piece together everything right there on set, you'll have a far better chance of success. Also, when you're moving super fast on an indy film, you don't have time to wait for dailies to insure what you have is good. You've gotta strike and move onto the next scene and re-shoots due to errors in camera, aren't something you can afford to deal with. Unfortunately, the best way to shoot an indy is to hire a cinematographer with a digital package and use whatever they've got. This way the two of you are certain what you shot is what you've got. There will be no mistakes with lighting, no mistakes with camera issues, or film/processing issues. Plus, you can put all that saved money into production design, which is where most indy's lack.

First off, I love your short. I watched it twice, you've got some talent there! :) As a teacher of filmmaking, I have a phenomenal powerpoint presentation that I just delivered to my students. It breaks down the whole process of taking your script idea, how to build momentum for fundraising and how to get eyes on the finished product. I acquired the information by working on the distribution side of filmmaking and actually paying for seat time with top distributors. Now yes, I do live in America and we don't have subsidies for the arts here like they do in Europe. So I teach my students the not-so-straight-forward path to "success" and ultimately it's a lot of work and dedication. Most people who've I've given the speech to, don't realize how difficult the process is. A lot of them just want to make something on the weekends and give it away, just to get something made. There are a lot of "positives" to that idea as well. If you send me your e-mail address, I will gladly forward the presentation to you, this way you can see the steps involved. But it's the actual, real-life, no bullshit process. It has all sorts of little details that people wouldn't think about, which is the reason I wrote it. There are some details missing, but most of them are only related to US distribution and order of operations based on releasing an "indy" in the states. There is a catch 22 conundrum in the film/television industry that plagues young and new artists; if you haven't done something before, it's hard to get people on-board for your vision. This goes for any set position, any post position and especially the top roles of writer, cinematographer, editor, producer and director. Example... if I've been shooting documentaries and nature stuff for years, I would be ignored if I wanted to start shooting narratives. It's the same for directors, just because you've done a short, doesn't mean you can helm a feature. They are two completely different things that really don't share much in common with one another. A short can be made in a weekend, where a watchable feature takes a lot more time and money, which means far more commitment from crew, cast, yourself and financiers. I always tell people to work on a feature film in some capacity first, just so you understand the complexity of the circus you're about to get involved with. To highlight some of the key comments from above... Producer... Yes, god yes! Actually, you really need TWO people. You need a "name" producer to help you get cast, marketing and financing. You need a "line" producer, to help get your assets in order and figure out how to make your movie. These are generally two different people, but you COULD find one person to do both jobs. Focus on the line producer first, use their connections and if you NEED someone else, bring them in to help score you some cast. As my powerpoint says, you need "representation" because you don't have the clout yet. NOBODY is going to watch your short film and say "yea I'll give this kid a chance", it's just not going to happen. Any producers you bring on board, you will need to know them personally and get them on board based on who you are and your vision, rather then the finances. Distribution... There is an astronomical difference from having a distribution deal memo "guarantee" prior to shooting, vs pre-selling your movie. A deal memo is not a contract, it's just an agreement that whoever gave you the memo has first rights to the movie. This is what you'd use to get funding and sometimes even cast on board. Pre-selling is when you have a complete/full contract with usually a sales agent, that basically works out all of the details before the movie is even shot. Generally pre-sales are a bad business model for GOOD movies. If your movie is going to be crap, pre-selling maybe the way to go because at least if you do the deal right, your investors will get paid off eventually. Generally speaking, you should find a successful production company willing to help you work out a deal memo with a studio prior to shooting. You NEED a production company anyway, thanks to insurance laws and liability. It's cheaper to just hire one, then it is to make your own. A lot of times, if you do this right, the production company will be the distributor of sorts. Viewership... is the question of WHO will watch your movie, rather then HOW they'll see it. If you want to make money, you have to write to an audience. This means you need to first understand your audience. You can start by watching other movies in a similar vain and try to figure out what made them successful. Then you can taylor your script and visuals to match the audience. This is truly where the art of script writing comes into play. It's a fine balance between what YOU want and what the "industry" will accept. Eventually when you write enough, you will figure out the formula and you'll be off to the races. Finally... Don't try to break into the industry being some "artist" making art films because nobody is going to see them. You can be an artist and make big movies, AFTER you become successful. Most young filmmakers kill themselves trying to bring their passion project to the screen and they generally fail. Save that passion project, save that big budget movie for later in life. Understand this is a long-term venture and you can't make a multi-million dollar movie on your first go. You've gotta make something simple, easy and most importantly, something that people will WANT to see! Them's my tips! I'm here to answer questions and I'd be more then happy to guide you. Richard is also a phenomenal resource and we should all be blessed he's on here giving advice because he GETS IT DONE! :)

Well, yea that's for sure one of the biggest issues. On the S16 sized imagers, you magnify the lenses enough that you can use something like my Rokinon 24mm for these long, more macro type shots. Where on S35mm, you've gotta use an 85 to get the same magnification. The 85mm doesn't focus anywhere near the close focus as the 24mm, so that's ONE of the issues for sure. Well, macro a totally different look. I wasn't after that look at all. If I had an ENG camera, I wouldn't have used the macro lever to achieve the look I was after. All I wanted was a particular framing of an object, with a particular depth of field. How I NORMALLY without ANY ISSUES achieve this on a $1000 camera and $350 piece of glass, SHOULD BE POSSIBLE with much more expensive pieces of glass. I could care less that other glass is "similar", the problem still remains. Mind you, in the past when I've done this kind of work on larger imager cameras, I've used super long zoom lenses and put the camera further back away from the object. Unfortunately the 70 - 200 zoom I had on me, STILL didn't focus close enough.

It's a real problem. To me a lenses versatility includes close focus, especially on the mid lenses... 25, 35, 50. I was doing a photoshoot with my old Bell and Howell 16mm projector a few weeks back on the Red Dragon with the CP2's. I wanted to get in nice and tight on the sprockets, on the gate, on the sound reader, etc... I had done this same shoot with my Pocket camera a few months prior with the 24mm Rokinon DS prime, which has a close focus of around 8 inches. I didn't think the CP2's would have LESS range then the cheap-ass Rokinon's, so I was shocked I couldn't get a similar frame and close focus. I actually ditched the idea entirely because no matter which of the CP2's I put on the ol' Dragon, I couldn't get the framing I wanted IN FOCUS. The lenses simply wouldn't let me do it. Now one could argue "ohh get special lenses for that special shot" but that's bullshit. I don't have $10,000 dollars to go out and buy some fancy set of lenses for a very limited application. I certainly don't have production insurance for a little shoot in my garage, so there goes renting. I just expect decent glass to have a decent feature set. The CP2's are also slow compared to the competition today. If some old russian glass that cost me a few peanuts and a hand shake can do something some modern NEW mid-range european "expensive" glass can't do, it kinda irks me. Yes, I understand the CP2's are "budget" lenses, and yes I understand the limitations are almost put there specifically to make people go out and buy Superspeeds. It's just... really? The Rokinon Xeen's are far less expensive and don't have nearly the same issues. Do they "look" the same... that's a different story that needs to be talked about on a different day. I felt the CP2's looked pretty darn good, but I also feel that same way about my Optar's.

Anyway... There are many brands of Magnasync machines (again, the generic US name for a magnetic sound on film recorder) so you can always just search for that generic magnasync name and find other machines. I have a portable one made in the 60's that's TUBES! YIKES! But it still works and it's not that big, but it's super heavy. Most of the one's out their are 19" rack mount gear, so they're open back with separate electronics. With 16mm, you really only have 1 track to play with. The recorders motors are not crystal and don't hold speed well. However, you rarely notice a shift in speed when playing back on a flatbed. Wow and flutter are always an issue due to the belt drive on the flatbed and lack of balance/stabilizing weights that capstan driven tape systems have. However, the magnasync recorder is also a player and it has balance shafts to help smooth things out. So what you'd do is record on to film and then when you're done, play it back through the magnasync and record it to digital. Then you can very easily re-create the finished soundtrack from the digital assets.

There are TWO of them on ebay right now, full packages with batteries. There is also one at Alan Gordon, but no batteries.

Magnasync is a generic phrase used in the US to describe magnetic playback and recording systems for film editing. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Magnasync-Moviola-35mm-magnetic-tape-reel-to-reel-recorder-from-BUZZYs-/192076528768?hash=item2cb8a73c80:g:gzUAAOSw8oFXzQGI This is basically the only piece of equipment needed. Then you'd run the output from your computer directly into it and record to magnetic tape.

Umm in 23.98 it's 175Mbps 10 bit 4:2:2. That's SMALL for an iFrame format. Remember, it's recording each individual frame as it's own piece of media and then wrapping them into a start stop single file. Lower bit rate formats like 50Mbps Long GOP MPEG, don't record ALL frames! It captures one "key" frame and then only captures the data that moves for the next 24 or so. This means you're actually not capturing all of the data within each shot. Remember, those lower bit rate formats like 50Mbps, are 8 bit 4:2:0 codec's. You can get 8 bit out of the pocket camera if you want, it's called Pro Res "lite" and it's part of the software. If you want crap quality like 50Mbps, then you can get it no problem. If you use one mic and you set one channel higher then the other, it's not a problem. You don't have to ride the gain, which solves all of the pre-amp issues. It just takes time to get use to that workflow. Not me... you don't need a battery adaptor or a monitor. Just a viewfinder adaptor and GOOD aftermarket batteries. I also run the display at a lower brightness to help the battery. I get 41 minutes off each battery, same as a 64gb card. LOL!!! Have you ever used a film camera? How about a Red or Alexa? It takes 10 minutes easily to build a Red or Alexa package. Takes me 60 seconds to setup my pocket camera and shoot. It's actually the easiest cinema camera to startup and run that I've ever used. I have a shoulder rig that stays assembled and all I have to do is screw the camera onto it and I'm done. Just throw it into a pelican case and you're done. If you want 410Mbps or larger files (so more then double the pocket camera) then yes... 4k is great! Most of us can't afford to shoot 4k thanks to the storage, let alone the expensive camera. Slow mo? yea... 60fps would be nice for sure. But I understand why they didn't do it, standard SD cards aren't fast enough to do it with 175Mbps Pro Res capture. C300MKII looks great! But it's 10x the money and still needs all the accessories! EEK!!!!

Yep, I'm just use to having 10" or less. I just measured my Optars and they're between 6 - 8 inches close focus. That's a more "realistic" number.

Tough question... the CP2's also have a HUGE problem which is close focus. Even the widest lenses have a minimal close focus of well over a foot. If I recall, it's more like 2 - 3 feet close focus on average, which is bad. I struggled to get shallow depth of field with them because I simply couldn't put the actors close enough to the camera. I resorted to using longer focal lengths, but that's a cop-out in the long run. So yea, I mean is it nice to have an T1.5 lens? Yes... it's very nice. But it's also nice to have beautiful flares and bokeh, which is where the CP2's shine.

And how do you know how many frames to shift something? How do you know how many frames to reduce the length of the clip? How do you re-sync? It's really impossible to do all of that. If you don't care about lip sync, it's not a problem. If you're making a music video with lip sync, then ya it wouldn't work and it's for the same reason. When you cut shots you like out of the print and hanging them up, you have no idea what audio is associated with them. Now in a music video, it's easier to determine that obviously, but it's still difficult. So you would start by syncing the first picture element to your Pro Tools playback, but you'd have to remove that picture element from the machine to find the NEXT picture element, which requires syncing it up as well and then pulling a section you want from it, then re-threading the first picture element again and resynching. The solution is to record your song a few times onto mag stock and when you pull shots out of your camera rolls, you've got audio synched to the picture. It's then a lot easier to determine where things are. With a 6 plate, you could use two of the audio plates for 2nd picture elements if you wanted. I would use a double picture head editor for music videos... I think you underestimate the complexity of the problem. When you cut shots out of your camera roll, you no longer have a sync point. So you'd be futzing with sync forever. You'd basically turn Pro Tools into a video NLE, only the "video" aspect would be cut by hand.

I've seen some video's about the Xeen and worked with one at a trade show recently. It's a solid lens, reminds me a lot of the CP2. They are the cheapest NEW PL mount primes you can buy and you can see how much better they are then the DS, which are already decent lenses. Honestly, you can get a set of Zeiss CP2's for not much money used. They are kind of the "go to" PL mount lens today and they're excellent. I just did a shoot with my Rokinon DS lens vs the CP2 and the difference was night and day.

Here is the problem... it's called flange distance... which is very LONG on PL mount lenses, but very shallow on EF mount lenses. This is the distance between the rear element of the lens and the focal plane. It's how the lens is designed to "focus" an image onto the focal plane of the camera. It appears that most lens mount types, have different flange distances, which is the reason why there is an alternative mount. So camera mounts like M4/3rd's are phenomenal because the mount itself is shallow, meaning you can mount a wide range of alternative lenses to it.. PL, Canon, Nikon, Arri B, even C mount. PL mount cameras have a taller mount and unfortunately, it's the tallest mount of any other format. So it's impossible to put any other lens on a PL mount camera, other then PL mount.

Yea, not quite there yet! LOL :) So... I'll try to explain. Just because the audio playback device is synched to the flatbed, doesn't mean it's synched to the "material" on the flatbed. So you build a timeline in Pro Tools or whatever editor you want to use. You painstakingly sync everything to match the timecode on the flatbed. You label everything with a grease pencil, so you know you're on. Now... you make a cut in that original camera reel... what happens to the audio then? It's completely lost. You no longer have "continuity" in your camera roll. Now you want to cut in 60 seconds of that 2 minute shot you pulled, how does your audio playback system have any idea where that goes and what it's doing? In fact, your playback system doesn't even know what the "new reel" full of cut content has in it because you don't either. The only way to "edit" on a flatbed WITH AUDIO, is to cut the audio with the picture, physically. The process works by cutting out the shots you want, including mag audio. Then assembling the shots on paper first and then cutting them together on film. The pertaining audio for each shot is physically spliced exactly with the picture in sync with one another throughout the entire process. So yea... if you simply wish to playback an already cut piece of film, your little trick with the timecode generator will work fine. If you plan on doing any cutting, you've just changed your entire world and reset it from ground zero, every time you make a single cut. Not saying it's impossible to slide audio around, but it would be so much work on the pro tools side, work you'd have to do on every single cut, I have a feeling it wouldn't be worth while in the long run.

As I said earlier, it's easy to get a computer locked to a sync pulse. But what good is that outside of playing back a complete product. I guess my question is, what are you trying to achieve? Do you want to edit a film on a flatbed with sync audio? If so, you HAVE to use the mag tracks, there is zero other options. Think about the workflow and how it would work digitally and you'll see the gaping hole that nobody has yet to fill.

In terms of models... there are 6 brands, but the two most popular are KEM and Steenbeck. All of the KEM's have interchangeable modules, from 16 to 35. I don't know if they ever made super 8 support, but they may have in recent years. KEM's use one motor to drive the sprockets and picture head, with separate motors to drive the reels. Steenbecks are an entirely different breed of machine. They are single function only, so you can't interchange any modules. They also use one motor, but the same motor drives everything. This means, there are a lot more belts and much longer ones to boot. Steenbeck's are lighter on film for sure, they are smoother operating machines. KEM's aren't as smooth, they seem to be harsher on start/stops. I have a 16mm Rapid and a 35mm Universal. Both are from the 70's and they both work totally different from one another, which is funny. I kinda like the Rapid's design better because it's easier to work on and the picture head doesn't rely on a sprocket to run the prism, the prism itself pulls the film through, which is very nice. It's easier to get the film in and out of as well, making it easier to edit. The Rapid also has a more standard "jog shuttle" control, where the universals are buttons. I personally like the jog shuttle over the button control. KEM's also fold up to fit through doors and Steenbecks' don't. This is a HUGE problem with fitting flatbeds into a house or apartment. You have to almost disassemble the entire top of the Steenbeck to fit it anywhere, where the KEM just glides right in after removing a few screws that allow it to tip up. These are critical things to be thinking of when buying such a large piece of equipment.