Tyler Purcell

He can do anything he wants so it surprises me he doesn't make more green screen crap. Apparently it's what audiences want to see these days...

Yep Bruce hit the nail on the head... it should work fine if you follow those settings...

I think you'd find the Reala holds up well and over-exposing by 2 stops or more, isn't really necessary. I've done some extensive testing on even older Fuji stocks and have found they work really well even when not over exposing. I shot a lot of stuff UNDER exposed on my last test and there was still a great deal of shadow detail and contrast I didn't expect. Usually when the stocks get this old, they loose contrast and are more noisy, but I haven't see that with the Fuji stocks yet and I'm working with 16mm. When I get a scanner hookup, I will scan those test rolls so you can see what I'm talking about. Thanks for the cool test though!

Well, nothing I've ever shot has dirt on the negative. I have a 100% perfect record with that, thanks to proper film handling. Even my work prints are spotless because I use the same cotton gloves when cutting prints when I care about them.

Ohh and I've never had a problem with ultrasonic splicers joining 35mm camera negative. I know it's not recommended due to heat, but it does work.

Gregg, I cut negative all the time, it's part of the class I teach. When "teaching" people, you tend to push forward the "proper" way. Even if it seems crazy and unrealistic. Cutting negative in an environment that's somewhat dust free, is a "smart" thing to do, even if it's not necessary for the final outcome. I'm beyond certain anything I've cut, looks WAY better then your paper dragging film. I wouldn't be caught dead dragging film on pieces of paper. I cut on a light table with a piece of cloth below the film at all times and a heavily cleaned specialized super 16 sync block. Every reel is cleaned after assembly by myself and re-cleaned before prints are made. If there is one white dot or one small scratch (from the negative) on the final print that wasn't there on the work print we cut with, I have failed in my task as a negative cutter. You may say it doesn't matter, but if you teach people it doesn't matter, they may take it one step further and dump negative into a trim bin or worse, let it hit a table. I'd rather discuss the best methods of working with CAMERA ORIGINALS, then the lazy way that "gets the job done". It's not like you've got dupes sitting around waiting for the moment you screw up.

Yep that totally makes sense. I knew Boston Camera was in trouble financially and Rule came to the rescue, pretty much saving them. I just didn't know the merger was such a long time ago... But thanks for the clarification. :)

Camera negative is very fragile, it doesn't have the proper lubrication that a projection print has. This means, you have to be very careful and almost be in a dust-free environment to even work with it. One piece of dust lands on it and gets spooled into the reel, it could scratch it. I recently took some junk negative I shot with some of the students from my film class and showed them how easy it was to damage. I ran it through my projector on a loop and within a few cycles, it was already scratched and dirty. The same material work printed, we have literally run dozens of times and it's been fine. The other problem with working with negative only, is that your brain can't process what the shot looks like, its nearly impossible. You need a light table, some sort of magnifying system and a still camera to snap a quick image and reverse it digitally to even see what you've got. Cutting negative is a whole other story, you have to use the old glue splice method. Standard "hot" splicers, use glue to join a small portion of overlapped material. Where work prints are spliced with tape, generally only on one side, because the tape comes right off, so you can make changes very quickly, the glue doesn't come off. Once it's glued, it will be that way forever, especially with an ultrasonic splicer. So yea, you've gotta spend the money and get a work print made first. Then you can actually edit properly and then use the key code numbers to cut your negative with down the road.

It sounds like a good idea, but if you don't know the context behind each show and setup, you won't fully understand. Personally, I'd look at Janus Kaminski and the Spielberg films. Look at how he lights on sets vs practical locations. You can usually tell which one is which based on how long they're in a given location. 'Catch Me if you Can' is a great example of super fast filmmaking with literally hundreds of practical locations. You will notice a trend of more simple lighting in single locations, vs far more complex lighting on larger sets. It's neat to see a top cinematographer resort to very rudimentary techniques, due to time constraints. 'Bridge of Spies' is another one to look at because they shot fast and there is a lot of very BASIC lighting techniques. I suggest finding the American Cinematographer articles to go along with the movies you watch. Sometimes BTS content on DVD's can help fill in holes as well.

You can have two of these three things; Fast, Cheap, Good. You can have fast and good, but it's gonna be expensive. You can have cheap and good, but it's gonna take a long time. You can have fast and cheap, but it's gonna be horrible. The budget dictates a schedule (usually based on how much money the top people make per day) and within that schedule is how many pages you need to shoot per day. The crew that helps camera and lighting are small potato's compared to the cost of the cast, producers, director and cinematographer. Getting a bunch of helpers seems pretty easy right? It's mostly down to how fast you've gotta work in order to meet the schedule, right? However, speed is not the friend of inexperienced people, this is why the crew needs to be more then helping hands, but people who know what they're doing. Those people cost money and that in of itself is a catch 22. You can have a lot of hands, but if those hands don't know what to do, they're kinda in the way. So then you have to pay more for fewer "experienced" people and THAT in of itself is the big problem. I don't think studio executives really get involved with the cinematography aspects, unless you're going over schedule. If you're on schedule or maybe a day or two over, that's not a problem if the results are good. If the cinematographer is bad, then you've got a different story. I was on a show this year with a cinematographer who was forced onto the production by the studio execs. He was not interested in doing the show at all, so none of us got along for the shoot. It was a horrible experience and the net result was something that was poorly shot. The director and producers tried to fire him, but the studio execs wouldn't have it because he was "their" guy. Mind you, this was a small-time feature, but still... it was very stressful.

Twas beautiful, twas fantastic, loved every minute. They did a great job and I believe it could win best picture as I don't know anything so unanimously loved. Was it overly perfect coloring wise? Yes... it was done by one of the best colorists around and she did a bang up job. Shot well, lit well, colored well. Couldn't ask for more!

Thanks! Yea there is a lot more to it that I can't discuss, but needless to say it's going to happen. I actually had a meeting with my producer friend today... yes on christmas and she knows how we can make it for peanuts. So now I gotta bang out a script. I kinda wanna shoot the first 12, 7 minute episodes in the structure I describe above. I'm a nobody right now, but with all that work completed and available to the public, I will get some notoriety. It's with that notoriety, that I'll be able to take the remainder of the project and turn it into something much bigger. Heck, I'd totally be an EP on a complete re-do of the series. I'm just realistic and know, there is no way I could walk in and sell a concept for money, it's impossible. The only thing that's possible is showing up with a finished product and saying; "here is what I got, here is my deal, take it or leave it." If I do the right thing, I will have plenty of fans clamoring for more to watch. It's those fan's, that "buzz" so to speak, that MAY land me an EP role. I doubt I'd be able to produce, write or even direct, I'm just not big enough. I'd take the peanuts they throw me, put my name as the creator and EP and work on something else.

Huh, that's odd... Boston camera was the "film" camera rental house and they couldn't afford to buy the new digital equipment. They "would" have gone out of business had they not merged with Rule. I thought they were an independent shop until this year. I was talking with them about buying a camera this year and they answered the phone "boston camera".

At least the masked the frame edges so you can't see the wobble as much! LOL :P

That's the best thing about being a "filmmaker" and not just a "creative". I have the drive to make stuff become a reality from scratch. The problem is, anything I make today, needs to look very professional and "cinematic". The days of writing quick, grabbing friends as "cast" members and shooting with my digital cameras, are over. I'm tired of churning out "product" for the sake of making it, I'm just not interested in that form of filmmaking anymore. I just did a narrative short for a friend, first time I've shot narrative in years and my craft as a cinematographer I felt was very good for the time and financial constraints we had. It really showed me, I need to be focused on more serious, more professional productions like that one.

Unfortunately it's impossible to crowd fund a project like this without some sort of a pre-existing fan base. My goal is to self fund the first TWO episodes, release the pilot to the public and build a fan base. Crowd fund for a 2nd episode (even though it's already been shot) and use that money to make episodes 3 and 4. Then crowd fund for episode 3 and use that money to make 5 and 6, etc... This way you're only fundraising a few episodes, but you've already got a bunch in the bag. Once the prop's, costumes and actors are on-board, physically shooting each episode will be easy and not very expensive. Since the series will be shot in two episode segments, each two segments will be made by different filmmakers. This way, I can use my friends contacts to help fundraise the production and let them re-tweak the scripts for those episodes they direct and of course, bring in their own DP if they want. I simply want to get the franchise off the ground. Of course, the show will be #shotonfilm. We'd probably shoot the first two episodes on 35mm. I just need to work out a battery solution for my friends 3 perf Arricam LT package. I'd allow the "guest" filmmakers to choose their format of choice (16mm/35mm) and since MOST of my filmmaking friends have never shot on film before, they'll be all excited about the opportunity. That will give me the opportunity to train some new cinematographers on the skills necessary to work with film cameras. I think it would be awesome for each filmmaker to choose a different aspect ratio, different lenses, different format, even stock choices as I'd probably buy some more Fuji stock to shoot a few episodes with, in order to change the look entirely. Since inquiring minds are interested... Imagine this "image" if you will. A 12 year old girl with long blonde hair, dressed up in a space suit without a helmet, dragging along a little teddy bear in the desert. She reaches the crest of a sand dune and below her is a spaceship escape pod and someone dressed in a space suit buried in the sand. That's the poster for the show and it's "episode 2" :) The series is called "Girl and the Robot" and it's hopefully coming to a small-screen near you!

Yea, I've see'em, but don't really consider those films "SciFi" even if the industry does. Just because something is set in a dystopian future, doesn't make it "SciFi". If that were the case, films like 'The Road' and 'Children of Men' would also be "SciFi" and they are most certainly not. This is part of the problem, the definition of SciFi is kinda sporadic. Yep, but for that time period, there was nothing like it on television. It was unique, but it was also purposely made to be cheesy. Remember, it also failed miserably and was only successful AFTER it's death in syndication. It was only re-born thanks to "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", with successful feature films, made by good filmmakers with LOTS of money behind them. Ever since that first Star Trek movie, the franchise has been pretty strong and lots of money spent on the worlds, sets, props and the technical side of things that make it so interesting. Star Trek is TRUE SciFi because it's "science" and "fiction" mixed into one. There is NO SCIENCE in "Road Warrior". It could have been a western, that's what it really is in the first place. It wouldn't have been successful though because frankly, Western's during that time period, were old hat. Moving his story into space, rejuvenated everything and it worked. Eh, I felt 'Interstellar' did an acceptable job. It didn't resort to CG in order to tell a story, it did it through physical prop's and lots of clever slight of hand tricks like rear projection and being able to move sets around to create weightlessness. Now I absolutely loved 'Interstellar' and I understand a lot of people didn't. I think a lot of people couldn't relate to the characters, especially through the rushed character development early on. It's a great example of how you can muck up a story, but the net result can still be awesome. In my mind, outside of a few silly things like the big wave, it's one of the best and truest to the genre "SciFi" films ever made. Well, $5k would produce a 7 minute (inciting incident) to a longer story. It's a way to get viewers hooked, so they'll watch the next episode or maybe find funding for a feature. I haven't even written anything more then 2, 7 minute episodes. Truth be told, I do have a "SciFi" trilogy that I'd love to produce someday, but because it's not something I can do right now, the concept sits in my "concepts" folder on my computer for a time where maybe I'll have a moment to sit down and develop it further. I, like many others who grew up in the 80's, absolutely love the "classic" SciFi Films and would love to bring them back. I do think there is an audience for them, but I think they have to be made very inexpensively and without heavy visual effects. Yep, it's all crap and because they brainwash teenagers (through heavy marketing) into going, they will always make their money back.

Yea, it's probably the leader. I'd try some junk camera negative first and see what happens. The mechanics of the K3 are pretty robust and leader in of itself, is inherently not made well. I actually stopped using it entirely because it rarely runs through my projectors properly.

Boston Camera was purchased by Rule broadcasting in 2016 because they were going out of business.

Well, there is a reason they didn't do that. There is a reason most SciFi films from the very beginning, are more complicated then a few people walking around on a planet. Heck even 'Forbidden Planet' one of my favorite movies, still has space scenes and spaceships. I do think general audiences need to see more, especially today. If you made something that simple, I think it would be a complete failure. Maybe that's ok, but generally if you fail, you don't get to try again. People are scared to fail due to this reason. Movies like 'Interstellar' and 'Arrival' have done a great job at defying the heavy effects driven, action SciFi movie of today. So it's possible to make decent SciFi and get people to show up, as both of those movies did ok in the box office. It really just comes down to the elements I discussed in my previous post, the money vs the risk. These kind of movies appeal to a more adult audience in the US, but they appeal to a wider audience in other countries. So it's all about understanding your audience and insuring there is some reason for your creation to exist. Remember, it's like any "product", if nobody wants it, then what's the point of making it? If you can't get the money and a few A- stars, then you can't get distribution and nobody will see your movie. "Star Wars" had Sir Alec Guinness in it, doesn't get better then that! There are plenty of very cool SciFi series on television, 'Stranger Things' and 'Westworld' could both fit into that genre and were pretty decent. Neither one resorted to the kind of things you see in theatrical SciFi. Yet, both of them were very expensive to make, because the worlds were complex and impossible to make in your back yard. Again, people have graduated from the era where a backdrop and a few home-made prop's are "good enough". Heck, even an entirely green screen show, would be too unrealistic to modern audiences. So in a lot of ways, it would be cool to tell simpler SciFi stories, but unfortunately it's a genre that requires money. This is why genre's like Drama and Comedy are so much easier to make, talking heads in real situations... now that's something anyone can accomplish. Again, if you sell the environment, if you sell the actors, if you sell the characters, you can sell a weak story. This information is based on experience and dealings with sales agents over the years. Right now LGBT family drama's are what people want to buy and that's the genre I'm focused on.

Yes, I'm in 100% agreement and NOT AT ALL arguing with you guys about it. I was just trying to understand why everyone is advertising Alexa 65.

How do you know they aren't on there already? LOL :P I'm so anti-christmas, nobody on set even mentioned it. Though we DID get a nice layered cake with some green and red frosting on it. :) I start production first week of January yet again. It never seems to end. :(

Related to Star Wars? Honestly, I've never much cared for the franchise outside of the 4 and 5. I'm much more scientific and "logic" driven, rather then pure "fiction" for the sake of fiction. Star Trek is my cup of tea, but honestly even Star Trek got too big for it's own britches. Earlier in this thread, I posted a comment with how I'd start the movie and what changes needed to be made. It took me 20 minutes to think and write it. I assume the original filmmakers shot it all and Mickey Mouse cut it out because it wasn't "entertaining" enough. The only reason Disney bought the franchise from Lucas was to make billions and that's the only reason they paid for 'Rogue One' to be made. The point wasn't to attract young people to the series, that's what JJ Abrams did with 'The Force Awakens'. The point of 'Rogue One' was to make money pure and simple. This is the problem with modern movies, they don't need to be good, they just need to fly poop at your face so you'll tell your friend it was "cool" and they'll go see it. Honestly, with the SciFi genre, I personally believe selling the environment is more critical then story. The filmmakers can muck up the story a bit, if the audience believes what they're seeing. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't matter how good the story is. 'Rogue One' is hardly what I'd consider typical SciFi anyway, it's an action film set in space, there is no "science" in it. I have a phenomenal SciFi series that I'd love to produce. In fact, "production" wouldn't be that costly at all, since it takes place in the desert. However, the prop's, sets, costumes and actors are all super critical to selling the environment and those are the expense. I've developed the pilot episode and have some ideas for the next few episodes, but it's something that COULD be made in pieces to eventually turn into a feature length piece. The problem is, even if I pull every single string I have, it would cost around $5k to make and when you're working freelance, it's hard to throw-away $5k. I'd much rather invest in better equipment that will allow me to nab better jobs, which earn more money, then simply spending $5k on a single 7 minute pilot episode for a new SciFi series. I am unfortunately a slave to money and it's why you don't see a lot of my work posted here. Busy as I am, I rarely get to make the stuff I want and when I do, there is never any money involved, so it's never really that great. Give me a few grand? Well... I can make quite a bit of magic, even if there is no personal financial gain. Unfortunately, I don't know enough people willing to risk the money in order to crowd fund the $5k I need to get started on the short. Maybe in a few years $5k will be a drop in the bucket, but for this second, it's two months worth of living expenses covered. It's also a lot easier to get a feature off the ground then a series of shorts, which is why I'm still focused on making a feature. And no... it's not SciFi, it's a crime drama to be shot on Super 16. :) The truly great SciFi films of the late 70's and 80's, they will never be seen again. It's a simple economic condition because audiences these days wouldn't be wow'ed by a movie like 'Blade Runner' or 'Alien' as they were when they initially released. Today's largest audience group (male teenagers) need to have their minds blown in order to make something successful enough to recoup it's budget. It's a catch 22... you either focus a product for adults and make it super low budget, OR you focus it towards teens and you have to spend more in order to make more in the back end. The more you spend, the more the studio has control over the finished product. So real great SciFi, needs to be made on the cheap in order to stay a live and that's hard when small-time production budgets are so low. Most feature-length productions are made for less then a million dollars today and that's down from the mid 2000's height of 5 million. It's HARD to make a movie like 'Alien' or 'Blade Runner' for less then a million dollars. Again, you could have the best story in the world, but if people are convinced in the environment, they simply won't care and the product will be a flop. Ohh trust me, when I go onto production on "Girl and the Robot" my SciFi short, there will be many posts about it. :)

Arri advertised as being shot on the Alexa 65. IMDB and Shot on what.com both say Alexa 65. Plus, Rogers own forum, doesn't mention what you found. I didn't know about Roger Deakins dot com, never heard of it. I always go to deakinsonline.com Not being a hard-ass, I google searched and came up with nothing. You found the only evidence and it kinda shows something is amiss. Maybe the 2nd unit shot Alexa 65?

Ya know, I dislike 90% of the crap in theaters today, I was just hoping Rogue One would have been "acceptable" rather then space trash. The Force Awakens was tolerable, but that's because we already knew the characters. I for one am not a big JJ Abrams fan. I do have a bunch of fantastic SciFi stories, but unfortunately they all cost money. So I have shelved all of them for a day in the future. In the meanwhile, I will stick to making smaller films and becoming recognized so one day I CAN make those bigger movies.