Tyler Purcell

Ya know, I have two KEM flatbeds, one 16 and one 35. I grew up editing on flatbeds and use to have the whole kit, magnasync and everything. Today however, flatbeds have become more about looking at old material because they're gentile on film and of course conforming reels for theatrical release on 35mm. Outside of those to industries, they're not as widely used anymore and for good reason. Audio is the bane of everyone's existence with flatbeds... mostly because of the transfer and interlocking (edge code) process required to make sound on a flatbed work. This means all your audio has to be transferred to mag stock and then cut up along with picture, then striped with edge code so if you drop a piece of picture or mag stock, it's not impossible to re-sync. Mag stock doesn't sound good, even the 35mm stuff isn't great because it needs noise reduction badly. So for years people have tried to come up with some sort of solution to this problem and it's called an NLE... non linear editing system... LOL :) So, what can a flatbed do for you? Not much. A lot of them have been modified with little tachometers that read the motor's movement and then a little box that translates that data into timecode numbers. This is generally there for "reel breakdown" purposes, where you're trying to time out things. It has nothing to do with the physical media at all, it's only good as a "counter" of sorts. Unfortunately, nobody developed a good timecode on film system, even though Aaton and Arri do have them, it's not good and it's worthless on a flatbed. So you can't "cut" film and expect it to sync up with a computer, that's 100% impossible. With a lot of work and knowledge, you COULD build an adaptor that will send the sync pulses from the flatbed to a USB adaptor and with some software coding, it MAY be a trigger for your digital audio playback solution. The problem is, how do you know it's running at 24fps? The flatbed never needs to run perfectly because it was designed to have audio in sync with picture on it, so how do you know if you play an external source, that it will "sync"? I don't think it will frankly, even if the computer software you develop compensates for the minor fluctuations, it would absolutely fall out of sync, same as a film projector. It's funny because last night, after spending this last week re-building my 35mm KEM, I was thinking about how to get timecode on the film that matched the digital audio recoding. I went through so many scenario's and there really isn't a way of doing it. It would have to read edge based timecode on each frame that was positioned exactly at the picture head. So the reader would need to be a laser on the picture head, pointing at the edge of the film and the camera would need to write identical time code on each frame, to match the audio recorder. All of those things are just impossible to achieve without developing a new camera system, hardware and software. So yea... just a dream at this point. :( The only real solution is to buy a magnasync and transfer your audio, clip by clip to mag stock and edit the way us old-fashion guys do. Magnasync's are big/heavy and really expensive for some reason. Mag stock is also not cheap and again, it doesn't sound good. However if you just use dialog, and you don't care about what it sounds like, you MAY be able to get away with it. I have a 6 plate 16mm flatbed, so I run one track audio and one track music. Then after cutting I will transfer the cut audio and picture into my computer and do the audio digitally. Once it's digital, it's easy to send off a file with the proper marks to make an optical track for a film print if you want. But as I said above, theoretically you can slave your computer to a cut film print and play it back from start to finish using the timecode generator on the flatbed. If... and I mean BIG IF, you can make it all work. I haven't tried... :( Just an FYI, I spend a lot of time working on flatbeds, I'm going to be the "go to guy" in LA for KEM's eventually, I'm mentoring with the current guy and when he retires, I'll be the guy to see. So I've been getting my hands dirty and unfortunately what I've been learning is sad. Most of these flatbeds are falling apart at the seams. Everything from DC tachometers failing to belts, power supply, cabling and calibration issues. My 16mm flatbed needs so much work, it almost doesn't seem worth it in the long run. They're well made, but they're also problematic and even when they work flawlessly, they're still not great. Because they use toothed belts, there is always play in the system, so the sync is never perfect. My little moviola 16mm viewer, actually looks better then my 16mm KEM, though it doesn't play smoothy of course. Projectors are SOOO much better. My Kodak Pageant looks fantastic and the more modern xenon machines are bright and work great. Truth be told... the only real digital audio solution is to stripe timecode pulses where the soundtrack normally goes on your finished film print. Then find a box that will plug into the headphone jack of your film projector that will convert that analog TC pulse into digital and then lock it to software. This way you've got excellent quality picture on the projector side, with decent digital audio. Of course, not gonna cut a movie that way, but for presentation sake... which is all you can do on a flatbed anyway using digital audio, it looks a lot better. Again, none of this has been fully developed and it wouldn't take much, just some ingenuity. I've seen some projector syncing solutions, but none of them are based on printed timecode.

I'm gonna defend what AJ said... because he's right in a lot of ways. Digital cameras are actually harder to work with because they have far more limitations and electronic aids that need to be explained and understood before shooting. Digital cinema cameras require post production work, there is no if's and's or but's around that. Digital cinema cameras don't have light meters, they have all sorts of electronic aids that need to be learned. So I do think picking up a book specifically for shooting digitally, especially with a camera like the pocket, which is very limited in many ways, is a smart idea. Books that talk about film cameras, film density, film dynamic range, film color response and such, these don't have anything to do with digital. Plus, lighting technologies have changed substantially over the years, if you read a book about HMI's and 2k's, you're going to be frustrated with the expense of owning/renting those pieces of equipment vs practical incandescent solutions, which is what I've been using for years with digital. The analogy between MS DOS and Windows isn't quite right... I'd say the analogy is more like my ol' Mac Pro Tower, which has 4 PCI slots, double processors, tuns of standard IO (firewire/USB/audio/optical) vs the new Mac Pro trash can, which has no PCI slots, which has ONE processor slot, which has limited I/O and you're stuck with whatever video cards it has. The old Mac Pro is film, it's versatile and it's upgradable thanks to different film stocks. The new Mac Pro trash can is digital... every camera has a look and that's it, you can't ever change it. Sure, in a lot of ways it's "better" then it's predecessor, but is it THAT much better? Not really... More people would shoot film if the costs weren't so high. I have yet to meet a cinematographer who doesn't still think film is the best visual medium out there. Digital... will, they can count pixels and resolution all they want, but outside of being less expensive to shoot, the only technology benefit is low light capability.

Yea, the screen seems a lot better on the Kodak camera then Logmar.

Ahh I didn't see that last video until now, interesting. That's one positive thing about the camera. It also looks like they're grabbing the image without a ground glass, which is how they do it on the Logmar I believe.

I think the flicker is just standard 24fps monitor being captured by 29.97 video camera.

Would you take $100 for both + shipping? Do you have any other film you wanna sell?

Yea Nathan, I do the same thing quite a bit, but its hard to find projects with that much prep time. I also find some directors to change their mind on location...

I like to come up with some lighting ideas during pre-production. Visit the locations, see what can be done lighting wise, so you have the right thing on the truck.

I don't know what to say. I've been shooting with the pocket cameras for years, literally hundreds of hours on each camera and never once seen the issue. I do believe a big part of that is the glass, I use Rokinon primes and they tend to be soft and nice looking. I have never once tried a DSLR lens on my camera because it's not a DSLR. I have used Super 16 primes and zoom's, again with no problem. Personally, I think it's a non-issue. The IR pollution issue is an issue, but it's fixable in DaVinci, it just takes a few more seconds of work. I think this is tolerable... (this is an older video, so mind the color and highlight clipping, this is before I had my ND filter kit) Absolutely and if you have $10k in your pocket, by all means buy a "real" cinema camera. My entire kit, two cameras, lenses, audio, batteries, support, everything cost $3k NEW. You can't even buy a tripod to hold a real cinema camera for much less then $3k NEW. They aren't perfect, they all have problems, but so do RED and Alexa's! Honestly every camera has issues and it's deciding which issues you're willing to live with that make the purchasing decisions. For me, I wanted something small and cheap that would allow me to shoot little things for fun. Honestly, that's the market for the pocket camera and anyone trying to do more with it, is just fooling themselves. I got my start with film, moved into 3CCD ENG cameras and eventually into CMOS digital cinema. I've worked with Super 8, 16, 35, portable 3/4" and 3 tube cameras, Betacam SP, Digibeta, HDCAM, DVCAM, DVCPRO, Mini-DV, HDV camcorders so yea... pretty much all the formats over a 25 year period. I honestly like the look of the pocket camera. I've shot with all the alternatives and hated them all. I also wanted 10 bit 422 pro res capture because all of my editing software uses that codec natively. I REFUSE to own a camera that shoots MPEG. But please, enlighten me to ANY OTHER older camera that is anywhere near quality/feature set of the pocket, for anywhere near the price.

I mean, generally cinematographers don't get back end on smaller projects, it's only bigger one's with decent distribution deals set already. I've never heard of someone trying to get back end money from a small indy film as one of the "crew" members. This is why I generally co-produce or "associate" produce the films I work on. It's more work, but heck, you're already doing the work, so why not get the credit? As an associate producer, you have the rights to get back end money. Contracts are also nice, but they're also worthless on smaller projects as well. Who is going to fight for your 1%? Are you going to pay for lawyer? Are you going to sue the producers to get your money? Or are you going to work on the next job and forget it ever happened. Remember, if you sue ANYONE... you will never work with them or anyone they know again. This is why I hate contracts on low-budget stuff, it's why I refuse to work on a shoot that requires them. If the producers are going to screw you, they will screw you no matter what. The moment you pay for a lawyer, is the moment you're no longer making money. Sure, if you're working on a studio show, yea... get a contract, the studio will settle out of court. But low-budget filmmakers don't have the capitol to deal with that stuff. So you can sue them all you want, there isn't anything to be had in most cases.

Welcome to the forums Michael, Well... simply put, the Pocket camera is the best camera for the money, there is truly nothing else like it out there. The "alternatives" are either A, LOT more money or B, don't have nearly the quality of the pocket and/or are a lot bigger, heavier and/or older. Now the other brands are slowly catching up, but nobody has anything near that price range. Most of the "alternatives" focus on full frame imagers and high resolution, so they cost a lot more. The new Panasonic GH5 is interesting, but it's again, a still camera that just happens to shoot video. The pocket camera is a video camera, it doesn't do stills what so ever. As someone who likes to call themselves a "cinematographer" (even though I wear other hats quite a bit), the pocket camera is THE FIRST digital cinema camera I've ever owned and not the last. As a cinematographer, I also understand how to make a fully-manual camera work properly. I understand lighting, I understand color balance, I understand post production and finishing as well. So for me, the "manual" and fully controllable nature of the pocket camera, really rocks. I understand how that may be a problem for someone who isn't a cinematographer, or who is just starting out. It did take me a few months of playing with the pocket to understand it's sweet spot and capture some pretty decent images with it. With that said, the camera does have a lot of small flaws. New batteries last one card... (40 minutes). The audio pre-amps are eh... so/so. The imager is small, meaning to get a more 'cinematic' look, you need to really use longer lenses. Really outside of those "issues", the camera is stellar. The other issues you describe are non-issues in my book. I've shot with Red, Alexa and Sony top of the line cinema cameras and they ALL have the same issues as the pocket camera. Heck, good luck getting Red to run more then a few minutes off the OEM batteries. Everyone modifies the crap out of their cinema cameras just to make them work for more then an hour. For your education on the matter... here are a few videos I've produced to help educate... all shot on the pocket camera. One side note, all the audio was captured with the internal audio capturing system of the camera. First up... my original breakdown of the camera made when it first hit the market. Second... one of the many micro-doc's I've shot with the camera over the years. You can click on my Vimeo page to see more. Finally... what the camera looks like with some great "classic" cinema glass and decent color correction. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xonfgpua4u2kqyn/Blackmagic%20Pocket%20with%20Zeiss%2012-120.mov?dl=0

You can buy cheap lenses for it, I believe they're the same lenses that go on a bolex.

Yea, GH3 not a bad idea.

The GH4 looks totally different then the G7. So that may not work, its good to have two of the same or similar cameras so cutting between them isn't abrupt. The GH5 does look "interesting" though it doesn't mention what codec it's using for the 200mbps recording mode.

Exactly Perry, well put. :)

Right, but how do you get focus with a standard definition monitor on a little LCD panel in the bright sunlight of the day? Digital cameras are nearly impossible to find focus, without focus "aids" of some kind, none of which exist on a film camera.

Yea, it's heat haze coming from something, it's not the camera.

Yea, I mean "replay" systems are exactly that. They're tapes or hard drive capture systems that allow the tap to be recorded and then played back. They're pretty standard on sets that shoot with film, but the quality really sucks. So it's not like you can use them as any reference really. I've been wanting to develop a HD video tap that pulls directly off the lens, instead of a ground glass, but it's a tall order and it's expensive to develop.

Well, I've bee shooting with the pocket cameras for 3 years. I've never had moire or aliasing issues. I stopped using a rig because it just wasn't necessary, a monopod works just as well. Also, if you adjust the shutter angle properly the rolling shutter issues is not as prominent. All of the mirrorless and DSLRs have way worse rolling shutter. In terms of color... the camera does not work on rec 709 mode at all. It's not designed to work with that mode. Also, it records exactly what's on the display so, it's pretty easy to dial in the skin tones via lighting prior to shooting and use log (fim) mode. Like most cameras, it's all about learning the camera and figuring out that works. If you get angry at it and stop using it, yea you'll never figure it out. But I shoot with a lot of top cameras and outside of crispness and field of view, I'd say the pocket stays with them in most situations. Some cameras have better low light, other cameras have bigger imagers, higher resolution and cost more money. Yet nothing does exactly what the pocket does for the form factor and size.

I think we now know why the camera was so delayed... seems like they're having issues with figuring out the low cost element. This is something we talked about earlier, how anyone could make a new camera so inexpensively. A $2000 camera sounds much more feasible, for both Kodak and the manufacturer. It's not a bad thing, but it absolutely pulls it out of the standard super 8 market. I'm on set today, but I watched the CES videos and honestly it's nice to see a finished product finally. I'm also very elated with Kodak bringing back reversal color film, that to me is overly exciting, especially if they make it for the professional formats. Yet during the video, I kept on thinking how I could produce the same video about any other film camera and have far more features... I mean there isn't a single thing about the camera (outside of the swivel viewfinder which is going to be worthless.... as focusing without an optical viewing system with ground glass on a film camera is very very tricky) that makes it "interesting". Just look at the feature set for a Bolex like an EBM. 3 minute loads, real optical viewfinder, twice the resolution, single frame, up to 50fps, crystal (with cheap eBay add on) and can go forward and reverse... All of that for $600 bux on eBay. With a new battery, 400ft magazine and some lenses you're still under a grand. The Barney also quiets the camera enough for sound recording. So again, if you want a blurry, wobble frame, dirty image master, just buy 5 $10-$50 old super 8 cameras off eBay. You're bound to get one that works and can get all of those features. For all the other shows, take the money you would spend on a "new-cool" toy, and buy a camera like a Bolex, that actually creates a beautiful image.

Hey Stephen, I was over there today and nobody mentioned this camera. Are you the owner, or is it on consignment?

Film is certainly not dead in MY refrigerator. Umm... I have a LOT more stock in the freezer and garage tho... I have a problem with "collecting" things. :(

Thanks mate! My Vimeo page has a lot of cool stuff on it. I'll be putting a lot more on it in 2017 for sure. I didn't get any message from Vimeo, but I did get a comment from another member of the cinematography forums: To each his own I guess! But thanks for the props! :)

If you're shooting documentary and experimental work, you'd be fine with the pocket camera. The 4k URSA is a boat anchor, giant turd of a camera that isn't worth discussing, hence the low price. The URSA Mini 4.6k is a great "start" but as Phil points out, it gets very expensive, very fast. You can get into a complete package for around $8500 USD, but without an Optical low pass filter, I'm afraid it's kinda not ready for prime time. When a 3rd party comes out with one, (which will happen) the URSA Mini 4.6k will be probably the best "used" deal on the market, as people are dumping them left and right due to the lack of OLPF. The Pocket will make you look like a still photographer, rather then a videographer. So you can go places and do things you'd never be able to do with a big camera. Plus, with the low-cost of Super 16 lenses today, you can pickup some sweet glass for peanuts. I got my S16 12-120 Zeiss zoom for $1000 bux on ebay! It's fast, it's pretty and it's perfect for the pocket. The PL or B mount adaptor for the pocket is cheap enough and has it's own tripod mount. So you literally put the mount on your tripod or monopod (which I prefer) and stick the lens and body right on. For me, having a really great zoom lens, is super important for documentary work. That's nearly impossible to get for decent money in a S35mm coverage. So field of view... I work with S35 and S16 cameras on a regular basis. Honestly, the field of view situation is only pertinent when you're on the wide side of things. So if all you do is shoot 8mm on S16 or 16mm on S35 imagers, then you've got a point. However, once you get past around 16mm on S16 and 30mm on S35, the benefit of the wider field of view starts to go away. The longer the lens, the less you see it. Plus, as a cinematographer, there are ways you can achieve a more shallow depth of field on S16 sized imager, you've just gotta be smart about it. Longer lenses, wider aperture, placing things between the camera and the subject that are out of focus. These are little tricks and honestly, they work great and keep you on your toes. Here is a little sample of the pocket camera with the Zeiss 12 - 120. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xonfgpua4u2kqyn/Blackmagic%20Pocket%20with%20Zeiss%2012-120.mov?dl=0

Sure in the 90's, it was common place. I was told the glue was discontinued and it was not available anymore.